You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. If you're a working pilot, please join our free community and you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you don't want to register (or not a working pilot), you can still use the Google search box in the upper left of this screen to search all forum posts!
I've read and heard many poeple say that UAL will liquidate at some point. I find that possibility almost impossible. Given the tenuous footing of the economy, a liquidation of this size would be disasterous. More to the point, I doubt other majors would have the capital on hand to acquire the planes and routes. Who would actually want to loan large sums of money to the airlines at this point? Also, there are some very powerful politicians who come from Illinois. Obama, Durbin, Daley, and former Speaker Hastert all hail from that state. United will be around until it decides it doesn't want to be around anymore.
Whacker,
Don't know what will happen with UAL but have you ever heard of: Pan Am, Braniff, Eastern, TWA, etc. We are not exactly breaking new ground here.
Whacker,
Don't know what will happen with UAL but have you ever heard of: Pan Am, Braniff, Eastern, TWA, etc. We are not exactly breaking new ground here.
Scoop
I think it's a different environment today. Air transport is a more critical piece of the transportation infrastructure, and liquidating United is too significant a hit to the stability of that infrastructure for politicians to allow it to happen easily. It's the pseudo-regulated market that has the effect of holding the industry's head underwater. I could be wrong.
That said, I doubt it's going to be allowed to liquidate. Too much is at stake, and O'Hare (plus Chicago and Richard M. Daley) have some very powerful friends in Washington.
More likely than liquidation, they will re-enter Ch 11 and then get absorbed whole by someone (AA to match NWA-DAL?) in a fire-sale deal a 'la TWA. Probably within the next year. I see no way United can continue as a stand alone airline.
It is sad. I remember when UAL was really the place to be....I think the pilots there are next to NONE. I have been treated with nothing but respect when riding the jumpseat with them, by far the best experiences I have had are riding with them, or them riding with me. I do think though, that things need to turn around or end, this industry puts itself in turmoil sometimes. It think another United bailout would only hurt the industry not help. Its sad that it has come to this. We can all think Tilton for this.
I think it's a different environment today. Air transport is a more critical piece of the transportation infrastructure, and liquidating United is too significant a hit to the stability of that infrastructure for politicians to allow it to happen easily. It's the pseudo-regulated market that has the effect of holding the industry's head underwater. I could be wrong.
In the old days, there were places that you could only get to on Pan Am, TWA, etc. Today, it would be difficult to find someplace that isn't served by another airline other than United. If United were to go away, other carriers would raise rates and increase service in order to fill in the gap.
In the old days, there were places that you could only get to on Pan Am, TWA, etc. Today, it would be difficult to find someplace that isn't served by another airline other than United. If United were to go away, other carriers would raise rates and increase service in order to fill in the gap.
Exactly. People don't want higher fares because the general public is addicted to having cheap air travel at their disposal, and I doubt the lawmakers see it any differently. Keep in mind, most people out there don't think fares are too cheap--it's only us and business analysts. I frequently hear complaints about "outrageous" ticket prices both from the public and in the news (particularly TV news, with their infinite capacity for demagoguery). The difference between now and the Pan Am/Eastern days is that everyone flies now and they're used to doing it cheaply.
Exactly. People don't want higher fares because the general public is addicted to having cheap air travel at their disposal, and I doubt the lawmakers see it any differently. Keep in mind, most people out there don't think fares are too cheap--it's only us and business analysts. I frequently hear complaints about "outrageous" ticket prices both from the public and in the news (particularly TV news, with their infinite capacity for demagoguery). The difference between now and the Pan Am/Eastern days is that everyone flies now and they're used to doing it cheaply.
They will get used to a new reality in the near future. Higher prices will only help us in this industry. I see a lot less traffic but the traffic will be PROFITABLE again.
Whacker,
Don't know what will happen with UAL but have you ever heard of: Pan Am, Braniff, Eastern, TWA, etc. We are not exactly breaking new ground here.
Scoop
No offense to anyone, BUT...
Anyone look at the history of CAL? Who would've thought they would be where they are today? Also, I remember everyone looking at USAirways (Air)saying the same thing after 9/11.
You NEVER know!!!
Exactly. People don't want higher fares because the general public is addicted to having cheap air travel at their disposal, and I doubt the lawmakers see it any differently. Keep in mind, most people out there don't think fares are too cheap--it's only us and business analysts. I frequently hear complaints about "outrageous" ticket prices both from the public and in the news (particularly TV news, with their infinite capacity for demagoguery). The difference between now and the Pan Am/Eastern days is that everyone flies now and they're used to doing it cheaply.
But the "right" to cheap fares is not critical to the infrastructure of this country. So that argument doesn't fly. Now if United was the only airline to fly to France, or the only airline that served Chicago, it might be a different story. TWA leaving NY and STL had a bigger effect on the infrastructure than UAL leaving Chicago. The biggest "loss" in the liquidation of UAL would probably be DEN.
I thought Boyd predicted UAL would be dust by 2002-2003 - right? That didn't happen either. Worst case scenario UAL is sold to CAL for 10 cents on the dollar and the Obama Government approves it to preserve jobs in Illinois...
It is sad. I remember when UAL was really the place to be....I think the pilots there are next to NONE. I have been treated with nothing but respect when riding the jumpseat with them, by far the best experiences I have had are riding with them, or them riding with me. I do think though, that things need to turn around or end, this industry puts itself in turmoil sometimes. It think another United bailout would only hurt the industry not help. Its sad that it has come to this. We can all think Tilton for this.
Another United bailout? Uh, unlike some carriers, UAL did not get the ATSB loan. Went through bk just like everyone else except AMR....CAL(2),DAL,NWA,AAA(2). I don't know what you mean by bailout.
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
