Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UA Posts Year End Results  
User currently offlineUAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3356 posts, RR: 1
Posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3496 times:

UA's figures read pretty weel although I will let others pick the bones out of it. They sure do have a healthy bank balance.........I hope we see some orders for new meatal in the near future!

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070123/cgtu017.html?.v=80

33 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineUnited777atGU From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 183 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3392 times:

At least we end the year with a profit, 'eh? That's black ink, now, not red.


Speechless
User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4108 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3122 times:

$61 million is not bad at all, especially when you factor in the seasonally low traffic and the DEN snowstorms.

User currently offlineDTW757 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1581 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3115 times:

You too could end the year with a profit if you walked away from your previous stock and screwed every stockholder. Then you turn around and issue yourself new stock. The fact that a company can do something like that to emerge from bankruptcy is outrageous.


721,2,732,3,4,5,G,8,9,741,2,3,4,752,3,762,3,4,772,3,788,D93,5,M80,D10,M11,L10,100,AB6,319,20,21,332,3,346,388,146,CR2,7,
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3113 times:

Better than going out of business and screwing the creditors.

NS


User currently offlineBrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4296 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3089 times:

Quoting DTW757 (Reply 3):
You too could end the year with a profit if you walked away from your previous stock and screwed every stockholder. Then you turn around and issue yourself new stock. The fact that a company can do something like that to emerge from bankruptcy is outrageous

There is nothing outrageous about a private enterprise making money. The reason for going into bankruptcy protection is to make an other wise dire situation better in the long run. People should not become stock holders if they cannot stomach the loss. Had UA made large profits they would have expected dividends just like all stockholders get when a company does well.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineDTW757 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1581 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3077 times:

Quoting Brilondon (Reply 5):
There is nothing outrageous about a private enterprise making money. The reason for going into bankruptcy protection is to make an other wise dire situation better in the long run. People should not become stock holders if they cannot stomach the loss. Had UA made large profits they would have expected dividends just like all stockholders get when a company does well.

They should turn right around and issue the former stockholders shares of new stock.



721,2,732,3,4,5,G,8,9,741,2,3,4,752,3,762,3,4,772,3,788,D93,5,M80,D10,M11,L10,100,AB6,319,20,21,332,3,346,388,146,CR2,7,
User currently offlineBrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4296 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3049 times:

Quoting DTW757 (Reply 6):
They should turn right around and issue the former stockholders shares of new stock.

I could not agree with you more, but your country's bankruptcy laws are to blame for this predicament. The shareholders are welcome to purchase the new shares on the open market just like the rest of the world.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3030 times:

Quoting DTW757 (Reply 3):
Then you turn around and issue yourself new stock. The fact that a company can do something like that to emerge from bankruptcy is outrageous.

So they should have just screwed the people they owed money to?

The fact is, United is being run now for the benefit of the people it owed money to -- who believe that they stand a better chance of getting their money by keeping United running than by just liquidating the company.

The previous owners..well...they lost out, because they couldn't pay the bills.

Steve


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day ago) and read 2919 times:

Quoting DTW757 (Reply 6):
They should turn right around and issue the former stockholders shares of new stock.

The stockholder are the owners of the company. In every regard, THEY are the ones that owed the money to the debtors.

NS


User currently offlineBoston92 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3390 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 22 hours ago) and read 2821 times:

UA should not be doing the things they are then... like cutting snacks on flights below 759 miles.


"Why does a slight tax increase cost you $200 and a substantial tax cut save you 30 cents?"
User currently offlineDTW757 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1581 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 22 hours ago) and read 2788 times:

Quoting Sllevin (Reply 8):
So they should have just screwed the people they owed money to?



Quoting Gigneil (Reply 9):
The stockholder are the owners of the company. In every regard, THEY are the ones that owed the money to the debtors.

I am not suggesting in any way that they screw anyone owed money. However, the stockholders did not take the company into bankruptcy, it was the management. Now the previous shareholders have absolutely no stake in a company that still exists and is making profits. Just doesn't seem too fair to me.



721,2,732,3,4,5,G,8,9,741,2,3,4,752,3,762,3,4,772,3,788,D93,5,M80,D10,M11,L10,100,AB6,319,20,21,332,3,346,388,146,CR2,7,
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8181 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 22 hours ago) and read 2779 times:

UA should not be doing the things they are then... like cutting snacks on flights below 759 miles.

This has everything to do with absolutely nothing.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 9 months 22 hours ago) and read 2775 times:

Quoting DTW757 (Reply 11):
I am not suggesting in any way that they screw anyone owed money. However, the stockholders did not take the company into bankruptcy, it was the management. Now the previous shareholders have absolutely no stake in a company that still exists and is making profits. Just doesn't seem too fair to me.

No one holds a gun to your head and forces you to buy stock in a company. When you do, you take a calculated risk that you might lose all your money, and if you choose wisely, you might hit a gold mine.

You want "fairness"? Don't invest in the market.


User currently offlineBoston92 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3390 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 months 21 hours ago) and read 2733 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 12):
This has everything to do with absolutely nothing.

Really? Why dont elaborate more than just saying something stupid like," This has everything to do with absolutely nothing."



"Why does a slight tax increase cost you $200 and a substantial tax cut save you 30 cents?"
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8181 posts, RR: 26
Reply 15, posted (7 years 9 months 20 hours ago) and read 2655 times:

Because it isn't necessary to elaborate more. Anyone with either practical business experience and/or knowledge of this industry is aware that profitability and the offer of snacks on short haul flights are not dependent variables. Your comment distracts from the discussion of the results the company posted and was regarded as such.

[Edited 2007-01-24 04:55:10]


If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 19 hours ago) and read 2625 times:

returning to the topic at hand, UA's performance was VERY meager for an airline that went through the costliest and longest bankruptcy in aviation history....

this is the peak of the business cycle. UA has to deliver better results.

Is it any surprise that Tilton is such a proponent of consolidation?


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 months 19 hours ago) and read 2600 times:

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 16):
returning to the topic at hand, UA's performance was VERY meager for an airline that went through the costliest and longest bankruptcy in aviation history....

this is the peak of the business cycle.

Well, not exactly.

According to CY 2005 DOT statistics, here are the quarterly total industry enplanements (domestic and foreign) on US carriers.

1st qtr - 174m
2nd qtr - 194 m
3rd qtr - 195 m
4th qtr - 198 m

in 2004, the same figures were

1st qtr - 162 m
2nd qtr - 184 m
3rd qtr - 186 m
4th qtr - 179 m

Is the 4th quarter important? Yes. More than the second and third quarters? No. Given that UA suffered horrendous delays at its Denver hub in December, it isn't surprising that their 4th quarter results are less than optimal.


User currently offlineIPFreely From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 239 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 9 months 18 hours ago) and read 2519 times:

Quoting DTW757 (Reply 11):
However, the stockholders did not take the company into bankruptcy, it was the management. Now the previous shareholders have absolutely no stake in a company that still exists and is making profits.

Actually the stockholders were the ones who took the company into bankruptcy. Management is selected by, and works for, the stockholders. The chairman and other board members could have been voted out of office at any time.


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 19, posted (7 years 9 months 17 hours ago) and read 2495 times:

Quoting Brilondon (Reply 5):
People should not become stock holders if they cannot stomach the loss.

I call it "purchasing protective put options"... Wink

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 16):
returning to the topic at hand, UA's performance was VERY meager for an airline that went through the costliest and longest bankruptcy in aviation history....

this is the peak of the business cycle. UA has to deliver better results.

Is it any surprise that Tilton is such a proponent of consolidation?

UA had one of the worst bancruptcy proceedings in US history..especially given the circumstances such as 9/11, recession, etc.

DL is fortunate that it is in bankruptcy during a high point in the cycle (or at least during an upswing)...DL is one carrier which might not have made it though bankruptcy had it been in UA's situation just a few years back..DL should consider itself lucky...

Kudos to Tilton for taking such a difficult and complex situation and getting out of it without having to liquidate or be bought out...

UA is only getting stronger...

..at least UA didn't have to worry about being bought out and didn't have to resort to doing this.... Wink

http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/4401/764/1600/148189/KDMD_Port.jpg




"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineN174UA From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 994 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 9 months 16 hours ago) and read 2460 times:

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 9):
The stockholder are the owners of the company. In every regard, THEY are the ones that owed the money to the debtors.

Stockholders, as well as the debtholders, i.e. bonds and private placement debt (banks, etc.).

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 16):
this is the peak of the business cycle.

Huh? Q4? Funny...I always thought the summer season, from June through early September was the peak of the business cycle.

Quoting IPFreely (Reply 18):
Management is selected by, and works for, the stockholders.

Nope. Shareholders vote for board members. Board members in turn hire management they feel will provide them with their desired rate of return. Management doesn't always serve the best interests of the board and stockholders, in other words, the classic "principal-agent" problem. To solve it, the board of directors structures executive compensation to be tied directly to performance. In some cases, like with UA, they also have to compensate managers to stay during the tough times to keep the firm a "going concern". Otherwise, a manager would likely leave for a more lucrative position elsewhere.


User currently offlineFXramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7307 posts, RR: 85
Reply 21, posted (7 years 9 months 16 hours ago) and read 2439 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Net income of $25 mil (US) post bk? Laughable. That won't even cover executive compensation. 14 months ago I applied for management with their company and was told in my 3rd interview, if I wanted it to happen, relocation to DEN or IAD was necessary. I humbly accepted employment elsewhere. If UA wants new metal in 2007, ie. 787, their gonna have to turn more than $25 mi. annually.  duck   rotfl 

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 19):
at least UA didn't have to worry about being bought out and didn't have to resort to doing this....

How many Boyd articles did I read this past year linking them to CO trumping them in a take over to survive? At least five, no less.  no 



I miss the old Anet.
User currently offlineTommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (7 years 9 months 14 hours ago) and read 2381 times:

UA actually lost $14 Million per GAAP in the 1st 11 months if you back out the $39 million tax benefit it received in Q4.

From their release :
"The company recorded an income tax benefit in the fourth quarter of 2006 of $39 million associated with the fourth quarter pre-tax loss. At year-end, UAL and its subsidiaries had substantial net operating loss carry-forwards available to reduce tax liabilities in future periods."

I am also stumped as to their fuel hedging tactics with 3 way options that function more like crude oil swaps than like fuel futures or options (SW model). These arrangements can be a larger liability than the mere price of the options.

"Payment obligations on a weighted average basis begin if crude drops below $55 per barrel." (from UA release)

SW doesn't hedge that way. SW hedges refined products like gasoline and heating oil and then mostly via option contracts that cap the price with no payment obligation should the price of the refined products drop bellow the strike price.

Basically, UA's fuel hedging is far more speculative than SW's and now that crude is bellow $55 UA will be paying dearly for that speculation with payment obligations on those swap like arrangements. Not exactly good management on the fuel hedges - again. Apparently these guys love to gamble. Way to run an airline.

And these figures EXCLUDE reorganization charges in every Q AND special items. I mean, wasn't that all written off upon exiting BK?

Again from UA release:
"Note 7 to the attached Statements of Consolidated Operations provides a reconciliation of net income or loss reported under GAAP to net income or loss excluding reorganization items for all periods presented, as well as a reconciliation of other non-GAAP financial measures, including special items."

As far as I can tell these items total $50 million.

As far as I can tell, UA lost $64 million in the 1st 11 months not counting the tax credit. That's what their own data says.


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 23, posted (7 years 9 months 13 hours ago) and read 2365 times:

Quoting FXramper (Reply 21):
How many Boyd articles did I read this past year linking them to CO trumping them in a take over to survive? At least five, no less.  no 

Sure, I agree on that part, but its certainly much different than DL's current situation...Boyd stating UA/CO take over/merger in a bunch of articles is certainly much different than an actual hostile takeover.... yes 

..and it also doesn't address my other comments (i.e.-the difficulty of UA's bankruptcy proceedings over DL's)

Quoting Tommytoyz (Reply 22):
Basically, UA's fuel hedging is far more speculative than SW's and now that crude is bellow $55 UA will be paying dearly for that speculation with payment obligations on those swap like arrangements. Not exactly good management on the fuel hedges - again. Apparently these guys love to gamble. Way to run an airline

1)Depends how long their hedges are in place for
2)value of their hedges
3)Oil is still around $53 1/2, so its not too far off..
4)DL lost money recently in hedges also....



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 9 months 10 hours ago) and read 2303 times:

we can always count on you Jacob to throw mud that has nothing to do with the situation while failing to address the real issue.

UA had pitiful financial results. Period. Esp, when you consider that it has been four years since UA filed for BK - and AA which has the highest labor costs in the industry - managed to turn in a performance like this.

This is a UA thread and let's keep it that way.

but I'll respond to the comments about DL. DL is in a position of having to fight off a hostile takeover BECAUSE it filed at the end of the business cycle when others like US had already completed their3rd BK collectively AND because DL has done such a great job of turning itself around - far faster than any other airline.

Tilton is the one who has been spouting consolidation for years. If UA is doing such a bang up job, why hasn't UA been given a buyout offer when that is what Tilton is dreaming will happen?


25 Halls120 : Well, I'm still interested in how you came up with your claim that the 4th quarter is the peak of the business cycle when the DOT stats indicate othe
26 WorldTraveler : I'm not talking about the 4th quarter per se but about this overall period in the business cycle. Cycles are defined by years, not quarters. Check out
27 Halls120 : OK, that makes sense. It wasn't clear from your original post.
28 Post contains links and images Jacobin777 : No..I just tend to say things they way they are....UA doesn't function in a vacuum..... Since we know you are part of the "DL could do no wrong" camp
29 Post contains images ChicagoFlyer : "OMG accounting manipulation to hide losses!" The above statement conveniently ignores the $60 million tax expense that UA booked in Q3 (for profits
30 Airzim : Really? Not sure that's conclusive yet.
31 Tommytoyz : - And the other airlines were not affected by weather? - No it does not ignore that expense at all. But if I had ignored it, the loss would have been
32 CTHEWORLD : What an idiot, stock has nothing to do with profits and revenue generation. Grow up and get educated.
33 Smashme33 : I wonder which employees had to suffer to make this profit turn up?
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
BA To Order New Aircraft BY Year End. posted Thu Sep 28 2006 09:59:55 by WINGS
Airlinair To Place Order Year-end posted Thu Aug 31 2006 13:15:44 by Flying-Tiger
Delta Posts May 2006 Results posted Thu Jun 29 2006 23:17:18 by Panamair
Frontier Airlines Reports Fiscal Year 2006 Results posted Fri May 26 2006 09:53:32 by LTU932
KSA To Award 2 Operator Licences By Year End posted Tue May 9 2006 20:25:43 by HiJazzey
Rumor: B6 To SXM By Year's End posted Thu Apr 13 2006 19:33:21 by TIA
Air Astana To Place Order Year's End posted Tue Mar 28 2006 18:52:43 by Flying-Tiger
MCO To See Bump In Jetblue Traffic By Year-end posted Tue Feb 28 2006 14:12:21 by Lowecur
Westjet Q4 And Year End 2005 Profits posted Wed Feb 8 2006 18:51:53 by Yeggerman
F9's Pax Numbers Up In DEC '05, Year-End '05 posted Fri Jan 6 2006 22:00:02 by NZblue