United Expects Friday To Be The Day

[ivauir]

Good luck guys - its not going to be easy on any of us...

 

[ualdriver]

Stick your head back in the sand. Yeah, it's just me or you could actually read the WSJ, USA Today(I have already posted) and the below Forbes article. Or any of the countless others.

Actually, if you depend on those types of publications to derive all of your financial understanding of a company, I would actually say that you have your head in the sand. Publications such as those are written by authors who may or may not have a deep understanding of the airline industry. And even if they did, they could just as easily be right as wrong. Even the expert "analysts" don't get it right all the time. Aren't we on Holly's "Titanic Watch?" Didn't Boyd say Ted would be a failure? (hint: it's not) If analysts were never wrong, one could buy and sell on their advice every time a word exited their mouth or their keyboard and become billionaires because, long term, they'd always be correct. If you really, really believe what your are posting, I suggest on February 1st (or thereabouts) when UAL stock comes available for trading on the NASDAQ, that you sell everything you have and SHORT THE HE11 out of UAUA stock. After all, if oil is at over $50bbl as you say (of course that one metric assumes we're doomed, right?) the stock, long term, has nowhere to go but down. You're going to be sooo rich and sooo smart.


When do Airlines report profits? After the summer. Not after the winter. So do any of you financial geniuses have a good reason why UAL mgt has decided to exit ch11 now and not wait a couple of months?

Yeah, I do. Because operating under bankruptcy protection is very restrictive. Simply stated, it doesn't allow management to freely operate the company as they desire. So by your logic, if one wants to take advantage of the up and coming summer months and have free reign to position his company so that profit may be maximized during those months, wouldn't it stand to reason that a company such as UAL would want to exit BEFORE the summer season? Not that I agree with why that's why we will exit in February, but I'm just using your convoluted logic.


I am sure that it has nothing to do with the fact that AMR and CAL have almost doubled over the past 9 months. How are they paid stock options. They want $15 a share. They weren't going to get it 6-9 months ago when AMR and CAL were selling at $11. Now that AMR and CAL are in the $18-22 range, $15 seems reasonable for UAL. Who cares if the company is not ready or the fact that you could lose $7+ billion in tax credits. They want to get theirs before the higher oil prices bring the airline stocks back to reality

The above just doesn't make sense. You're assuming that there's a dollar to dollar relationship between different stock prices of different companies. The trading range of any other airline's stock is COMPLETELY irrevelant as to what UAL's stock price will trade it. Now, UAL might change the amount of shares issued when they exit so that the stock price falls within a certain range initially (i.e. not trading at $1000/share nor $1/share) but you can't determine what share price will be "reasonable" for a company just because its competitors share price fall within some arbitrary range.


UAL Bankruptcy Breakdown
Mark Tatge, 09.07.05, 6:30 PM ET
CHICAGO - United Airlines parent UAL (otc: UALAQ - news - people ) will leave bankruptcy a smaller airline, heavily leveraged, and should lose $250 million next year, according to a Forbes.com analysis of the documents filed Wednesday with the federal bankruptcy court...........

Fuel. United uses $45 to $50 per barrel crude oil to forecast profits through 2010, or about $1.55 for a gallon of jet fuel.

But prices should remain above $60 for West Texas Intermediate at least through 2007, says Vaughn Cordle, chief analyst with Airline Forecasts, an economic forecasting firm.

Jet fuel should run $1.89 per gallon next year, or 34 cents more per gallon than what United forecasts. At 2.2 billion gallons annually, that comes to an additional $748 million for fuel.

Revenue. Next year, United forecasts 2.6% growth in core passenger revenue per available seat mile, or about half 2005’s increase. Much of the growth has come from shifting traffic overseas.

United, however, forecasts its fuel bill to be $3.4 billion, falling from this year’s $3.75 billion. (RED FLAG HELLO!)

But that presumes a moderation in fuel prices. If fuel prices don’t drop, they could jeopardize United’s ability to repay its debt, forcing yet another restructuring.

The UAL Corporate Restructuring Information documents can be viewed at http://www.pd-ual.com/.

That's great that you hinge much of your opinion on a Forbes article (what, no USA today quote?), and I guess the above is an opinion just like anything else. But how about the opinion of the banks that will lend UAL 3B? They're under no obligation to lend us anything. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, they know that oil is trading at above $50bbl and still they feel UAL will be able to meet its future obligations? Do you think they know anything?

Do you think that $2.00 (for example) Jet fuel prices only affect UAL? You love to harp on high oil prices and the fact that UAL's exit business plan was based at around $50. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, if Jet A prices stay that high that other things might happen within the industry? Do you think that perhaps, maybe, airfares might rise just a little bit like they did a few days ago? Do you think that the NWA and DAL bankruptcy might result in some seats temporarily (or longer) leaving the market? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, we might see an uptick in average unit revenue across the industry as airlines try to recover some, if not all, of those higher fuel costs? Do you think that maybe UAL has money budgeted in that bankruptcy exit plan to hedge some portion of their fuel needs against higher fuel costs? Do you think that when even JetBlue, with some of the lowest unit costs in the industry, starts to lose money that perhaps airfares might rise a bit and airlines will raise prices to cover their costs? Do you think the moment average crude oil prices rise one penny above $50bbl that UAL starts to immediately become unprofitable on a net and/or operating basis? (hint: it doesn't) Do you see where I'm going with this? Maybe there are other things influencing UAL's future other than $50bbl oil?

The bottom line is that I know it's really cool and in vogue on these aviation forums to proclaim that UAL's business plan called for oil at $50bbl, oil is at XXbbl (insert a number higher than 50 in the XX's) and therefore, UAL is doomed. What I'm trying to explain you is that, first of all, oil prices are only one piece of the total airline survival puzzle. Second of all, your own Forbes article states that UAL has a cost advantage over its rivals. If the airline industry does raise airfares to cover its costs (talking in broad, general terms), using this Forbes article as my guide as you did, which airlines do you think will be the MOST profitable? Perhaps the ones with the largest cost advantages over its rivals? If the airline industry does not cover its costs to account for higher fuel prices (which it cannot do forever and I think forever is starting to come to a close), which airlines will lose the most money? UAL? Or the ones that Forbes says aren't as cost efficient as UAL? Who's in the most trouble then?

Yep it's just me.....

Frankly, many people (including me) expected us to be dead already- but we're not. I could probably line up 10 analysts who say UAL is going to die. I could line up 10 analysts who say UAL is going to thrive. Who's right? Like I said before, if you're as confident as imply you are that UAL is going to lose big, I suggest you start shorting UAUA right away. You're going to be rich!

 

[G4G5]

That's great that you hinge much of your opinion on a Forbes article (what, no USA today quote?), and I guess the above is an opinion just like anything else. But how about the opinion of the banks that will lend UAL 3B? They're under no obligation to lend us anything. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, they know that oil is trading at above $50bbl and still they feel UAL will be able to meet its future obligations? Do you think they know anything?

You are really missing the boat. Banks lend money to bankrupt airlines, based upon the assets they have to use as collateral. No assets, no money. Or do you actually think that Citigroup just offered up the exit financing, with no protection? Could it be that UAL mgt had to put up substantial assets (like the Pacific routes) in order to get the exit financing. Hence the term, secured creditor.

Now what type of interest rate do you think UAL will get? Not a very good one. The interest rates supplied by the secured creditors (Citi) to UAL, are a VARIABLE rate. The rate is dependent upon the companies bond rating. Who sets the bond rating, Moody's and Standard & Poors. This is what S&P, chief airline analyst had to say about UAL on Friday:
"Baggaley of Standard & Poor's worries about the United balance sheet. United is leaving bankruptcy with more than $17 billion in debt, even after chopping away $8 billion in Chapter 11. That leaves the carrier highly leveraged compared with most companies.
United projects it will break even or turn a profit in 2006, but Baggaley forecasts a modest loss. United's business plan assumes $50-a-barrel oil prices, on average, ahead. S&P, by contrast, predicts $60 a barrel this year and $55 a barrel next year"

What does that tell you about UAL's future bond rating? Remember Bond rating = interest rate. Not a pretty picture.
I can get any bank to loan me money if I have the assets and am willing to pay a crazy interest rate. Yeah they know something, if UAL can't pay they can take the assets and sell them to the highest bidders. Not a bad deal if you are Citibank.

Do you think that $2.00 (for example) Jet fuel prices only affect UAL? You love to harp on high oil prices and the fact that UAL's exit business plan was based at around $50. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, if Jet A prices stay that high that other things might happen within the industry? Do you think that perhaps, maybe, airfares might rise just a little bit like they did a few days ago? Do you think that the NWA and DAL bankruptcy might result in some seats temporarily (or longer) leaving the market? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, we might see an uptick in average unit revenue across the industry as airlines try to recover some, if not all, of those higher fuel costs? Do you think that maybe UAL has money budgeted in that bankruptcy exit plan to hedge some portion of their fuel needs against higher fuel costs? Do you think that when even JetBlue, with some of the lowest unit costs in the industry, starts to lose money that perhaps airfares might rise a bit and airlines will raise prices to cover their costs? Do you think the moment average crude oil prices rise one penny above $50bbl that UAL starts to immediately become unprofitable on a net and/or operating basis? (hint: it doesn't) Do you see where I'm going with this? Maybe there are other things influencing UAL's future other than $50bbl oil?

In case you haven't checked oil is well above $50 a barrel and Jetblue is losing money. Yet ticket prices have not been going up. Why is that?

What is SWA's price per barrel of oil in 2006 and 2007? 65 percent for 2006 at approximately $32 per barrel, over 45 percent for 2007 at $31 a barrel. SWA is in the position to control the pricing market.

If they can make money at current rates and help put the competition out of business, why raise rates? So that the competition can make money too? Get real, SWA know's this why do you think they picked DEN to expand into?

What about NWA, UAL's chief Pacific competitor? What is going to happen their costs? They now have your target number to work from. Do you actually think that NWA's will be higher then yours or do you think that they will reorganize while in CH11 to achieve lower costs?
At $68 a barrel UAL is losing money, why exit Ch11 now?


The bottom line is that I know it's really cool and in vogue on these aviation forums to proclaim that UAL's business plan called for oil at $50bbl, oil is at XXbbl (insert a number higher than 50 in the XX's) and therefore, UAL is doomed. What I'm trying to explain you is that, first of all, oil prices are only one piece of the total airline survival puzzle. Second of all, your own Forbes article states that UAL has a cost advantage over its rivals. If the airline industry does raise airfares to cover its costs (talking in broad, general terms), using this Forbes article as my guide as you did, which airlines do you think will be the MOST profitable? Perhaps the ones with the largest cost advantages over its rivals? If the airline industry does not cover its costs to account for higher fuel prices (which it cannot do forever and I think forever is starting to come to a close), which airlines will lose the most money? UAL? Or the ones that Forbes says aren't as cost efficient as UAL? Who's in the most trouble then?

Ok, so you read that article and came out feeling that it was pro UAL? Re-read it.

Yep it's just me.....

Frankly, many people (including me) expected us to be dead already- but we're not. I could probably line up 10 analysts who say UAL is going to die. I could line up 10 analysts who say UAL is going to thrive. Who's right? Like I said before, if you're as confident as imply you are that UAL is going to lose big, I suggest you start shorting UAUA right away. You're going to be rich!

I never put money into airline stocks, their is always a better place. Good luck

 

[acroflyr]

I never put money into airline stocks, their is always a better place. Good luck

Really? I would have loved to have more of my money in LUV or SKYW the last 10 years! I would have made allot more than I already have.

 

[C54Capt]

I look forward to helping UAL put the hurt on a few airlines that did us quite a bit of damage post-911. Off the top of my head, there's one that flies around with animals on their tails which did a huge expansion following 911 which coincided with UAL's drawdown in that snowy hub city. That was followed by them getting a few of UAL's gates, albeit only for a few years. I'm glad to see that we'll be assisted by another airline that just started service to that hub..

Andy,
You sound like a real class act. You bash people for wishing the demise of United and then you turn around and wish ill-will toward one of UAL's smallest competitors and the people there-in. There are no positive attributes to hypocracy.

 

[WhiteCloud]

Andy,
You sound like a real class act. You bash people for wishing the demise of United and then you turn around and wish ill-will toward one of UAL's smallest competitors and the people there-in. There are no positive attributes to hypocracy.

Good first post. That theme has been prevalent among a bunch of those who claim to be UAL pilots here. UAL is struggling everywhere including their own home town. Guess that's Frontier's fault?

 

[ualdriver]

You are really missing the boat. Banks lend money to bankrupt airlines..... Could it be that UAL mgt had to put up substantial assets (like the Pacific routes) in order to get the exit financing. Hence the term, secured creditor.

Actually, not missing the boat at all. Banks lend money to ANYONE based upon assets they use as collateral. Sometimes they'll make unsecrured credit available. What makes airlines any different than anyone else? What's your point? UAL is NO DIFFERENT than anyone in our industry, therefore no worse off. Perhaps better off according to your Forbes article. But banks AREN'T going to loan money who they don't feel are viable, long term, and put their capital at risk.

Now what type of interest rate do you think UAL will get? Not a very good one. The interest rates supplied by the secured creditors (Citi) to UAL, are a VARIABLE rate. The rate is dependent upon the companies bond rating. Who sets the bond rating, Moody's and Standard & Poors. This is what S&P, chief airline analyst had to say about UAL on Friday:
"Baggaley of Standard & Poor's worries about the United balance sheet...... That leaves the carrier highly leveraged compared with most companies.....United projects it will break even or turn a profit in 2006, but Baggaley forecasts a modest loss. United's business plan assumes $50-a-barrel oil prices, on average, ahead. S&P, by contrast, predicts $60 a barrel this year and $55 a barrel next year"


This is the same Standard and Poor's that just gave us a B+ credit rating with a recovery rating of 1, the highest possible recovery rating? You mean that Standard and Poor's, right?

As for your other statements, airlines are typically MUCH higher leveraged than most companies (i.e. non-airline companies). Do you think it is ANY different for any other airline except Southwest? Check out ANY airline's balance sheet (go to the investor relations section of any airline's website and read the SEC filings- in particular read the airline's Condensed Statements of Consolidated Financial Position found in 8K's and 10Q's). See how much debt EVERYONE ELSE is carrying compared to a post bankruptcy UAL.

But you're arguing how doomed UAL is. Is it debt and fuel costs now? Or just fuel? Well, a post bankruptcy UAL will be carrying LESS debt than its legacy competitors. Less debt. So if you're argument is debt=bad....UAL has debt.....therefore UAL=screwed, then I would argue that since UAL will have less debt than its competitors, I would imagine that our competitors must be REALLY screwed, right? Funny how you failed to mention that.

Here's some more news for you there, G4G5. UAL's in big trouble according to you, but when we made an offering to the open market it was oversubscribed:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060124/cgtu022.html?.v=38

"Separately, United announced that it received offers of subscription for more than twice the capital necessary to support the $3 billion in exit financing that it sought, which consists of a $2.8 billion term loan and a $200 million revolving credit line. Because of this response, terms of the financing improved to reduce the financing cost of the facility by 75 basis points to 375 basis points over the London interbank offered rate (LIBOR).

What does that tell you about UAL's future bond rating? Remember Bond rating = interest rate. Not a pretty picture.....Yeah they know something, if UAL can't pay they can take the assets and sell them to the highest bidders. Not a bad deal if you are Citibank.

Please read the above article about how original interest rates have now been lowered. That's what it tells me about UAL's future "bond ratings." Looks like our interest rate has been lowered once already, and we haven't even exited bankruptcy yet.


In case you haven't checked oil is well above $50 a barrel and Jetblue is losing money. Yet ticket prices have not been going up. Why is that?

Uh, yeah, thanks for letting me know that oil is above $50bbl. I had no idea.


Actually ticket prices are going up. In fact, a $10 round trip fare increase just went in a few days ago in most domestic markets. Fares went up about a dozen times last year alone. Google it if you don't believe me (hint: use google news, type in "airline fare increase," fourth article down among may others). More price increases will follow in my opinion if the price of Jet A continues to rise using last year as my reference.

What is SWA's price per barrel of oil in 2006 and 2007? 65 percent for 2006 at approximately $32 per barrel, over 45 percent for 2007 at $31 a barrel. SWA is in the position to control the pricing market.

So I guess UAL again is the only airline that this affects? We should just fold up our tent and go home? Or perhaps this is a problem that every major airline is going to have to deal with? Again, you single out UAL. I'm saying it's everyone's problem and UAL is probably the best positioned in the industry to deal with it.

If they can make money at current rates and help put the competition out of business, why raise rates? So that the competition can make money too? Get real, SWA know's this why do you think they picked DEN to expand into?

What about NWA, UAL's chief Pacific competitor? What is going to happen their costs? They now have your target number to work from. Do you actually think that NWA's will be higher then yours or do you think that they will reorganize while in CH11 to achieve lower costs?

I think they picked DEN to expand into because it was a pretty big hole in their network. It's kind of hard to ignore an airport that serves four million people for very long, especially when the remaining cities that you aren't flying into already probably are less attractive. If SWA had intended to go at our jugular like you imply, they would have done it when we were really on the ropes, not now. And we already had low cost competition in Denver with Frontier. I doubt SWA's presence will drag yields down any lower in DEN then they were already but that remains to be seen. I think SWA is a bigger problem for Frontier than us, quite frankly, in DEN.

As SWA hedges begin to expire, their costs are going to rise and they're going to have to start raising their fares to cover those costs or lose money. Yup, they have plenty of contracts in place now to cover a good portion of their future fuel needs, but over time, their fares will have to increase or they're going to lose money. But despite the fact that airlines like SWA were keeping fares low, we have been cash flow positive for several months now. Yes, that doesn't cover non-cash items like depreciation that eventually have to be accounted for but over time, I think fare increases will cover these expenses. And if fuel goes down long term, all the better for UAL. Per your article, S&P predicts $55bbl in 2007 (a worthless prediction but you posted it). Guess who's making a NET profit if that prediction comes true? We are.

As far as NWA goes, they have to exit bankruptcy first. In case you didn't notice, management is really shooting for the moon with those guys (in particular their pilots and flight attendants) and I suspect it isn't going to fly with those remaining unions unless management backs off substantially. When/if they exit bankruptcy, we'll have to see what their costs look like and go from there. They may or may not obtain a cost advantage relative to us, and we'll have to see what happens to their yields relative to their costs when the whole industry shakes out. Until then, not concerned yet.

At $68 a barrel UAL is losing money, why exit Ch11 now?

The "why exit now" suppostition was partially explained to you already. The rest of the explanation is that UAL has accomplished (for better or worse) everything they hoped to accomplish, and the protections of bankruptcy are no longer needed nor will provide much benefit now, no matter what oil prices are. There are expenses (both real expenses....have you seen the legal fees.....and imagined...i.e. "I'm not buying a ticket on a bankrupt carrier" etc., etc.) that UAL incurs while operating in bankruptcy that outweigh any further savings that can be "wrung out" while operating under the protection of the courts.

In conclusion, for whatever reason, you don't like UAL and its outlooks for the future, and that's fine. However, the reasons you state for its failue (fuel first, now debt) are the same issues that EVERYONE else in the industry is going to have to deal with. They're not happening in a vacuum only at UAL. UAL pays high fuel prices, so does AMR, JetBlue, NWA, etc. UAL carries a high debt load relative to revenue (or whatever metric you want to use), so does AMR, JetBlue, NWA, etc. From everything financial I've seen from UAL so far, they are in the BEST position right now to deal with anything- whether it's fuel prices or a terroist attack.

That having been said, I wouldn't put one thin dime of my own money into any airline. In fact, I sold my claim to UAL stock last week at a premium to the 6 to 8 cents on the dollar UAL will be paying its claims. Yet another indication of what the market thinks of UAL's future.

 

[WatchYourElbows]

Struggling???? I think not. United is coming out of bankruptcy strong and ready to kick butt. Don't believe me? Watch us.

 

[Dennis Miller]

Struggling???? I think not. United is coming out of bankruptcy strong and ready to kick butt. Don't believe me? Watch us.

You can thank the pilots, you broads kept trying to mess it up. How many quit over the new work rules? Thought so. It would be nice if they could start replacing some of you Wright Brother groupies with someone that won't turn a passenger to stone. Good luck, to the pilots that is.

 

[WhiteCloud]

Struggling???? I think not. United is coming out of bankruptcy strong and ready to kick butt. Don't believe me? Watch us.

Well.....the only butts you've been kicking so far are the ones of your employees and contractors. Without the protection of bankruptcy UAL is going to be like a one legged man in an ass kicking contest. It'll be fun.

 

[Sonny Crockett]

UAL bashing alive and well.....

Can't we all just get along?

 

[skykid]

Are you proud that your pension got dumped on the tax payers?

I've got a few years to go for a military pension, and with my service I don't mind the taxpayers paying for that. I'm working towards another pension with a large freight operation based in Memphis, which I certainly don't count on being there when I retire.

My previous post was merely to point out you had absolutely no clue what you were talking about when you kept rambling on about the PBGC liquidating United, which of course implies you still don't have a clue.

 

[WatchYourElbows]

You can thank the pilots, you broads kept trying to mess it up. How many quit over the new work rules? Thought so. It would be nice if they could start replacing some of you Wright Brother groupies with someone that won't turn a passenger to stone. Good luck, to the pilots that is.

Wow Dennis,

It sounds as if you have a personal issue against me even more than United. I am almost positive I've never met you. I can also (almost) guarantee I'm younger than you. What's the issue?

How many quit or retired you ask? About 6000.

 

[Andy]

Andy,
You sound like a real class act. You bash people for wishing the demise of United and then you turn around and wish ill-will toward one of UAL's smallest competitors and the people there-in. There are no positive attributes to hypocracy.

C54Capt, ever since I joined this board, it has had a distinctly anti-United flavor to it from the participants. When UAL was hiring like gangbusters, most on this board complained that UAL only hired women and minorities. News flash - less than 10% of my class was female or minority. I looked at pictures of other classes in my timeframe, and I'd say that UAL hired less than 10% female & minority in 2000.
I've grown used to constant attacks on UAL. As for bashing people wishing the demise of UAL, I'm not concerned that there are many who have wished the demise of UAL (and are disappointed that UAL is emerging from BK). I thought that I had merely pointed this item out in a previous post; he11, I thought United was dead by spring 2003.
As for wishing ill will on other carriers, my list is short. Extremely short. FLYi and F9. As for the former, they had a very juicy contract with UAL pre-911. But they were unwilling to take some cuts in order to keep the contract. When they flew as ACA, the product that they provided to UAL was consistantly rated lowest by UAL frequent flyers. Their main excuse for not accepting the reduced rates is that they were no longer guaranteed; they were based on performance. If I delivered such a poor quality product, I too would be concerned. So they went their own way. In their launch of FLYi pep rally, the chant, 'United sucks, Ted sucks more' resonated throughout the hanger. Their business model was built on the foundation that USAirways, United or both would be liquidated. Do I have a lot of sympathy for FLYi closing it's doors? No. And WhiteCloud, I know that this affected you personally, since you flew for FLYi. So I can see from WhiteCloud's posts, the resentment toward UAL has not subsided. I hope that he'll be able to get over it one day, since UAL will exist long after he's flown his last flight.
F9 is a bit of a different animal. F9 was very smart; pre-911 they knew that they did not want to anger UAL, since UAL had the power to squash them like a bug. F9 purposely flew below UAL's radar screen pre-911. F9's CEO, Jeff Potter, had even said that publicly pre-911 (I read at least one interview where he stated such). Post-911, F9 adopted a completely different course of action. While UAL significantly reduced flying out of DEN, F9 rapidly increased their ASMs. 3Q2001, F9 flew 1,200,608,000 ASMs with a BELF of 55.1%. 3Q2002, F9 flew 1,559,879,000 ASMs with a BELF of 62.8%. That's a 30% YOY ASM expansion, in which time F9 went from a quarterly profit to a quarterly loss. Here's a link for you to confirm those numbers: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/921929/000092192902000027/0000921929-02-000027.txt
They also strongarmed Denver into giving them several of UAL's gates on the A concourse. If you'd like, I can dig up a few links. It was close to outright thievery. F9 was counting on UAL going chap 7, so they wanted to grab as much of DEN's passenger traffic as possible. UAL didn't go away. Do I want to see F9 served a cold dish of revenge? Yes, but it looks like Southwest rather than United will serve it up to F9.

C54Capt, who do you/did you work for? That's a cats & dogs resume. I've already stated that I'm a UAL furloughee. I've also pointed out that WhiteCloud is a former FLYi employee. But what's your airline background? I think that readers should know the backgrounds of the posters that they read.
For a casual outsider reading WhiteCloud's posts, they should now be able to understand his feeling that UAL screwed it's contractors by renegotiating those big fat juicy pre-911 contracts in a post-911 world. Oddly enough, most of UAL's other regional carriers were able to make the adjustment and continue to make money under lower rates. And as a bonus, they deliver a higher quality product than was delivered by ACA.

 

[FlyUnited]

He works for Frontier. He has always been level headed and easy to talk to......don't judge him. (I know him from USAviation)

 

[G4G5]

Actually, not missing the boat at all. Banks lend money to ANYONE based upon assets they use as collateral. Sometimes they'll make unsecured credit available. What makes airlines any different than anyone else? What's your point? UAL is NO DIFFERENT than anyone in our industry, therefore no worse off. Perhaps better off according to your Forbes article. But banks AREN'T going to loan money who they don't feel are viable, long term, and put their capital at risk.
My point is, banks are in the business to make money, plain and simple. They would love for UAL to default on the assets. this isn't a charity case. They are not your friend, they don't care if UAL lives as long as they make money. UAL is not the same as the competition, I quote Philip Baggaley from S&P."That leaves the carrier highly leveraged compared with most companies" UAL had to leverage itself to the max in order to secure it's exit financing. That's alot different then AMR and CAL. Baggaley is an Airline analyst, you think that he was referring to health care or the auto industry, think again.

This is the same Standard and Poor's that just gave us a B+ credit rating with a recovery rating of 1, the highest possible recovery rating? You mean that Standard and Poor's, right?

Yes, that very same S&P
"Highest possible" Think again. You got the bond rating WRONG! You may want to go back and do a little research. From Forbes:

"Standard & Poor's issued a B rating with a stable outlook. The company's exit financing facility was rated B+, with a recovery rating of 1, the highest possible rating (that means Citi and JP Morgan have the highest possibility of recovering their money, back to leveraging the assets). Moody's rated United a Corporate Family Rating of B2 with a stable outlook."
The companies exist financing facility IS NOT the bond rating that interest rates are derived from! Stable is not, highest possible.
http://www.forbes.com/prnewswire/feeds/prnewswire/2006/01/09/prnewswire200601091438PR_NEWS_B_MWT_CG_CGM040.html

As for your other statements, airlines are typically MUCH higher leveraged than most companies (i.e. non-airline companies). Do you think it is ANY different for any other airline except Southwest? Check out ANY airline's balance sheet (go to the investor relations section of any airline's website and read the SEC filings- in particular read the airline's Condensed Statements of Consolidated Financial Position found in 8K's and 10Q's). See how much debt EVERYONE ELSE is carrying compared to a post bankruptcy UAL.

But you're arguing how doomed UAL is. Is it debt and fuel costs now? Or just fuel? Well, a post bankruptcy UAL will be carrying LESS debt than its legacy competitors. Less debt. So if you're argument is debt=bad....UAL has debt.....therefore UAL=screwed, then I would argue that since UAL will have less debt than its competitors, I would imagine that our competitors must be REALLY screwed, right? Funny how you failed to mention that.

Here's some more news for you there, G4G5. UAL's in big trouble according to you, but when we made an offering to the open market it was oversubscribed:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060124/cgtu022.html?.v=38

"Separately, United announced that it received offers of subscription for more than twice the capital necessary to support the $3 billion in exit financing that it sought, which consists of a $2.8 billion term loan and a $200 million revolving credit line. Because of this response, terms of the financing improved to reduce the financing cost of the facility by 75 basis points to 375 basis points over the London interbank offered rate (LIBOR).

Thats awesome LIBOR plus 375 basis points, now to by pass the BS, UAL will be paying 9% for their debt. In plain and simple terms, that rates sucks.
From the Pacific Business news:
"The exit financing -- a $2.7 billion term loan plus a $300 million revolving credit line -- will be used to pay off debtor-in-possession lending and for working capital, United said Monday. J.P. Morgan and Citigroup will lead the lending, at interest rates around 9 percent, or 50 percent more than the interest rate paid by the average solvent home buyer."
http://pacific.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2006/01/09/daily9.html


Actually ticket prices are going up. In fact, a $10 round trip fare increase just went in a few days ago in most domestic markets. Fares went up about a dozen times last year alone. Google it if you don't believe me (hint: use google news, type in "airline fare increase," fourth article down among may others). More price increases will follow in my opinion if the price of Jet A continues to rise using last year as my reference.

Take your own hint and look at the #1 article. It's the US governments own Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) They track the Average Ticket Price Index (ATPI)
http://www.bts.gov/programs/economics_and_finance/air_travel_price_index/html/table_03.html

Maybe it's me but I don't see any significant gains on this chart.
If you do some research you Will see that the $10 fare increase you refer to was done by legacy carriers in markets that they do not compete against LCC's. Big Difference.

So I guess UAL again is the only airline that this affects? We should just fold up our tent and go home? Or perhaps this is a problem that every major airline is going to have to deal with? Again, you single out UAL. I'm saying it's everyone's problem and UAL is probably the best positioned in the industry to deal with it.

That's exactly what SWA would love for you to do. They don't care if you survive. UAL gets singled out because domestically they are being attacked by an LCC at every market, in most cases to LCC. How are they the best? They don't control any airport the way that CAL controls EWR or Houston or the way AA controls DFW or Miami.

 

[G4G5]

I think they picked DEN to expand into because it was a pretty big hole in their network. It's kind of hard to ignore an airport that serves four million people for very long, especially when the remaining cities that you aren't flying into already probably are less attractive. If SWA had intended to go at our jugular like you imply, they would have done it when we were really on the ropes, not now. And we already had low cost competition in Denver with Frontier. I doubt SWA's presence will drag yields down any lower in DEN then they were already but that remains to be seen. I think SWA is a bigger problem for Frontier than us, quite frankly, in DEN.

Yeah, they picked DEN because "it's a pretty big hole in their system". After all, it's all about servicing the customers needs and it has nothing to do with putting UAL out of business and making a profit. I guess that's why they are LUV, how stupid of me. Why did they wait until now, because of the fees. After UAL tried to beat the city of Denver out of $12.7 million in rent and fees the city got smart and realized they could not put all their eggs in one basket, so they lowered the rent and fees.

"Airlines were charged landing, lease and other fees averaging $16.85 per passenger when DIA opened (1995), but that figure has dropped to an estimated average of $14.30 this year. Each airline pays a different rate depending on variables involved in its operation; Kelly said Southwest's fee will be $7 to $9 per passenger."
Hum SWA wil pay on average $7-9, I wonder what UAL pays(seeing how they are the airports largest customer) if the average airport fee is $14.30. My guess is that they pay more then SWA.
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2006-01-03-southwest-denver_x.htm


As SWA hedges begin to expire, their costs are going to rise and they're going to have to start raising their fares to cover those costs or lose money. Yup, they have plenty of contracts in place now to cover a good portion of their future fuel needs, but over time, their fares will have to increase or they're going to lose money. But despite the fact that airlines like SWA were keeping fares low, we have been cash flow positive for several months now. Yes, that doesn't cover non-cash items like depreciation that eventually have to be accounted for but over time, I think fare increases will cover these expenses. And if fuel goes down long term, all the better for UAL. Per your article, S&P predicts $55bbl in 2007 (a worthless prediction but you posted it). Guess who's making a NET profit if that prediction comes true? We are.

You need to do some research on SWA'a hedging. Unlike what you suggest they don't begin to expire for quite sometime:
2006 65% hedged at $32/barrel; in 2007, 45% hedged at $31 a barrel; 2008, 35% hedged at $37/barrel, and for 2009, 30% hedged at $39 a barrel.


It's going to be quite sometime before they need to increase prices as you suggest. You can try and rationalize it all you want. For the next few years UAL (along with everyone else) will be paying quite a bit more for fuel then SWA. How do you compete with that? Of yo uare telling me UAL makes money at $55 a barrel, how much more is SWA making? Not good when you compete against them in BWI, OAK, LAX, MDW and now DEN. Or are you going to try and tell me that people will pay extra to travel out of the more costly and congested UAL airports like ORD, SFO and IAD.

As far as NWA goes, they have to exit bankruptcy first. In case you didn't notice, management is really shooting for the moon with those guys (in particular their pilots and flight attendants) and I suspect it isn't going to fly with those remaining unions unless management backs off substantially. When/if they exit bankruptcy, we'll have to see what their costs look like and go from there. They may or may not obtain a cost advantage relative to us, and we'll have to see what happens to their yields relative to their costs when the whole industry shakes out. Until then, not concerned yet.

I am getting tired so I will make it brief. Simple question when they exit CH11 do you think their costs will actually be higher then yours? I am betting lower.

 

[Andy]

UAL bashing alive and well.....

Can't we all just get along?

Get used to it. I've been reading flightinfo since around '98 and there has always been a large anti-UAL community here. Lately, it's shifted toward JetBlue and Southwest, since they're today's darlings of the industry.
I haven't seen any anti-AMR posts in a while (also a favorite to bash), but when they start to do well again, you can make book that there will be a lot of 'sky nazi' posts.

 

[Andy]

He works for Frontier. He has always been level headed and easy to talk to......don't judge him. (I know him from USAviation)

I guess that would explain why he doesn't like my distaste toward F9.
However, he should also be aware of why I feel that way toward F9.

 

[FlyUnited]

I find it humorous that all these NON MAJOR people tend to post about their airlines. Hmmmmm, reminds me of American Idol tryouts. Thinking they are more than they are.

 

[ualdriver]

Yeah, they picked DEN because "it's a pretty big hole in their system". After all, it's all about servicing the customers needs and it has nothing to do with putting UAL out of business and making a profit.

I doubt it has to do with "putting UAL out of business" per se. It does have to do with making a profit. If making a profit as a consequence puts UAL (or anyone else for that matter) out of business, so be it. But I doubt they're trying to go for the big kill in DEN by wiping out UAL. I stand by the assertion that Frontier has more to fear from SWA (for now) than UAL does in DIA.


I guess that's why they are LUV, how stupid of me. Why did they wait until now, because of the fees. After UAL tried to beat the city of Denver out of $12.7 million in rent and fees the city got smart and realized they could not put all their eggs in one basket, so they lowered the rent and fees.

"Airlines were charged landing, lease and other fees averaging $16.85 per passenger when DIA opened (1995), but that figure has dropped to an estimated average of $14.30 this year. Each airline pays a different rate depending on variables involved in its operation; Kelly said Southwest's fee will be $7 to $9 per passenger."
Hum SWA wil pay on average $7-9, I wonder what UAL pays(seeing how they are the airports largest customer) if the average airport fee is $14.30. My guess is that they pay more then SWA.
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2006-01-03-southwest-denver_x.htm

Oh my god you quoted USA Today to attempt to prove a point- I think I'm going to gag. Of course each airline pays a different fee depending on the operation. You don't expect, for example, SWA to pay 777 landing fees, do you? However, if you're implying that DIA management is favoring SWA with a deal that isn't available to other tenants, I think you're mistaken. And if they ever received a federal grant for use at their airport, it would be illegal- they can't play favorites.


You need to do some research on SWA'a hedging. Unlike what you suggest they don't begin to expire for quite sometime:
2006 65% hedged at $32/barrel; in 2007, 45% hedged at $31 a barrel; 2008, 35% hedged at $37/barrel, and for 2009, 30% hedged at $39 a barrel.

Yeah, it's in their SEC filings.

It's going to be quite sometime before they need to increase prices as you suggest. You can try and rationalize it all you want. For the next few years UAL (along with everyone else) will be paying quite a bit more for fuel then SWA. How do you compete with that?

Actually, no it won't. They don't need ALL their contracts to expire before they need to raise prices. Just some. Per your numbers above (haven't verified them), SWA needs to buy 35% of their fuel at market rates in 2006, 55% of their fuel in 2007, 65% in 2008, etc. Therefore, their costs WILL rise, and therefore they WILL have to account for that rise in costs or they will lose money.

How do you compete with that? You do it like everyone else does-You try to make money with what you have. JetBlue's unit costs, including fuel, are lower than SWA's, even with the hedges. How is SWA going to compete with JetBlue in the future? Especially when its hedges expire? By your logic, since JetBlue operates more cheaply than just about anyone else when it produces its product (ASM's), everyone else is toast. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

If oil hits $55bbl like YOUR S&P cut and paste text stated, we'll be making money. That's how UAL will compete. They'll use their strengths as a hub and spoke network carrier with assigned seating, international flights, a larger network, etc., etc., and hope that it continues to bring in unit revenues that cover its higher unit costs.

Of yo uare telling me UAL makes money at $55 a barrel, how much more is SWA making? Not good when you compete against them in BWI, OAK, LAX, MDW and now DEN. Or are you going to try and tell me that people will pay extra to travel out of the more costly and congested UAL airports like ORD, SFO and IAD.

Actually, people do pay more to travel on UAL (and its "costly and congested" airports like ORD, SFO, and IAD). Look at UAL's unit revenue vs. SWA's. Go to the DOT's department of statistics (http://www.bts.gov/press_releases/2005/bts041_05/html/bts041_05.html) and you'll see, for example, that UAL's revenue is more than 50% higher than SWA's. So yes, people will pay extra to fly on UAL vs. SWA- and they have for a decade and longer. If they didn't, UAL, AA, NWA, US Air would have been liquidated long ago.

SWA will make more than UAL more than likely, net-profit-wise. We've been competing against them in many of those markets for years and we're still here, sort-of. I think about 80%+ of our domestic network was in direct competition with a low cost carrier when we entered bankruptcy. If it's not SWA, it will be someone else. And we'll compete as long as all the good things about UAL and its network make people pay MORE to fly on UAL than SWA to cover UAL's higher costs.


I am getting tired so I will make it brief. Simple question when they exit CH11 do you think their costs will actually be higher then yours? I am betting lower.

I'm betting I don't know. And you're too tied up on an apples to apples comparison of costs, anyway. Just because one company (airline, auto manufacturer, widget producer) can produce its product (ASM's) cheaper than another doesn't mean it will necessarily "win."

Kia makes a really nice 4 door sedan, and they can undercut BMW price-wise all day long in the 4 door sedan category. Does that mean that BMW had better start shutting down the plants and boarding up the windows at the corporate offices because they'll NEVER be able to produce a 4 door sedan as cheaply as Kia? Or does BMW know that the BMW name commands a higher sticker price that people are willing to pay for its cars, so therefore the higher price it gets for its cars covers it higher costs? Maybe even Kia and BMW can co-exist and be successful because, for the most part, they compete for different customers?

 

[G4G5]

I ask a 2 line, simple question and you come back with a BMW vs a Kia?

I am getting tired so I will make it brief. Simple question when they (NWA)exit CH11 do you think their costs will actually be higher then yours? I am betting lower.

I'm betting I don't know. And you're too tied up on an apples to apples comparison of costs, anyway. Just because one company (airline, auto manufacturer, widget producer) can produce its product (ASM's) cheaper than another doesn't mean it will necessarily "win."

Kia makes a really nice 4 door sedan, and they can undercut BMW price-wise all day long in the 4 door sedan category. Does that mean that BMW had better start shutting down the plants and boarding up the windows at the corporate offices because they'll NEVER be able to produce a 4 door sedan as cheaply as Kia? Or does BMW know that the BMW name commands a higher sticker price that people are willing to pay for its cars, so therefore the higher price it gets for its cars covers it higher costs? Maybe even Kia and BMW can co-exist and be successful because, for the most part, they compete for different customers?

That one pathetic answer. I ask a simple question ad you come up with fruit salad for an answer. When people who own BMW's Start only driving them on roads that connect MDW to BWI or People who drive KIA's only drive them from DEN to LAX. Or when SWA and UAL start picking me up in my driveway. Then we can talk.
Are you somehow saying that UAL is like a BMW and SWA & NWA are Kia's?

What about the first post? No comment on how you screwed up the bond rating? Or the 9% interest rate (sounds better when you just say LIBOR plus something)? Or your $10 ticket price increases, "in most domestic markets". SWA services most domestic markets, show us some $10 ticket prices that were matched by LUV?

You say this:"I'm saying it's everyone's problem and UAL is probably the best positioned in the industry to deal with it."

And I ask how is UAL better then CAL, with their dominance in EWR and HOU or AA with their dominance in MIA and DFW?

And you respond with BMW vs Kia? Is your name Tilton, are you in UAL upper mgt?

 

[81Horse]

" ... C54Capt, who do you/did you work for? That's a cats & dogs resume. ..." -- Andy.

This is bullshoot, Andy. You've thrown this "cats and dogs" thing recently at me, and at C54; is this your idea of how to win an argument?

C54's ratings, time, and current position appear to exceed yours by far. We get it, dude -- you flew KC135's back in the day. This does not make your thing bigger than everyone else's. And BTW, looks like your resume since then is mostly "cats and dogs."

You make a lot of good points, and then you blow your whole argument by making personal attacks on people who disagree with you. And, to borrow another of your phrases -- I'm not the only one where who thinks so.

Also, it's spelled H-A-N-G-A-R.

 

[Sonny Crockett]

Anyone smell bacon?

THE SPELLING POLICE ARE OUT TONIGHT!

 

[Andy]

This is bullshoot, Andy. You've thrown this "cats and dogs" thing recently at me, and at C54; is this your idea of how to win an argument?

C54's ratings, time, and current position appear to exceed yours by far. We get it, dude -- you flew KC135's back in the day. This does not make your thing bigger than everyone else's. And BTW, looks like your resume since then is mostly "cats and dogs."

No; I like to know what the poster's background is ... I knew that WhiteCloud was from FLYi, and know that most of FLYi's employees have a very deep seated hatred for UAL.
For C54Capt, it was the 737 and A320 that threw me for a loop, since UAL was the only company that came immediately to mind; I forgot about F9's conversion from a 737 to A318/319 fleet. (That, and I had to look up some of his aircraft; they were pretty obscure). FWIW, I went to usaviation and read some of C54Capt's posts; he's balanced in his approach. I still don't like the way that F9 went for UAL's jugular when we were on the floor. Of course UAL's history is nothing to be proud of. UAL putting the previous Frontier out of business in the mid-80s was nothing short of disgraceful.

Why do I want to understand the poster's background? I think that it lets you know if there is any hidden agenda. For instance, when you start talking about the age 60 rule, you need to know what the poster's age is. For instance, if someone age 55-59 was in favor of changing retirement age, you'd be aware that the poster would benefit from the change. Just as someone in their 30s (or, like myself, a mid-40s furloughee) who does not want the law changed would benefit from the law remaining the same.
If it's a disinterested party (which I suspect that you are in these threads), I tend to pay a bit more attention.

As for flying KC-135s back in the day, passing gas is nothing to write home about; I agree with you that C54Capt's resume is much more impressive than mine; I'm sure that he's got some good stories to tell about all of the various types he's flown.

Also, it's spelled H-A-N-G-A-R.

Good catch; my bad. I foam at the mouth every time I think about FLYi's rollout party. I was seeing red when I wrote that sentence. It's a hot button topic for me.

Why am I so fervent about UAL? Perhaps this message sent to me back in 2004 by another member of this forum will explain a bit:
"Andy,
I feel your pain brotha.....
Got news for you though. You're never going back to United.
.....it's time to get a new job.
Peace out"
I had no response for him; quite frankly, I thought UAL was DOA. For UAL to now emerge from chap 11 is a huge step in the right direction for me.
I realize that you think that all management is the same, but I respectfully disagree with you. Some can lead, others can manage, a few can do both, and many can do neither. I'd say that Tilton's group falls into the second category and Goodwin fell in the fourth category. All it takes is one or two crappy CEOs who fall in the fourth category, and the next thing you know, your airline is close to liquidation.

 

[ualdriver]

That one pathetic answer. I ask a simple question ad you come up with fruit salad for an answer. When people who own BMW's Start only driving them on roads that connect MDW to BWI or People who drive KIA's only drive them from DEN to LAX. Or when SWA and UAL start picking me up in my driveway. Then we can talk.

Are you somehow saying that UAL is like a BMW and SWA & NWA are Kia's?

Well, actually, I was trying to make a point that went right over your head. When one reads your posts, you make very "linear" assumptions. For example, you say that UAL's post bankruptcy business plan assumes oil will be at $50bbl. Since oil is above $50bbl, UAL's plan was all wrong and we're screwed. Again, simplistic, but not showing a full understanding of what this business plan is, what it's purpose was, nor understanding the other variables that will determine whether or not UAL is a successful enterprise going forward. I tried to illustrate, for example, that fare increases (a dozen last year, more to come) could offset most if not all of the cost of fuel. So could hedging, depending on the success of the program UAL puts forth. I tried to illustrate that if an airline can earn higher unit revenues to cover its higher costs relative to a low cost competitor, it can still be successful despite being more expensive- hence the Kia (low cost producer) and the BMW (high cost producer) analogy. You're not quite getting it.

Then you stated something about NWA's post-bankruptcy costs and saying they'll be lower than UAL's. Again, simplistic assumptions about an airline's unit costs and how they will determine their success in the future. I told you that, first of all, I have no idea what their post bankruptcy costs will be. Second of all, they have to exit bankruptcy successfully before one could consider them a serious competitor again. The post bankruptcy NWA may look vastly different than they do today- who knows? If you want me to speculate about NWA's post bankruptcy costs, I'd say they'd be in line with other post-bankruptcy legacy carriers.


What about the first post? No comment on how you screwed up the bond rating? Or the 9% interest rate (sounds better when you just say LIBOR plus something)? Or your $10 ticket price increases, "in most domestic markets". SWA services most domestic markets, show us some $10 ticket prices that were matched by LUV?

I have no idea what you're talking about screwing up the first bond rating. I have nothing to do with credit ratings. I fly airplanes. You made a statement about Standard & Poor's analysis of UAL's troubles, and then I posted where they had just given us a B+ credit rating, which was contradictory to your implications. It doesn't "sound better" when one says LIBOR plus anything. It's simply a fact. You also make a comment about how the future of UAL's credit rating looked poor, and then I gave you a recent press clipping showing that in fact, the opposite to your assumption had happened- our interest rate went down. Yes, it's a high interest rate compared to what other industries pay for their debt. But, you have to make an apples to apples comparison since we're in the airline business and ALL of our competitors pay rates that are vastly similar.

I can't go city by city pair to show which markets SWA matched if they did at all. In my opinion, if they matched it at all, it probably wouldn't be for the full 5 bucks each way. All one can do is watch unit revenue rise over time, unless you have some pretty sophisticated computer power at your disposal. If unit revenue does rise over time, one can infer that price increases are sticking. Since UAL's unit revenue has been rising roughly quarter over quarter, I'm guessing that UAL (and probably its competitors) do have some pricing power and average fares have been rising.

But if you want to really discuss costs, you should probably back away from interest rates, because they tend to be one of an airline's smallest costs, and all airlines pay about the same in relation to whatever metric you want to use (except SWA). The really big ticket items are fuel, labor, maintenance, regional partner feed, etc. That's where a competitive advantage can really apply, which can be seen by both SWA (fuel) and JetBlue (labor).

You say this:"I'm saying it's everyone's problem and UAL is probably the best positioned in the industry to deal with it."

And I ask how is UAL better then CAL, with their dominance in EWR and HOU or AA with their dominance in MIA and DFW?

And you respond with BMW vs Kia? Is your name Tilton, are you in UAL upper mgt?

Again, the BMW vs. Kia thing went way over your head, just disregard it as it didn't get through. You're thinking "driving" and I was trying to use common examples of "low cost" and "high cost" providers of a product to illustrate the point that low cost isn't necessarily everything. Anyway.....

If you're referring to the fact that CAL has a "fortress hub" in EWR and AMR has a "fortress hub" in DFW, then UAL is just doomed, sorry, I don't buy it. It looks like JetBlue is coming to visit EWR and it will be interesting to see what transpires with Love Field and DFW. If they're depending on their fortress hubs to secure their future, I hope they have a plan B.

The reason I think UAL is probably the best positioned to deal with anything is that now that we've exited bankruptcy, if anything else "major happens" (i.e. bird flu, terrorist attack, spike in fuel prices), someone's going away (i.e. DAL and/or NWA liquidation) or going into bankruptcy to reorganize (CAL, AMR). That leaves us to benefit from whatever transpires from those events. We have a network that is unmatched by anyone else and a very post-bankruptcy competitive cost structure in place with CASM's in the low 7's (we weren't as competitve before in my opinion), excluding fuel. That's why I think we're probably in the best position to deal with anything that comes down the road. It's also a biased opinion, like most of your anti-UAL posts.

 

[81Horse]

-- ... I realize that you think that all management is the same ...


Well, Andy -- let's just say I'm standing by for hard evidence to the contrary.

I appreciate your thoughtful response above; I do hope for the best for UAL, as I've said before -- that's why I read these threads. The message you quoted above ("... You're never going back ...") sucks -- whoever wrote it deserves a little karma.

 

[Andy]

You're never going back[/I] ...") sucks -- whoever wrote it deserves a little karma.

Ah, it was probably just a bit of karma coming back my way. The nice thing about anonymous message boards is that we're able to express ourselves with no holds barred. The bad thing about anonymous message boards is that we tend to express ourselves with no holds barred.

 

[81Horse]

The nice thing about anonymous message boards is that we're able to express ourselves with no holds barred. The bad thing about anonymous message boards is that we tend to express ourselves with no holds barred.

Well said.

I'm off today, so I believe I'll start drinking now.

:beer:

 

[WhiteCloud]

No; I like to know what the poster's background is ... I knew that WhiteCloud was from FLYi, and know that most of FLYi's employees have a very deep seated hatred for UAL.

That's sort of correct. I was long gone before ACA became Indy. Last 10 years is ACA, AWAC, Pt. 91. I just hate seeing my friends getting jerked around in a bunch totally unnecessary ego battles between UAL and ACA management. Lots of lost jobs and careers over nothing. Ever been to one of the corporate meetings where this stuff is worked out or just heard rumors? They can both share the blame as far as I'm concerned.