United (Airlines) says liquidation a "possibility"

MSNBC ^ | March 18, 2003 | Reuters

[discostu]

Any organization that is against merit based raises will eventually destroy the business it's in. And basing salary on length of employment is bad for workers too, in short order they're trapped in their current company because leaving would involve a massive reduction of pay. All around unions are bad, back when they were fighting against things like physical abuse of the workers they were good, but they've long since lost their purpose and now are a massive albotross on the American economy.

[Snerfling]

their long term problem is runaway labor costs, and low productivity. In other words, the unions.

That's an easy prediction to make my friend. ANY distortion to basic market forces will eventually result in the market correcting such distortions, even if it takes 20 years.

[Alberta's Child]

You might want to take a look at how many of these "airport authorities" are set up, especially in areas where local governments that rely heavily on property tax revenue are often shafted when it comes to airport property.

There are a few cases in the U.S. where major airports have been offered for sale to private operators (fully private, that is), and my understanding is that the response has been underwhelming to say the least. If that ain't a sign that airports operate at a loss, then I don't know what is.

[leadpenny]

UAL stock is down 10% this AM. Now at 76 cents.

Here is the UAL Message board via Yahoo! Depressing!

http://messages.yahoo.com/?action=q&board=UAL

[Alberta's Child]

I'm not sure of any specific case that can be made for "airline negligence" related to 9/11, but all the signs are there. Anyone who accepted the Federal government's offer of compensation for victims' families was first required to sign a waiver in which they agreed to release the airlines of all liability. If there was no liability to begin with, then there would have been no need for this waiver.

Also, it's worth noting that the creation of the Federal airport security agency had absolutely nothing to do with improving the security at the airports. It was done simply to remove the whole security aspect of airline travel from the responsibility of the airline, and place it under the authority of a Federal agency that cannot be sued in the event a catastrophe similar to 9/11 occurs in the future.

[dfwgator]

I am just a ole boy from Mississippi so will someone please tell me how a business can NOT make a profit for years and years and years and still stay in business? Doesn't work that way for us here in Mississippi.

It's called "socialism."

[Arkie2]

The terrorists who boarded those flights complied with all current rules about what could be carried onboard at that time. The crews of those aircraft complied with all training as to how they should handle a hijack at that time. 9/11 was a watershed event. Nothing before that date prepared anyone for what happened. 20/20 vision in hindsight is a wonderful thing. It males those who use it feel smarter. Kind of like monday morning quarterbacking and arm chair generaling it has a long and not so illustrious history ( in hindsight, that is ).

[Alberta's Child]

Oh, I don't dispute that. I'm just wondering why the waiver was necessary if the airlines did nothing wrong.

Keep in mind, though, that "complying with all current rules" is no defense anymore. Last year's General Electric environmental clean-up case in upstate New York put an end to all that. GE is being forced to pay the costs of a massive clean-up even though the facility in question met all EPA regulations at the time it was being operated and was shut down in the 1970s as soon as the EPA implemented new, stricter standards that the plant could not meet.

[Arkie2]

Maybe that's more an indication of a broken judicial system than it is an indication of culpability on the part of anyone. What are we supposed to do? Use crystal balls to see what the trial lawyers are coming up with next week, next year, or next decade?

[Alberta's Child]

You're absolutely right.

But when the U.S. government throws a pile of taxpayer money to a group of people like at the same time it indemnifies a particular industry against civil lawsuits, I think it is same to say that the industry in question no longer exists -- it has effectively become nothing more than a public utility.

[Timesink]

The LAT/WP agreement does not require all items coming from www.msnbc.com to be excerpted. ONLY Newsweek and Washington Post items reprinted on msnbc.com need to be excerpted. This, however, is a standard-issue Reuters article that could have been ripped from any of dozens of sites.

[biblewonk]

ping. Way worse than Ford.

[Timesink]

Well, I see the lunatic fringe is out at FR again.

*falls over laughing* You said little boy. I post a regular Reuters article about United's problems, and you claim it's a tinfoil vanity. Would it make you happier if I posted the Wall Street Journal article? Or are you simply a United Airlines/union goon plant?

Feel free to come join us over here on Earth anytime.

[Arkie2]

Any article on airline problems here at FR is an open invitation to union bashers to pile on. The fact I got that lick in early doesn't obviate that fact. Call it preemption if you will. If you doubt my word read any post here on airlines. I don't work for United and never applied to them because I detest their hiring practices. Lucky for me I didn't. Have a nice day.

[Beck_isright]

"Please explain how anyone was negligent at United or American re: 9/11? You're digging pretty deep to make a nonexistent point."

The CEO and COO are ultimately responsible. The corporations which run the airlines in question, AMR and UAL refused to listen to the security advisories and reccomendations of the FAA. It was an ongonig feud from 1998 since the (God this makes me ill to type this) Gore Commission advised what needed to be done to upgrade airport security. Security up to 9-11 was the responsibility of the airlines, period. They blew it, they should be liable. They deserve to be sued out of existence or worse. Now enough of this subject, it's mindless and moot since UAL will probably cease to exist and that's a good thing since other carriers will pick up the slack.