Bankrupt United Begs for More Time
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Bankrupt United Begs for More Time
United Asks Judge for Extension
Reorganization Plan Won't Be Ready Until Late Summer, Carrier Says
By Keith L. Alexander
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 19, 2004; Page E03
UAL Corp.'s United Airlines yesterday asked a bankruptcy court judge for more time to complete its reorganization, saying it needs an additional two months or so to shore up its pension plan and get a response on its bid for federal loan guarantees.
In the filing, which United attorneys plan to officially present at a hearing in Chicago today, United said it plans to emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings late this summer, as opposed to June 30. U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Eugene C. Wedoff must give his approval for United to keep the exclusive right to file a reorganization plan until the end of June. That period expires April 8.
It's the second time United has requested an extension. After the airline filed for bankruptcy in December 2002, it said it planned to emerge within a year. But the airline later sought more time, saying it would instead emerge by the June date.
The extra two months or so would give the airline the time it needs to "complete its restructuring methodically and systematically, rather then emerge prematurely," United said in the filing yesterday.
The airline is wrestling with how to fund its $4.1 billion employee pension plan, an obstacle that could prevent the Air Transportation Stabilization Board from granting the airline's request for a $1.6 billion loan guarantee.
The airline is also requesting more time to reorganize because ATSB officials are still at least a month or so away from making their decision, sources close to the board said recently.
"One key assumption is that Congress will enact pension relief legislation," the airline said in its filing. The airline said it was unlikely, however, that Congress would enact such legislation before the airline's next scheduled hearing on April 16.
As it has extended its stay in bankruptcy, United has faced another obstacle -- sharply rising prices for jet fuel, an airline's second largest cost after labor. Rising oil prices have pushed fuel prices above $1 a gallon in some areas. Two years ago, the price was below 70 cents.
Extended bankruptcy, said airline analyst Ray Neidl of Blaylock & Partners, could put United at risk of alienating its creditors. "Creditors start getting antsy when a company stays in bankruptcy too long," Neidl said.
While in bankruptcy, the airline has been able to cut about $2.5 billion in annual costs, largely in employee wages and benefits. Still, the airline lost $2.8 billion last year.
United has lined up several lenders, including J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Citigroup Inc., to provide $2 billion in exit financing, contingent on getting the loan guarantee package.
United is still trying to reduce the size of its fleet by negotiating with aircraft leaseholders. And the airline still must finalize a plan for replacing Atlantic Coast Airlines as its United Express affiliate at its Dulles International Airport hub.
Atlantic Coast plans to sever its relationship with United and transform itself into a low-cost, low-fare carrier called Independence Air later this summer. Atlantic Coast has asked the bankruptcy court to force United to officially reject its contract within the next 90 days.
As part of its increased battle with low-cost carriers, United yesterday said it plans to reinstate nonstop service between Dulles and Sacramento, Calif. The airline eliminated the route during its downsizing after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Last week, JetBlue Airways announced it was initiating its own nonstop between the two cities for an introductory fare of $99 each way. Both airlines also added their third nonstop flights from Dulles to Oakland, Calif.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Mar18.html
Reorganization Plan Won't Be Ready Until Late Summer, Carrier Says
By Keith L. Alexander
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 19, 2004; Page E03
UAL Corp.'s United Airlines yesterday asked a bankruptcy court judge for more time to complete its reorganization, saying it needs an additional two months or so to shore up its pension plan and get a response on its bid for federal loan guarantees.
In the filing, which United attorneys plan to officially present at a hearing in Chicago today, United said it plans to emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings late this summer, as opposed to June 30. U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Eugene C. Wedoff must give his approval for United to keep the exclusive right to file a reorganization plan until the end of June. That period expires April 8.
It's the second time United has requested an extension. After the airline filed for bankruptcy in December 2002, it said it planned to emerge within a year. But the airline later sought more time, saying it would instead emerge by the June date.
The extra two months or so would give the airline the time it needs to "complete its restructuring methodically and systematically, rather then emerge prematurely," United said in the filing yesterday.
The airline is wrestling with how to fund its $4.1 billion employee pension plan, an obstacle that could prevent the Air Transportation Stabilization Board from granting the airline's request for a $1.6 billion loan guarantee.
The airline is also requesting more time to reorganize because ATSB officials are still at least a month or so away from making their decision, sources close to the board said recently.
"One key assumption is that Congress will enact pension relief legislation," the airline said in its filing. The airline said it was unlikely, however, that Congress would enact such legislation before the airline's next scheduled hearing on April 16.
As it has extended its stay in bankruptcy, United has faced another obstacle -- sharply rising prices for jet fuel, an airline's second largest cost after labor. Rising oil prices have pushed fuel prices above $1 a gallon in some areas. Two years ago, the price was below 70 cents.
Extended bankruptcy, said airline analyst Ray Neidl of Blaylock & Partners, could put United at risk of alienating its creditors. "Creditors start getting antsy when a company stays in bankruptcy too long," Neidl said.
While in bankruptcy, the airline has been able to cut about $2.5 billion in annual costs, largely in employee wages and benefits. Still, the airline lost $2.8 billion last year.
United has lined up several lenders, including J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Citigroup Inc., to provide $2 billion in exit financing, contingent on getting the loan guarantee package.
United is still trying to reduce the size of its fleet by negotiating with aircraft leaseholders. And the airline still must finalize a plan for replacing Atlantic Coast Airlines as its United Express affiliate at its Dulles International Airport hub.
Atlantic Coast plans to sever its relationship with United and transform itself into a low-cost, low-fare carrier called Independence Air later this summer. Atlantic Coast has asked the bankruptcy court to force United to officially reject its contract within the next 90 days.
As part of its increased battle with low-cost carriers, United yesterday said it plans to reinstate nonstop service between Dulles and Sacramento, Calif. The airline eliminated the route during its downsizing after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Last week, JetBlue Airways announced it was initiating its own nonstop between the two cities for an introductory fare of $99 each way. Both airlines also added their third nonstop flights from Dulles to Oakland, Calif.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Mar18.html
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO, UAL needs to do two things to have a reasonable chance of success...
downsize the fleet (and especially get rid of the remaining B747's
and
reduce their payroll burden..ie: reduce salaries much further.
As the pilots are still rather well paid, they need to take the hit, big time. And this goes for management as well...large cut in pay there also.
downsize the fleet (and especially get rid of the remaining B747's
and
reduce their payroll burden..ie: reduce salaries much further.
As the pilots are still rather well paid, they need to take the hit, big time. And this goes for management as well...large cut in pay there also.
Thanks for the update Airbubba.
It is hard to imagine how many familys' security depend on not only United's but also USAirway's survival-never mind the thousands of careers. I remember what an America West 757 Captain told me years ago when they were in serious trouble-"I just put one foot in front of the other".
411A: It is encouraging to read that you recommend that both mgmt and labor take the pay cuts, however hard it is to keep certain mgmt. people onboard in stormy seas. To me, it is refreshing to see various people acknowledge that the pain needs to be spread around, and not just focused on any one group, which should include leaseholders, fuel, catering services. As a matter of fact, at one large US airline, two of the major stockholders reportedly lease Airbus aircraft back to the operation, not just sell de-icing fluid and catering services etc to the company-these two guys make loads of money, even if their stock never goes back to its original "purchase" value. Woops!
Which reminds me, thinking of the major pay cuts at American, just how many dollar$ did AMR give to buy back its own "American Airlines" stock years ago? Over a billion? That profit must have come from many hundred$ of full flights, if not many thou$and$.
It is hard to imagine how many familys' security depend on not only United's but also USAirway's survival-never mind the thousands of careers. I remember what an America West 757 Captain told me years ago when they were in serious trouble-"I just put one foot in front of the other".
411A: It is encouraging to read that you recommend that both mgmt and labor take the pay cuts, however hard it is to keep certain mgmt. people onboard in stormy seas. To me, it is refreshing to see various people acknowledge that the pain needs to be spread around, and not just focused on any one group, which should include leaseholders, fuel, catering services. As a matter of fact, at one large US airline, two of the major stockholders reportedly lease Airbus aircraft back to the operation, not just sell de-icing fluid and catering services etc to the company-these two guys make loads of money, even if their stock never goes back to its original "purchase" value. Woops!
Which reminds me, thinking of the major pay cuts at American, just how many dollar$ did AMR give to buy back its own "American Airlines" stock years ago? Over a billion? That profit must have come from many hundred$ of full flights, if not many thou$and$.
Last edited by Ignition Override; 20th Mar 2004 at 03:41.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hope you guys in the States sort yourself out soon. Allowing bankrupt airlines to fly the atlantic is slowly killing our solvent airlines like BA and Virgin with unfair competition. In Britain, bankrupt airlines don't fly - they've blown it. You only fly if you are solvent, or for very short priods (a few weeks) under administration and only for those parts of the business that are profitable in their own right and capable of being immediately sold as a going concern to new owners.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fiftyfour
You are absolutely right concerning unfair competition. United's administration is basically protectionism but do think George W will let them go under in an election year?
Having said that I wish all the employees at United well.
Having said that I wish all the employees at United well.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: West
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought they needed to increase revenue
411 wrote: "IMHO, UAL needs to do two things to have a reasonable chance of success...
downsize the fleet (and especially get rid of the remaining B747's
and
reduce their payroll burden.."
downsize the fleet (and especially get rid of the remaining B747's
and
reduce their payroll burden.."
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
................and stop wasting money on a new paint job. Duh.
Why on earth must all the solvent European carriers compete against these bankrupt dinosaurs.
Everytime I hear the inane babble on 123.45 I want to shout.
Rant over, I'm off to the pub.
Why on earth must all the solvent European carriers compete against these bankrupt dinosaurs.
Everytime I hear the inane babble on 123.45 I want to shout.
Rant over, I'm off to the pub.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO, UAL needs to do two things to have a reasonable chance of success... downsize the fleet (and especially get rid of the remaining B747's
UA did get rid of the 727's, and I think the diversity of their current fleet is not superflous but does meet the route requirements of the many different markets UA serves. UA seems to be making good strides to getting out of bankruptcy and I know first hand that the UA today is a far different UA from that pre-September 11... A lot of the employee's were complacent and not customer focused, focusing more on their industry leading contracts. Times have changed, and while (as with every airline) some of the dinosaurs remain, most of UA's staff realise now more than ever that their future depends on their ability to be a much leaner, efficient and far more customer focused airline. When you see Purser's walking through the aisle thanking every F class customer one by one and by name for their business, when you see ramp and ground agents really working for on time perfomance, UA has achieved some of the highest on time performance and reliability stats recently, yes some argue that's because of schedule padding, but it's no more prevalent at UA than AA, NW, DL et al...
The concerns about the US carriers being able to operate in Chapter 11 (and how unfair that is to BA et al.) are valid, but this is not a United issue so much as a North America wide issue, many other US carriers have been in and out of Chapter 11, north of the border Air Canada is presently operating under the Canadian Chapter 11 equivalent...
Also, some would argue that many of the European carriers (if not BA) have been propped up by their governments for centuries, the 'State Funded European Flag Carrier' syndrome is only now starting to end with the EU stamping out the government handouts to their ailing airlines in favour of fair competition. Just look at Iberia.
Things are far from rosy at UA. But their has been a step change with Glenn Tilton at the helm and with the attitudes of the workforce, and I hope UA will rise again.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Pompano Beach,FL- USA
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well...It is intersting that a lot of people have all of the solutions,but they really aren't practical ones.
The labor costs at UAL and some airlines ARE higher than at others. That's because UAL is a safe, good place to work and has a good training program and a Frequent Flyer Program and lots more.
In terms of competing against other while in bankruptcy, UAL and others are hardly undercutting others. The criticism by a handful of you across the pond (aaparently) should be directed at the bargain basement guys who run the prices down.
But you can't really blame them either post 9/11 and with a week economy. People need to work and need a job.
I don't think UAL has started fare wars. They may match some,but they aren't the reason fares are low.
I forgot to comment on a fw other things.
United had 44 747-400s and went down to about 22. They are using about 33 or so now in full schedule and others will not come back and have been sold.
I was a victim of the 747-400 situation before I retired and am in Vero Beach at a 400 Captain's house today who still flies.
In terms of downsizing...DUH. this has already been done. I think the 555 airplanes is now down below 400 and the number of employees has declined from about 103,000 to about 60,000. I know because I was one of them.
The pay has also fallen some 45% and the shaky pension plan was also downsized and that's why I left.
I don't think anybody at UAL needs to feel anything other than proud for the work they do and the pay they receive.
The labor costs at UAL and some airlines ARE higher than at others. That's because UAL is a safe, good place to work and has a good training program and a Frequent Flyer Program and lots more.
In terms of competing against other while in bankruptcy, UAL and others are hardly undercutting others. The criticism by a handful of you across the pond (aaparently) should be directed at the bargain basement guys who run the prices down.
But you can't really blame them either post 9/11 and with a week economy. People need to work and need a job.
I don't think UAL has started fare wars. They may match some,but they aren't the reason fares are low.
I forgot to comment on a fw other things.
United had 44 747-400s and went down to about 22. They are using about 33 or so now in full schedule and others will not come back and have been sold.
I was a victim of the 747-400 situation before I retired and am in Vero Beach at a 400 Captain's house today who still flies.
In terms of downsizing...DUH. this has already been done. I think the 555 airplanes is now down below 400 and the number of employees has declined from about 103,000 to about 60,000. I know because I was one of them.
The pay has also fallen some 45% and the shaky pension plan was also downsized and that's why I left.
I don't think anybody at UAL needs to feel anything other than proud for the work they do and the pay they receive.
YYC F/A: You made a point about the European Community's efforts at stamping out government funds to airlines; such subsidies have not happened for decades in the US. This is federal law.
I would like to point out a parallel here. It is very doubtful, is it not, that the EU will ever try to stamp out the huge stream of government funds to the civilian airliner manufacturing consortium which is known as Airbus?
Boeing has received contracts only for its military divisions (now including McDonnell-Douglas), and this has been the case for decades.
Maybe the fact that US airlines (I admit that overcapacity has always been a major industry weakness here) can often operate in and out of Chapter 11, is a way to allow a recovery, sort of like huge subsidies to a major manufacturer (i.e. Airbus), which prevents and immediate loss of jobs, and payment, in western Europe, of much better unemployment benefits than we have.
I posted this just before reading Mr. Mirabella's interesting comments. Strange coincidence.
Mr. Morehead clarified some things. Also, we airline employees made no decisions to commit our airlines to the 'wonderful' hub-and-spoke systems, which Southwest never relied upon. Our mgmts designed these condensed, very over-crowded, inefficient networks many years ago. Operating aircraft more hours a day, by one major definition, creates a low or lower-cost airline. Southwest crews seem to often fly the same plane for a few legs-we pack up, walk a while just to change planes almost every time we stop at a hub (about every second flight). This creates longer delays because an originating preflight is needed again at the next aircraft. Southwest FOs seem to rarely get out to do a walk-around, thereby saving much time.
I would like to point out a parallel here. It is very doubtful, is it not, that the EU will ever try to stamp out the huge stream of government funds to the civilian airliner manufacturing consortium which is known as Airbus?
Boeing has received contracts only for its military divisions (now including McDonnell-Douglas), and this has been the case for decades.
Maybe the fact that US airlines (I admit that overcapacity has always been a major industry weakness here) can often operate in and out of Chapter 11, is a way to allow a recovery, sort of like huge subsidies to a major manufacturer (i.e. Airbus), which prevents and immediate loss of jobs, and payment, in western Europe, of much better unemployment benefits than we have.
I posted this just before reading Mr. Mirabella's interesting comments. Strange coincidence.
Mr. Morehead clarified some things. Also, we airline employees made no decisions to commit our airlines to the 'wonderful' hub-and-spoke systems, which Southwest never relied upon. Our mgmts designed these condensed, very over-crowded, inefficient networks many years ago. Operating aircraft more hours a day, by one major definition, creates a low or lower-cost airline. Southwest crews seem to often fly the same plane for a few legs-we pack up, walk a while just to change planes almost every time we stop at a hub (about every second flight). This creates longer delays because an originating preflight is needed again at the next aircraft. Southwest FOs seem to rarely get out to do a walk-around, thereby saving much time.
Last edited by Ignition Override; 20th Mar 2004 at 04:13.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Ignition Override,
Without joining the debate on Airbus vs. Boeing vis a vis subsidies et al, I would point out that subsidising an aircraft manafacturer is not the same as propping up an airline. Not that I am saying that any given aircraft manafacturer is being subsidised and any given air carrier propped up, Ahem!
Many European carriers will buy the aircraft product that suits them best, and not just "Airbus 'cos it's European". British Airways' longhaul fleet is exclusively Boeing with not an A330/340 in sight.
But to get back to the topic of UA (and US carriers) competing against European carriers, I don't think there are any clear answers. I personally don't agree with some of those on here who believe that flat out the European carriers have the total raw deal here by having to compete against insolvent government propped up US carriers and that these (US) carriers need to go. I think the issue is more complex than that. But if we look at the situation today, September 11th did hit UA and AA, as well as other US carriers harder than the European carriers. So (leaving party politics out of it), while I also don't think that BA, LH, KL et al should have to compete on an unlevel playing field, I also feel that some slack should be given to UA (and all the US carriers) where appropriate. I guess that was the point of the ATSB loan guarantee programme...
September 11th did spark a bit of a chain reaction, but for UA and many of the majors, it was a wake up to reality check that made these carriers realise that they were operating inefficiently, often with poor management strategy, overpaid staff etc. This HAS changed at UA, as Jim points out, UA staff have already taken considerable pay hikes. I'm not familiar with left seat pay on the 744 at UA, but I can tell you that for the F/A and Cust Service staff, the wages recieved for the work done are at best modest, and certainly not exorbitant by any means.
I see both sides of the fence here, but to go back to UA, I would re-iterate that they have tens of thousands of hard working loyal employees who are trying hard to turn UA around, and yeah, UA still has a pile of crappy issues that need a giant sized pooper scooper. But they ARE a different carrier from the UA of 4 years ago, and I wish them all the very best as they go forward.
Without joining the debate on Airbus vs. Boeing vis a vis subsidies et al, I would point out that subsidising an aircraft manafacturer is not the same as propping up an airline. Not that I am saying that any given aircraft manafacturer is being subsidised and any given air carrier propped up, Ahem!
Many European carriers will buy the aircraft product that suits them best, and not just "Airbus 'cos it's European". British Airways' longhaul fleet is exclusively Boeing with not an A330/340 in sight.
But to get back to the topic of UA (and US carriers) competing against European carriers, I don't think there are any clear answers. I personally don't agree with some of those on here who believe that flat out the European carriers have the total raw deal here by having to compete against insolvent government propped up US carriers and that these (US) carriers need to go. I think the issue is more complex than that. But if we look at the situation today, September 11th did hit UA and AA, as well as other US carriers harder than the European carriers. So (leaving party politics out of it), while I also don't think that BA, LH, KL et al should have to compete on an unlevel playing field, I also feel that some slack should be given to UA (and all the US carriers) where appropriate. I guess that was the point of the ATSB loan guarantee programme...
September 11th did spark a bit of a chain reaction, but for UA and many of the majors, it was a wake up to reality check that made these carriers realise that they were operating inefficiently, often with poor management strategy, overpaid staff etc. This HAS changed at UA, as Jim points out, UA staff have already taken considerable pay hikes. I'm not familiar with left seat pay on the 744 at UA, but I can tell you that for the F/A and Cust Service staff, the wages recieved for the work done are at best modest, and certainly not exorbitant by any means.
I see both sides of the fence here, but to go back to UA, I would re-iterate that they have tens of thousands of hard working loyal employees who are trying hard to turn UA around, and yeah, UA still has a pile of crappy issues that need a giant sized pooper scooper. But they ARE a different carrier from the UA of 4 years ago, and I wish them all the very best as they go forward.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
More analysis from yesterday's Chicago Tribune:
...Industry observers noted that it is not unusual for a company that has filed for bankruptcy protection to take more time to reorganize than first expected. But prolonging Chapter 11 proceedings isn't a good sign, they added.
"It tells you they are having a hard time building a plan that will be OKd by their creditors," said Todd Pulvino, associate professor of finance at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management. "It tells you that their assets are probably worth less than they hoped."
United, which filed for bankruptcy protection in December 2002, is waging a fierce struggle against smaller, lower-cost airlines. Since that time the carrier has cut labor costs by $2.5 billion a year, reduced aircraft ownership costs by $900 million a year and dropped some unprofitable routes.
Some observers said United still has a ways to go.
"They need to cut $4 billion out of their cost structure," said Frank Werner, associate professor of finance at Fordham University.
Raising fares isn't a viable alternative because of the competition, Werner said...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...i-business-hed
...Industry observers noted that it is not unusual for a company that has filed for bankruptcy protection to take more time to reorganize than first expected. But prolonging Chapter 11 proceedings isn't a good sign, they added.
"It tells you they are having a hard time building a plan that will be OKd by their creditors," said Todd Pulvino, associate professor of finance at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management. "It tells you that their assets are probably worth less than they hoped."
United, which filed for bankruptcy protection in December 2002, is waging a fierce struggle against smaller, lower-cost airlines. Since that time the carrier has cut labor costs by $2.5 billion a year, reduced aircraft ownership costs by $900 million a year and dropped some unprofitable routes.
Some observers said United still has a ways to go.
"They need to cut $4 billion out of their cost structure," said Frank Werner, associate professor of finance at Fordham University.
Raising fares isn't a viable alternative because of the competition, Werner said...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...i-business-hed
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah 54 I agree.
But wait a minute, what about Air France? Olympic? even BA 10 years or so ago (maybe a little longer now) but you get the point,
In these cases instead of Chapter 11 you get some pretty odious government GRANTS, granted for no reason other than the airlines were screwed up.
So they got (or in olympic's case are getting) a complete "do over" which is far more lenient than the United states bankruptcy process.
So it aint quite that unlevel from one side of the atlantic to the other after all. Well whaddya know about that...
Cheers
Wino
But wait a minute, what about Air France? Olympic? even BA 10 years or so ago (maybe a little longer now) but you get the point,
In these cases instead of Chapter 11 you get some pretty odious government GRANTS, granted for no reason other than the airlines were screwed up.
So they got (or in olympic's case are getting) a complete "do over" which is far more lenient than the United states bankruptcy process.
So it aint quite that unlevel from one side of the atlantic to the other after all. Well whaddya know about that...
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: manchester
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
joseph mirabella- I had to laugh....
Boeing can't "compete" with airbus - because it has no tangible offerings. It's products simply can't compete with those of airbus. It's future (for civil airliners) is bleak.
Boeing can't "compete" with airbus - because it has no tangible offerings. It's products simply can't compete with those of airbus. It's future (for civil airliners) is bleak.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
>>I'm not familiar with left seat pay on the 744 at UA<<
Looks like it's $202.85 per credit hour (pretty much hard time in the current agreement) for a 12 year captain. Unlike with some expat schemes, the 12 years includes any FE or FO longevity under the U.S. system. Also, there is $7.00 an hour international pay and $10.50 an hour night pay if applicable.
Although these pay rates are low compared to Delta 777 ($319.61 an hour plus night and international pay starting May 1, 2004) and pre-911 UAL, they are still much higher than long haul competitors like Singapore or Cathay. In fact, the 12 year UAL 744 FO's still make more than many overseas 744 captains at $138.54 an hour (plus some night and international pay). ORD-NRT used to operate with three FO's, one was there to "plot" in Russian airspace.
Pay on the 777 is the same as the 744 pay under the current concessionary UAL agreement.
Looks like it's $202.85 per credit hour (pretty much hard time in the current agreement) for a 12 year captain. Unlike with some expat schemes, the 12 years includes any FE or FO longevity under the U.S. system. Also, there is $7.00 an hour international pay and $10.50 an hour night pay if applicable.
Although these pay rates are low compared to Delta 777 ($319.61 an hour plus night and international pay starting May 1, 2004) and pre-911 UAL, they are still much higher than long haul competitors like Singapore or Cathay. In fact, the 12 year UAL 744 FO's still make more than many overseas 744 captains at $138.54 an hour (plus some night and international pay). ORD-NRT used to operate with three FO's, one was there to "plot" in Russian airspace.
Pay on the 777 is the same as the 744 pay under the current concessionary UAL agreement.
Last edited by Airbubba; 20th Mar 2004 at 16:17.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How is United planning to survive?
It has just started this new lowcost outfit "Ted".
The start-up cost. The new paint job. Competing against itself. Paying UA pilot the same wage to fly "Ted" yet earn less revenue.
I don't get it.
It has just started this new lowcost outfit "Ted".
The start-up cost. The new paint job. Competing against itself. Paying UA pilot the same wage to fly "Ted" yet earn less revenue.
I don't get it.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: California, USA
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbubba,
<<<ORD-NRT used to operate with three FO's, one was there to "plot" in Russian airspace.>>>
In the interest of accuracy, US carriers are required to have one additional crewmember for flights over 8 hours and 2 additional crewmembers for flights over 12 hours. The Star Alliance flight schedule shows the Chicago to Tokyo flight time as being 13:15 hours.
Does your carrier work under different rules? Or is it a non US carrier?
<<<ORD-NRT used to operate with three FO's, one was there to "plot" in Russian airspace.>>>
In the interest of accuracy, US carriers are required to have one additional crewmember for flights over 8 hours and 2 additional crewmembers for flights over 12 hours. The Star Alliance flight schedule shows the Chicago to Tokyo flight time as being 13:15 hours.
Does your carrier work under different rules? Or is it a non US carrier?
Mr. Mirabella: These discussions seem easier if we separate ourselves from any connections to our native land or company, in a very detached manner-this can help a lot during an airline merger (!). Your name appears to have a pleasant connotation in Italian.
YYC F/A: You raised some very valid points. Airline subsidies (they would be nice!) instead of lgovt. loans, are much more direct than manufacturer subsidies. Very good rebuttal.
Would it be somewhat ironic if several US airlines operated numerous A-330s or 340s to Europe and/or Asia?
YYC F/A: You raised some very valid points. Airline subsidies (they would be nice!) instead of lgovt. loans, are much more direct than manufacturer subsidies. Very good rebuttal.
Would it be somewhat ironic if several US airlines operated numerous A-330s or 340s to Europe and/or Asia?