|Quoting 7E72004 (Reply 22):|
and you can't tell me that it takes 2.5 years (and counting) for a company to get out of bankruptch; there is no reason why UA could not have been through the process.
Yes I can. Before 2002, United has been in business, following different variations of the same business model for decades. A combination of factors got them to Ch. 11. What YOU CAN'T TELL ME
is how a company that has done business essentially the same way for decades can all of a sudden stop on a dime and dramatically change the way they do business in a little over a year. Forget UA
for a moment...what if it were AA
? Or DL
? Could they fix all the problems in a short period of time like you seem to think they could? From the get-go, UA
's management said that this will be a complicated bankruptcy case, and it will take time to change/reject leases, analyze and implement a new business plan, and get workers to accept painful cuts and accept the new way. If you run a small business, say 15-20 people, that's somewhat easy. But a corporation the size of UAL? You clearly don't know much about business.
taken advantage of the Ch. 11 process? Are you or anyone else here a qualified enough expert to make that determination? I'm certainly not, and I highly doubt you are, either. What I do know is this: a company, ANY COMPANY, in ANY industry, in bankruptcy can't afford to leave even a penny on the table that could be eliminated when it exits from protection. UA
is making sure they cover ever base and cut every penny before they do, because CFO's as intelligent as Jake Brace (Univ. of Chicago MBA) know that if they don't...they'll be in Ch. 11 within two years, if not sooner. The chances of emerging from Ch. 11 a SECOND time are REALLY low. I can only think of two airlines that have. Only one (CO) has survived. A company can't exit a day too early (like US did, now they're in Round II
) or leave a day too late. Since neither of us here are bankruptcy experts, we don't know when exactly UA
has crossed this line. Does the media? Hardly. How about "airline industy analysts"? HARDLY, but more so than the armchair CEO's on this forum.
|Quoting Mariner (Reply 17):|
Rip you a new one? I didn't think I'd been that tough on you.
I think they (the ATSB and the PBGC) are two separate issues and I am amazed that you are still confused about the role of the ATSB.
Mariner: Ok, Ok...I admit I was being a bit facetious when I wrote that, but what I really meant is that I figured you'd have plenty to say in response.
I am somewhat confused about the role of the ATSB, yes. I know and understand their decisions vis a vis UAL, and to some extent, agree with those decisions, but overall, it seems pointless they were even created to begin with! IIRC, they were allocated some $20B to help stabiliize the industry after 9/11. Several airlines that easily could have applied for ATSB assistance determined (and rightly so) that it wasn't in their short-term/long-term interests to bother with it, and more so, didn't want Uncle Sam involved in their business in any way shape or form. UAL instead opted to seek a loan guarantee after CEO Goodwin shot off his mouth in late 2001/early 2002 by prematurely saying UAL would "perish" and in the process closed the doors to whatever access they could have had to the capital markets in 2001. Of the $20B allocated, only F9
and US (I think maybe one other airline as well) applied and received funds, for a combined $1-$2B. F9
quickly squared their account, and are now free and clear of the ATSB, and US has repaid a chunk of it, in June 2004 if I recall. UA
applied for $2B, and as we now know, the rest is history. By the time the ATSB closed up shop, the vast majority of the funds they were 'allocated' to dole out as possible loan guarantees were never even issued in the first place. Again, why did the government even bother with the ATSB?
And the winner for best actress is....REESE WITHERSPOON for 'Walk the Line'!!!!!!!!