CaptainTim From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2004, 431 posts, RR: 0 Posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5187 times:
With a major carrier like United facing a threat of going bankrupt after being in Chapter 11 before, i was wondering if any airline company will save them if they do go bankrupt?
United founded Star Alliance with Air Canada and has created the alliance to become the world's best with lthe best airline of each region it covers e.g. (Lufthansa ~ Europe, ANA ~ Japan, Air Canada ~ Canada etc.)
I was wondering if United does go bankrupt will any airline within the alliance or even out of it will come to save United?
thanks for any feedback
Gulfstream Planeview Cockpit: "why have hundreds of buttons when a CCD does the same thing and more?"
747firstclass From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5121 times:
My personal theory is that if UA really, really looked like ti was going to liquidate, the US govt. would step in and raise the limit to 49% that can be held by foreign investors etc.This would allow for more competition and also help save jobs. At that point, perhaps LH would invest in UA to save Star Alliance.It is just my personal theory.
747firstclass From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5075 times:
I forgot to add to my above post, if you look at where most of the hubs are for UA, there would also be enormous political pressure on the US govt to do something. SFO,ORD and IAD all large states and in the case of IAD, there are a lot of Congressmena and Senators that fly out out IAD and DCA on UA.
EmiratesUK From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 288 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5047 times:
Would it be wise to allow UA or any other US carrier on the verge of bankruptcy to be saved? Am I the only one who thinks that the U.S has a few to many international carriers? By allowing one or two to go would surely help others and prevent more disappearing.
QF/DJ (not that big Int)
CA/CI/CZ (maybe one or two more?)
BA/VS/BD (again not that big int)
I'm only using BIG international carriers as we all have a ridiculous amount of low cost.
Jeb94 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 588 posts, RR: 5 Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4949 times:
It would be a terrible shame to see another one of the four oldest airlines in the United States fail. The first two where Pan Am and TWA. The last of the original four airlines in the US are United and American. Despite the historical value of United, they need to save themselves. Such is the nature of a free market economy.
Leelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4945 times:
I think conventional wisdom is than SQ is far stronger financially than LH, which has been a very mixed bag for years. However, I think UA will emerge from Chapter 11 without any airline funded bailout.
Ken4556 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 169 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4889 times:
I agree it would be shame if United fails. But like USAir, I almost believe the two airlines need to fail to help the other legancy carriers survive.
From a business and union stand-point, I think both airlines deserve to fail. Both management and the unions over the last six years have done nothing but bring the airline to where it is today. Even if 9-11 never happened, they both would be in bad shape right now.
Milesrich From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1855 posts, RR: 7 Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4786 times:
The US Government will NOT save United, at least not under the 2nd Bush Administration. If American were the airline on the edge of collapse, perhaps because they are based in the DFW Metroplex, the Bush Administration, with its Texas routes might step in. But the majority of the employees are from Blue States: Illinois, California, and Maryland, and the ones who live in Virginia and Colorado are not near enough political reason for this administration to jump in. Furthermore, most in Washington probably realize that letting United and US Airways survive will allow American, Delta, Northwest, and Continental to survive. American, at ORD has the most to gain. The Denver hub will be taken over by someone. Look for Delta, even with their financial problems, to move from SLC to DEN, because if they do not, and an LCC sets up a big shop there, SLC is doomed too. IAD, PHL and CLT are not necessary to the US air transportation network. The smaller cities that US Airways or UA serve exclusively or close to exclusively will get service to EWR or CLE from CO, or from DTW on NW, or DL from CVG or JFK, or AA from JFK. The hub cities like CLT, SFO, CLT, IAD, and PHL will get enough non stops to the major cities with main line aircraft, and will be key targets of WN, FL, and other LCCs.
Bobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5975 posts, RR: 9 Reply 19, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4744 times:
I'm sure that cogressmen and politicians fly whatever carrier has the best schedule. Do you think the congressmen from Texas, Georgia, Minnesota, Michigan, Tennessee, Ohio, Nevada, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Arizona etc, fly on US or UA?
Bicoastal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4723 times:
Doesn't the law limit the amount of foreign ownership of US airlines? I believe Lufthansa, Singapore Airlines and or other non-USA investors could only purchase up to 49.9% combined.
And having worked on Capitol Hill at one point in my career, I know for a fact that members of the US Congress fly whatever airline gets them to their home district fastest/easiest. For example, Houston area members usually fly CO, Dallas area AA, Atlanta area DL, Californians usually fly United non-stop from Dulles, Detroit/Michigan area members fly NW. Actually, most Philly area members of Congress take the train from DC. New Yorkers usually fly US Airways or the Delta Shuttle. No single airline has a monopoly on politicians.
I also know, there is neither mood nor desire (Democrats and Republicans) today on Capitol Hill to save any airline. It's "hands off" as far as the US government is concerned. They'll let the courts and the investment community decided which airline(s) survive.
Bucky707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1028 posts, RR: 4 Reply 21, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4714 times:
The U.S. Government will not and should not do anything to save United. The fact of the matter is, it's a poorly run company who has already abused the CH11 process, and still is not even close to making money. If UAL were to shut down tomorrow, that capacity and those jobs would be replaced by other airlines within two years.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4710 times:
My guess: nobody. The U.S. government would not even give them a loan guarantee. Let alone actually lending them money. There is no chance that the U.S. government will bail out United and in the process create an incredibly bad precedent.
As for foreign investors, UA would be no better of a deal than it would be for U.S. investors. They would have to deal with the same exact problems: high costs, low yields, debt, and difficult labor relations. More fundamentally the Congress is not going change the foreign ownership limits to simply save United. They did not do it for Pan Am or Eastern.
I suppose there is an outside chance that an aircraft lessor/financier may roll the dice on United simply to avoid having a flood of new airplanes on the market.
Sccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5091 posts, RR: 28 Reply 23, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4632 times:
Periodically-appearing speculation about whether an airline would be saved based upon where it is based (i.e., the government would not allow AA to fail because of he Texas connection) is childish and irrelevant.
1. UA already is bankrupt; that is what "Chapter 11" means;
2. If UA fails, it fails, and there will be plenty of operators available to take over its capacity using, presumably, more efficient and better-managed business practices;
3. There is no reason why UA should be saved just because it is one of the "oldest" airlines; so were Braniff; Pan Am; TWA; and Eastern.
If UA cannot find a way to (1) motivate employees to work with the airline, and thus (2) improve productivity and customer service concurrently; then, they fail. Much rending of garments and gnashing of teeth, and life goes on.
There is no need for foreign carriers to take over a substantial portion of UA just to "save" it, especially if it does not merit saving; to allow that to happen would just help to continue the bleeding of the domestic carriers which remain.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
Luv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 11957 posts, RR: 51 Reply 24, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4610 times:
Well said and I could not agree more with you. I think soon if UA does not provide the court that is over seeing its handling of the bankruptcy some sort of plan to emerge from bankruptcy, then the court is going to take over. The choice will no longer be there's.
You can cut the irony with a knife
25 JoFMO: You can't ask the market to solve the problem and on he other hand prevent the market to react. Not lifting foreign ownership rules just means to limi
26 Isitsafenow: BOBNWA...We in Michigan know which carrier Sen. Levin flys. I am not going to tell you but here's a hint. I have seen in in WorldClubs at DTW on Sunda
27 Seamus: I can't fathom why another carrier would come in to "save" UA. If UA were to liquidate, would the international routes be up for sale, similar to when
28 STT757: Gordon Bethune of CO made public his contacts with UAL's managment about a merger of CO and UAL, he said UAL's CEO rejected the offer. If UAL continue
29 TOLtommy: The market will adjust if UA goes under. Just like it did when PA shut down. The attractive parts of UA will go to new owners, the unattractive parts
30 F9Animal: Hi, just my feelings on this subject. United still has assets it could sell to raise needed cash. First they need to get paycuts established, and look
31 ANCFlyer: I see no USA investor coming to their rescue. Perhaps a foreign carrier (LH seems to be my best bet). And certainly not the US Government . . . Number
32 KateAA: If UAL who will save them? Mmm, maybe parts of the company will be sold off, or other airlines will increase their own capacity to cope with the extra
33 NWAFA: No one should save them. They got them selfs into their own mess. The world will survive if United goes under. The Government should and will keep the
34 NumberTwelve: Another Chapter11? But why save them, why giving them subsidies? US admin is always crying cause of A "subsidies". Let UA die and the other airlines t
35 OPNLguy: >>>With a major carrier like United facing a threat of going bankrupt after being in Chapter 11 before Just to clarify, United has only been in Chapte
36 Aa777jr: Anti trust arbitrators are VERY unlikely to allow any carrier to absorb the amount of debt UA has. Doesn't look promising for any help.
37 OPNLguy: >>>Anti trust arbitrators are VERY unlikely to allow any carrier to absorb the amount of debt UA has. How much debt a company wants to assume while ta
38 Burnsie28: It would be a terrible shame to see another one of the four oldest airlines in the United States fail. The first two where Pan Am and TWA. The last of