|
Originally Posted by DogHead
(Post 10573351)
UA could have posted much lower losses if over $0.5M wasn't thrown at lobbying activities.
And 0.5M would not have resulted in "much" lower losses - maybe "slightly" lower, but investment in the future is important for anyone planning to survive, so was probably well worth it. |
Originally Posted by DogHead
(Post 10573351)
UA could have posted much lower losses if over $0.5M wasn't thrown at lobbying activities. :rolleyes:
"United Airlines spent $550,000 lobbying during the third quarter on energy issues, passenger rights legislation and more, according to a disclosure form filed this week." Full story: http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/...ap5601765.html |
Originally Posted by ryan182
(Post 10573390)
... You think lobbying about energy costs, when clearly fuel (energy) is their greatest cost is a waste? Interesting ...
OTOH I think that time has come for airlines to pay taxes on fuel, like everybody else. Most interesting from our (pax) point of view should be passenger bill of rights. Of course UA as a customer oriented organization is lobbying in favour. ;) |
Originally Posted by DogHead
(Post 10573587)
I never said it's a waste, but large portion of Q3 loss.
|
Originally Posted by DogHead
(Post 10573587)
I never said it's a waste, but large portion of Q3 loss.
OTOH I think that time has come for airlines to pay taxes on fuel, like everybody else. Most interesting from our (pax) point of view should be passenger bill of rights. Of course UA as a customer oriented organization is lobbying in favour. ;) You may note that UA does have to pay taxes on fuel, as jet fuel is taxed in the US. The tax is much higher for general aviation fuel than for jet fuel, though, as commercial airlines only pay 4.4 cents / gallon compared to the 21.9 cents/gallon on general aviation. There was/is a bill in the Senate to remove the tax on commercial aviation, possibly due to concerns about competing with the untaxed European airlines. I do not believe that the tax is paid on fuel used for international flights, though, but I could be wrong. |
Today, more bad news for UAL due to falling oil prices:
UAL collateral on fuel hedges rises to almost $1B Tuesday November 25, 1:18 pm ET By Joshua Freed, AP Airlines Writer United Airlines collateral on fuel hedges rises to almost $1B; credit card agreement reworked MINNEAPOLIS (AP) -- Falling oil prices have forced United Airlines to put up hundreds of million of dollars in new collateral on fuel hedges that have turned against it, and on Tuesday it said it had re-worked a credit card agreement to reduce penalties if its cash balance falls. Based on Tuesday's oil price of around $51 per barrel, United would have to put up some $990 million in collateral, according to a formula for its fuel hedges that it disclosed on Tuesday. By comparison, as of Sept. 30, it had $378 million in cash deposits held by people on the other side of its bet that fuel prices would keep rising. When falling oil prices threaten the liquidity of a company, the world has surely turned upside down. |
Originally Posted by FWAAA
(Post 10811923)
Today, more bad news for UAL due to falling oil prices:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081125/united_hedging.html?.v=1 When falling oil prices threaten the liquidity of a company, the world has surely turned upside down. They have puts covering 92% of Nov and Dec exposure at $60 barrel and 57% of 2009 exposure at $54 barrel. So its not all bad nor is it really "more bad news" just about everyone knew that all airlines are taking a bath on fuel hedging right now already, the question now is what to do about it. Buying puts to protect against further falling oil prices is about the only thing one can do. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 2:17 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.