Sure. But if you're in Denver, I guarantee you that you will have more options flying UAL than you will flying AMR. Care to debate that point? Can you even debate that point?

Thanks for the referral, Tom 911.

As far as I know, 1Ks and 1Ps are allowed to check-in three pieces of luggage on all domestic and International *A flights.

AndrewM

Golds on United can check three bags. You get lifetime gold at 1MM (only flight mileage counts as opposed to all mileage on AA). Only America West and Northwest allow free standby now. If you don't get your upgrade you are stuck in E+ which has greater seat pitch than mrtc. While they remain 747's. No MD80's and no F100's.

For me, a key consideration is who flies two aisle aircrafts on the routes I take. For a long time, United flew 777 on LAX- Miami (on one of the two daily flights), which made it my airline of choice on that route. Now it's 767, still pretty good. When it becomes two 757 or Airbuses, then I'll probably switch to AA, which has NS to Ft. Lauderdale with no Sat nite stay requirement for deep discounted coach.

As far as leg room, for me the issue is more often elbow room (width is my problem). So while AA has more legroom in the back, the fewer seats mean that you are more likely to have someone next to you, no?

You may be right, but you also might be wrong. I do not have a crystal ball, but neither do you. One adverse effct of banckruptcy is the potential for the airline to have to sell off some of its more desireable parts like Pan Am did just to survive the next few months or years, like Pacific division or LHR slots. It CAN happen!

Selling profitable assets makes no sense. USAirways hasn't sold off their shuttle, have they? So why would UAL sell off those routes?

A bankruptcy filing will likely result in a lot of folks with leases and bonds getting a lot less money than they anticipated. But I don't think smart management would sell off routes that are profitable.

Also, I still maintain that you will have a hell of a lot more options in Denver on even a UAL that's operating under chapter 11 than you will on an AMR that's cutting routes.

[This message has been edited by mdtony (edited 12-05-2002).]

Selling profitable routes IMHO would be the beginning of the end for UA. Actually it would be very difficult and timely to do so, due to the international agreements governing those traffic rights. Many stipulations with the countries involved are now in place which were not in the days, when PANAM and TWA were selling off their jewels. This pertains especially to LHR slots and the Pacific/NRT routes.

Because a bankruptcy court could conclude that would be the best way to pay off the creditors, even if it weakened the company.

If this is the case, then why does USAirways still have the Shuttle going? The best way for the creditors to get repaid is for the company to emerge from bankruptcy stronger and solvent. Selling off assets that profit to the company is a sure way to make sure it doesn't happen.

First, I said the court could do so.

Secondly, the fact that Pan Am did choose to sell its Pacific routes means it does happen.

first of all, bankruptcy should not hinder your decisions on flying the airline...

second, if you live in DEN...then choosing AA will be very inconvinent for you...so stick with UA and see what happens.

Pan Am didn't have the cash to make payroll. They had to sell the only routes they could in order to raise cash. UA has plenty of cash -- both on hand and with their new debter-in-possession financing.

Pan Am sold the Pacific Routes but were trying to sell the whole thing, and UA strung them along.

The current model is for UA to recover and rebuild. That will mean cutting unprofitable routes and maintaining profitable ones.

I doubt they're looking at massive asset-sales. At least, not yet.

If they fail to turn the company around and make a profit, then it will come time to liquidate in order to satisfy creditors. But that's a long way off.

UA has less than 2 months worth of cash, as their on-hand cash is down to <$1B and their burn rate has increased. The DIP financing will be contingency on the court and creditors approving UA's plan.

It's a pretty big assumption to claim that the creditors will go along with what UA want. They're not out to reconstruct UA - they're out to gain maximum benefits. If the creditors think they are more likely recoup their investment by crippling UA, they will do it.

From a strict business perspective, UA is not worth reconstructing because of the history of employee animosity. You'd need brand new management and new employee attitude - neither which is forthcoming. Strictly by the numbers, UA should be in Ch. 7 liquidation and not Ch. 11. Same goes for USAir.

The next 60 days will give the answers to many of these questions. Yes it is going to be an uphill battle and you take your chances either way you turn. Some things to think about. They will shrink and will sell off unprofitable routes. Less destination choices. But then again these were the routes not making money because people were not flying there. If they can achieve new contracts with the unions then this will improve relationship with the unions. It will be better than UAL going to the court and saying these contracts are too high, Please disolve them. The union will be gone and having to start from scratch. Not good for union relationship. The next 2 months will tell.

------------------
When in doubt www.PlaneFriends.com