Originally Posted by L Dude 7
One difference is that UA actually remained in bankruptcy instead of rushing out and back in. By rushing out of BK, US management raised everyone's expectations that they were capable of running an airline. By going back in, they lowered expectations even further. Going Bankrupt is news. Staying there isn't.
True--but as of the end of the 2Q2004, US had lost about $140 million--not sure what it has done since then, but UA is predicting losses of $804 million this year. It expects a $725 million operating loss for 2005.
From purely financial perspective, UA is costing much more to the "public" than US by being in BK.
In reality the only difference in how people look at the two airline bankruptcies is the size of each airline.
When people theorize about a potential US liquidation, the question that comes up is
WHO will I fly on my next trip.
When people postulate on a possible UA liquidation, the question becomes
HOW will I travel on my next trip.
UA is benefiting from the current view of people (gov't, BK court, media, etc) that UA is too big to allow them to go under. That is the only thing that is keeping them afloat at this point.
..