![]() |
Originally Posted by cadetdrivr
(Post 1390451)
Hint: you are already losing the argument. ;)
(Specifically in reference to the UAL orders for 50 widebody aircraft with purchase rights for another 100.) |
Originally Posted by routemap
(Post 1390472)
I thought they were ordered in 2010, thanks.
|
Originally Posted by routemap
(Post 1390449)
According to CAL's pre hearing statement, United lost 7.8 billion from 2000 to 2010. While CAL earned 1.0 billion.
Compared to UAL, our fleet was modern and we had airframes on order. What did UAL have on order at the end of 2009? I believe nothing. We might of been at a dead heat in 2008 and 2009 financially, but our airlines were headed in different directions as pointed out in our statement. and I completely agree, good to get this behind us! In the long run, i think this merger will benefit all of us. As long as our so very talented senior managers don't screw it up. |
Originally Posted by gettinbumped
(Post 1390587)
You sort of contradict yourself here IMO. By bringing up the financial performance of UAL vs CAL in 2000-2010, you point out that UAL had a TERRIBLE time from 2001-2007. Then you acknowledge that UAL and CAL were in a dead heat financially in 2008-2009 (UAL outperformed CAL in 2010). But then you say the airlines were headed in different directions at the time of the merger. That logic seems to say that UAL had bottomed out in the middle of the decade and was on a decidedly UPWARD trgaectory, while CAL avoided the big curve but was relatively flat in comparison. From 2008-2010 saw dramatic upward trending of UAL's performance with a very bright looking future indeed. The financials back that up
UNITED, THEY FALL (INTO DEBT) By JOSH KOSMAN Last Updated: 3:51 PM, June 30, 2009 United Airlines is having its own version of the trip from hell. The airline, reeling from a decline in customers and running short on cash, is paying a steep 17 percent interest on $175 million in debt it issued, leading analysts to bet the company is just a few steps from the grave. Indeed, that interest rate represents a full 6 percentage points above where rival airlines have paid in recent debt raisings, and is more than double what it paid nine years ago when it sold $186.4 million in debt at a yield of slightly more than 8 percent, according to Bloomberg data. United Airlines parent UAL was planning to sell the debt at a 12.75 percent interest, but was forced to sweeten things due to both a lack of investor interest and management desperation, said analyst Roger King of CreditSights. Others have noted that the steep interest rate reflects a lack of desirable assets to use as collateral. UAL is considered the laggard among the big airlines, even as the airlines' overall passenger demand is off 10 percent compared with last summer. Also, the company has just $2.5 billion of cash on hand, compared with Delta, which has $7 billion. To be sure, it's a difficult time for all airlines. However, UAL has some unique challenges. When it was in bankruptcy from 2002 through 2006, it focused on attracting premium customers -- a move that now leaves it vulnerable given there's less business travel and more consumers are favoring price over luxury when it comes to travel. Making matters worse, UAL may have near-term liquidity issues, and could begin to get squeezed by credit-card companies that fret they'd have to refund customers who bought tickets out of their own pockets if UAL collapses. King said UAL is now in talks with American Express about reaching a new arrangement to address this threat. Last week, the airline announced it would lay off another 600 flight attendants in the fall. King said the company has basically already made about all the cuts it can. |
Originally Posted by cadetdrivr
(Post 1390451)
Hint: you are already losing the argument. ;)
(Specifically in reference to the UAL orders for 50 widebody aircraft with purchase rights for another 100.) I can go order a new Mercedes tomorrow, but at some point I gotta pony up the $$$ |
Originally Posted by Sunvox
(Post 1390427)
If you are serious and want to argue numbers,I will be very happy to do so, but I will preface that I have an MBA from Dartmouth College
And yet you weren't smart enough to stay out of this industry?:p Seriously though, I'll put yer Dartmouth up against a certain CEO's Harvard whatever. We all see how much thats helped. |
Originally Posted by Speedtape
(Post 1390610)
Were those aircraft financed in any way ? I remember seeing something about how it was a paper order to dress things up for any merger.
I can go order a new Mercedes tomorrow, but at some point I gotta pony up the $$$ FWIW, here's what CAL had to say about financing its "firm" orders in 2009: "We have backstop financing available for the three other Boeing 737 aircraft scheduled for delivery in 2010, subject to customary closing conditions. However, we do not have backstop financing or any other financing currently in place for the balance of the Boeing aircraft on order. Further financing will be needed to satisfy our capital commitments for our firm order aircraft and other related capital expenditures. " - Source: Continental Airlines 2009 Annual Report (p. 22) |
Originally Posted by Scott Stoops
(Post 1389719)
My opinion doesn't count either, but I think you really should read up on the process, and actually read the opening letters.
There is no possible way that you can effectively merge Cap with Cap and F/O with F/O in the manner that I think you're advocating. The process agreement ensures that no pilot on either independent list will move ahead of the next adjacent pilot on said list regardless of what seat they actually hold currently. There will be no shuffling of the individual lists. I believe the LCAL opener is advocating merging Cap to Cap, etc in a slotting scheme that respects the individual lists. IMHO, this is a very unlikely outcome as it completely disregards ALPA merger policy (the components of which were basically left unmentioned in the LCal opening letter). Even before changes to ALPA merger policy after the Nic award (which is a major reset of ALPA merger policy), all of the most recent mergers included a slotting scheme that respected differences between aircraft brought to the merger. |
Originally Posted by vspeed
(Post 1390154)
Agreed! They are both interesting reads
|
Originally Posted by gofastmopar
(Post 1390764)
It probably means that UAL brings "x" number of captain slots to the table and CAL brings "y"....regardless of who they may be. And that the numbers are just that. A pilot who chose to delay an upgrade to keep QOL will not be punished.
UAL brings far more Captain positions as well as far more widebody flying. This means that there will be more United pilots by far that occupy the top half of the seniority list and more CAL pilots in the bottom half. Its not the fault of United pilots that pilots at CAL chose to pass up Captain, while at United, more pilots didn't pass up the position. Its also a result of only have a couple pilot bases, and larger bases are more likely to have position bidding variability. Smaller bases are more likely to have position bidding efficiency. UAL having multiple bases around the US means less commuters and more pilots willing to be on reserve. Plus the much better reserve rules make it easier to upgrade as soon as possible instead of what happened at CAL. I think the arbitrator is going to see right through that one. It would be ironic if the lousy work rules at CAL (which is what caused lineholding FOs to not bid Captain) ended up benefitting them. It would also be ironic if CAL pilots having super bases in undesirable cities ended up benefitting them, as they lateral and bid out to decent places to live. Stick to the merger policy.... Longevity (when was the pilot hired) Status and Category (how many of each type of aircraft were brought) Career Expectations (what equipment pilots would end up on) The rest is folly and speculation. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:31 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands