Business History Books » Business Plans » American Airlines Hires Bankruptcy Lawyers
American Airlines Hires Bankruptcy Lawyers
Question:
Uh, my dear, Southwest is the tenth largest airline–ranked by revenue passenger miles, the most objective measurement–in the WORLD. What is so magical about international routes? It has absolutely nothing to do wit overall size. If you prefer to read into my posts your own interpretations that is your prerogative but I think you understand what I mean. I explained my reasoning on another post. Another poster also explained a part of it: >Because one would expect an airline that flies > internationally to charge higher to cover the > hogher cost of flying internationally.
Do the words "higher cost of flying internationally" mean anything to you? My point, to reiterate, is that I think they put themselves in debt by charging those cheapie $200 and under fares to Europe during off season and spend the rest of the year trying to make up for it and they can’t! This is not the "only" reason they are in debt but to me it does not help the problem. Mary
Response:
> Apples and Oranges!! How can you compare these little interstate > airlines to the majors who have to consider costs for flying > internationally.
Because one would expect an airline that flies internationally to charge higher to cover the hogher cost of flying internationally. Laker Airways seemed to be one of the first low cost airlines, and they flew international.
Response:
>And when you consider Southwest, Westjet, > Jetblue etc, it does seem quite possible to > have profitable airline. > Apples and Oranges!! How can you compare these little interstate > airlines to the majors who have to consider costs for flying > internationally. Your peewees just stay on this side of the Pond! > They also don’t have to incur costs and/or fees for having their ticket > counters, gates, terminals and employees all over he world.
May very well be true … but why should US domestic passengers bear the cost of a ticket counter in Sydney or Munich or the added costs of ETOPS? Shouldn’t just the international passengers pay for those things? Right now it looks like bankrupt airlines (ie USAir) are trying to lose a lot on each ticket and make it up in quantity. $260 RT East Coast USA to England – plus fees/taxes. I count that as less than 4 cents per mile, about 1/3-rd of US’s former seat-mile costs. That little interstate airline called Southwest has many more mainline departures each day than some "biggies" like United. As you say, they just don’t go as far nor have as many seat-miles per day. However they do it with one major type of plane instead of United’s six. But isn’t the fuel consumed in the climb an important cost, as well as gates, ticketing, etc, etc, and these can be amortized over more miles on an international flight?
Response:
> >And when you consider Southwest, Westjet, > Jetblue etc, it does seem quite possible to > have profitable airline. > Apples and Oranges!! How can you compare these little interstate > airlines to the majors who have to consider costs for flying > internationally. Your peewees just stay on this side of the Pond!
Uh, my dear, Southwest is the tenth largest airline–ranked by revenue passenger miles, the most objective measurement–in the WORLD. What is so magical about international routes? It has absolutely nothing to do wit overall size.
Response:
> Whoa! You obviously are not very good at reading financial statements. > These are revenue numbers. They are not earnings.
During a time when airlines are cutting expenses, costs, salaries etc, you would *expect* that an increase in revenus combined with reduced costs, would yield better profitability (or less deficit). Now, if expenses increases more than revenus, making the financial situation worse, then one must ask where the increases came from. Does reducing your schedule, retiring planes actually increase your expenses (in the short term) ?
Response:
>And when you consider Southwest, Westjet, > Jetblue etc, it does seem quite possible to > have profitable airline.
Apples and Oranges!! How can you compare these little interstate airlines to the majors who have to consider costs for flying internationally. Your peewees just stay on this side of the Pond! They also don’t have to incur costs and/or fees for having their ticket counters, gates, terminals and employees all over he world. Mary
Response:
> A revealing, almost shocking fact about AMR (and the airlines in general) > AMR’s retained earnings (money that it has made since the inception of the > company net of dividends paid to shareholders) is only $500 million.
IIRC, the airline industry as a whole, does not have an overall profit since it started. Perhaps if you adjusted for inflation it would look a little better, but the bottom line is that the airlines have been a loss-making public service, and overall not a profitable business. We should thank their donors (investors / lenders). The old saying: "It has generally been true that the way to make a small fortune is to have a large fortune and then buy an airline."
Response:
> IIRC, the airline industry as a whole, does not have an overall profit since > it started.
But if you include all the profits made by the leasing companies, perhaps they would be profitable. And when you consider Southwest, Westjet, Jetblue etc, it does seem quite possible to have profitable airline.
Response:
> No wonder AMR is hiring bankruptcy attorneys. According to this link > on the parent company website > (http://www.amrcorp.com/news/january03/22_4qfinancial.htm), it looks > as if they did more business in 2002 but made less money somehow. I’m > not exactly sure how that’s possible but here’s what I read: > Revenue passenger miles (millions) 121,747 in 2002, 120,606 in 2001, > 0.9% increase > but– > American Airlines made: $14.4 Billion in 2002, $15.7 Billion in 2001 > (8.5% decrease)
Whoa! You obviously are not very good at reading financial statements. These are revenue numbers. They are not earnings. The fact is that AMR, the consolidated company of which AA is the primary operating unit, LOST $2.0 billion and $1.7 billion from operations in 2002 and 2001. It only made $1.4 billion in 2000 and 1999 combined. In otherwords, in two years, AA has wiped out probably 5 years of earnings. At Sept 30, the airline had $7.2B of obligations coming due over the next twelve months and only $6.0B in current assets from which to pay for them (not to mention whatever pension deficiency they might have caused by further erosion of the stock markets.) That would not be a problem if AA were making money, but it is losing a ton, hence it is a big problem. A revealing, almost shocking fact about AMR (and the airlines in general) AMR’s retained earnings (money that it has made since the inception of the company net of dividends paid to shareholders) is only $500 million. One more quarter like Q4 2002, and one could say the company never made a dime……. Tough, tough business The following is the text of an AMR press release that was filed with the SEC last week as a material event: Item 5. Other Events AMR Corporation (the Company) is filing herewith a press release issued on January 22, 2003 by the Company as Exhibit 99.1 which is included herein. This press release was issued to report the Company’s fourth quarter and full year 2002 earnings. Item 7. Financial Statements and Exhibits The following exhibits are included herein: 99.1 Press Release SIGNATURE Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized. AMR CORPORATION /s/ Charles D. MarLett Charles D. MarLett Corporate Secretary Dated: January 22, 2003 EXHIBIT INDEX Exhibit Description 99.1 Press Release Exhibit 99.1 Contact: Corporate Communications Fort Worth, Texas 817-967-1577 FOR RELEASE: Wednesday, Jan. 22, 2003 Editor’s Note: A live Webcast reporting fourth-quarter results will be broadcast on the Internet on Jan. 22 at 2 p.m. EST. (Windows Media player required for viewing.) AMR REPORTS FOURTH QUARTER LOSS OF $529 MILLION FORT WORTH, Texas – Consistent with expectations, AMR Corporation, the parent company of American Airlines, Inc., today reported a fourth quarter net loss of $529 million, or $3.39 per share. This compares with last year’s fourth quarter net loss of $734 million before special items, and $798 million — $5.17 per share — after special items. For full year 2002, AMR reported a net loss of $2.0 billion before special items, and $3.5 billion — $22.57 per share — after special items. For 2001, the Company reported a net loss of $1.4 billion before special items, and $1.8 billion — or $11.43 per share — after special items. "Clearly, results such as the ones we reported today are unsustainable," said Don Carty, AMR’s chairman and chief executive officer. "While there are many factors that impacted our results during 2002, including a sluggish economy, high fuel prices, lingering concerns over terrorism and the possibility of a war in the Middle East, the core issue for our Company remains a cost structure that is out of step with the revenue environment facing domestic airlines. As we’ve been discussing with our employees, we believe that a permanent shift has occurred in the airline revenue environment which will require us to reduce our annual costs by at least four billion dollars." Carty continued, "The people of American have made tremendous strides to reduce our operating costs by de-peaking our Chicago and Dallas/Ft. Worth hubs, simplifying our fleet, automating customer ticketing and check-in functions, as well as a host of other programs designed to reduce our long-term structural costs. These incredibly significant efforts have resulted in a permanent annual savings of two billion dollars. Nonetheless, we still have a very big challenge in front of us to achieve our four billion cost- reduction target." While American continues to modify its operations to be more competitive with low-fare carriers, Carty acknowledged that the future of the Company cannot be assured until ways are found to lower significantly its labor and other costs. Carty noted that American started talks with all of its labor unions in October and that those discussions continue with both the unions and their respective financial advisors. Carty stressed that, to put the Company on a sustainable footing and for its continued survival, American must move quickly to reduce its labor costs significantly in conjunction with its broader cost-reduction program. Citing the tremendous challenges that the people of American have overcome during its 75-year history, Carty remains optimistic that solutions can be found to the problems confronting American. However, he acknowledges that, "it remains a treacherous time for our Company." As the Company faces its challenges, Carty said, it draws strength from its operational performance and the quality of its customer service. He noted that American’s on-time dependability and the percentage of flights completed each day are at or near the top of the industry. At the same time, customer satisfaction ratings are among the best in years as employees on the ground and in the air continue to focus on the needs of passengers and shippers. "Our people remain our greatest asset," Carty said. Lastly, the Company will record a significant minimum pension liability at year end, driving an approximate $1.1 billion charge to equity. This minimum pension liability will reflect the amount that the Company’s pension plans’ accumulated benefit obligation at Dec. 31, 2002 exceeded the plans’ assets at that date. Looking forward, the Company said it had specific loan covenants related to more than $800 million of its debt that it would seek to renegotiate in order to remain in compliance with the terms of the borrowing beyond June 30, 2003. American cannot be certain, but it believes it will be successful in obtaining a modification or waiver of these covenants on acceptable terms. AMR will host a conference call with the financial community from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. EST today. During this call, AMR will review details of its fourth quarter and full-year 2002 results, revenue and cost performance, balance sheet and liquidity positions, capital market financings and related contingencies, tax status, labor update (including the status of labor discussion), impacts from industry restructurings and provide an outlook for the first quarter and full-year 2003. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Did they arrive at that number before or after subtracting expenses? > AA did decrease almost all their expenses except for aircraft rentals, > wages/salaries/benefits (which went up 4.5%). > I can appreciate their wanting to definitely do something about labor > costs, seeing that number. I’m not an accountant so these numbers are > little confusing to me, does anybody have some more insight to shed on > this issue? > It is nice to know they lost $205 Million less this quarter than they > did last quarter. > Dairenn Lombard > Los Angeles, CA
Response:
> >I don’t know, perhaps something called > "supply and demand". If they can get enough > people to pay $1000 for a ticket, why would > the sell it to Joe Blow for $500? > It looks to me like the "supply and demand" tactic isn’t working too > well since the airlines are threatening bankruptcy. They may have the > "supply" but the "demand" part seems out of whack and their profit > margins are suffering. I still think my idea might work better in the > long term if they gave it a try. > BTW, my contention is that they are selling it to Joe Blow for certain > seasons at way under $500 and that is why they are suffering.
But.. you are suggesting they increase the low prices and decrease the high prices, correct? Let’s split the difference. In the off peak, Joe can get a ticket for $500 In the peak, Joe needs to pay $1000 for the ticket. Let’s assume a 50/50 season split and Joe can only afford (or only wants to pay) $500 for the ticket. So, how much money do they get from Joe Blow if they increase the lowest fares? If the average cost to an airline is $600 to transport people across the ocean, they actually make money by selling some seats at $500. It is due to fixed costs vs incremental costs. Obviously, it cost only fractionally more to carry 101 passengers than 102 passengers on a plane with 120 seats. The one extra person is only going to require a slight increase in fuel, and maybe food and beverage costs. The airline will still need the same number of pilots to fly the plane and flight attendants in the back. The loan payments for the plane will still be the same, etc… Maximizing revenue doesn’t automatically give them a profit. But, if reduces the loses. The airline goal is to maximize revenue. This is the same as some hotels charging more money on NYE. Or selling hotel rooms in Palm Springs cheaper in the summer due to the heat. Lowering the price bring in more people during the slow periods. Since peak season has higher passenger loads, airlines can charge more and people will still pay it. Why do you feel that charging more in busier times and less in none busy times is causing the airlines to be worse off than if they kept fares the same all of the time? Do you understand why rental car companies give weekend discounts
Response:
>FWIW, I won the Dow Jones Award at my > college in 1985. It goes to the most > outstanding economic’s student at a > univerisity.
Wow! What are YOU doing wasting your time bickering with a housewife on RTA? You should be at a table with Allen Greenspender and George Bush and teach them how to save our rotten economy problems, in my opinion. I can go you one better than your Dow Jones Award. I once took a $3.00 Economics Course at a local church years ago and did wonders for my family with my knowledge. So there! I also have awards on my wall but am too modest to brag about them on the internet. It’s enough that "I" know how awesome I am. I don’t need others to know too. Now….back to the airlines. A,B,C……It’s easy for me to see. If it costs me $3.00 to make a pie, I am NOT going to sell it for $1.00. I need to figure out a way to get people to buy it for at least $4.50 all year long! So I make the best pie on the market and buy good advertising (factored into my profit margin). I am not going to allow myself to be in debt for one part of the year while I sell them for $1.00 because my profits for the rest of the year will not go into my bank account but to pay my debtors. I DON’T BELIEVE IN DEBT!!! Maybe the airlines need to take that $3 course I took. But first they have to learn how to give people a product they will yearn to use again at affordable prices. You can’t convince me any airline can make a profit taking even a loaded plane to Europe from US for $200 fares. If they "can" then it means they are intentionally "robbing" us the rest of the year with those $900 fares. BTW, don’t mean to belittle your award because I truly admire anyone who takes the time to study economics and congratulate you for your award. However, I am sure the people who helped run our economy into the mud have all kinds of awards to their credit but they just never understood my "pie theory" so look at the state of disaray we are in today. I would never run my home like the government handles it’s finances. But thanks to my $3 course, I saw this coming years ago and made a decision to protect my family as best I could. I do hope you did as well since you won that award and must have seen it coming too. Sorry folks if this seems OT but "he" started it! Mary
Response:
> I don’t know, perhaps something called "supply and demand".
But then again, that’s common sense to people who don’t use quotation marks for "every" other "word". ;) Dairenn Lombard Los Angeles, CA
Response:
> >Why do you feel that charging more in busier > times and less in none busy times is causing > the airlines to be worse off than if they kept > fares the same all of the time? > It doesn’t matter what I understand. If your theory is plausible and in > a good economic environment, it "should" work, then why isn’t it > working for the airlines?
Do you consider this a "good economic environment"? If it was "a good economic environment", why do you suppose the Fed made all of those interest rate cuts, and there is ANOTHER big tax cut plan underway. This is at least the second Bush plan and he has only been in office for 2 years. Note: I am not saying it is his fault, just disagreeing with the condition the economy situation the poster above commented on. Your most recent reply indicates the problem isn’t just because of pricing. However, you prior post indicated you thought pricing cost them to lose money. Again, can you please explain how keeping the same price during on and off peak periods is going to get them more money? As in my example, if Joe Blow only wants to pay $500 to get to Europe, and is willing to travel during off peak to do it, how will raising the fare to an amount more than he is willing to pay going to help the airline? Let’s say the plane holds 100 people and the cost of transporting all of them is $40000. Let’s say all of them are willing to pay $500. So, the airline will make $10000 from the flight at $500 each. Now, let’s make the fare $750 all year long and only 1/2 of the people will pay $750 to fly to Europe in the winter. Lets assume cost of flying the people drops to $35000 since there are fewer people. Now, the airline will collect $37500. So, it will only make $2500. Additionally, when demand is great and flights are fuller, how is decreasing the peak season price going to get the airline more money? In my example, peak season flights cost $1000. Since you want the same price year round, we will make it $750. During the peak season, 100 people are willing to pay $1000. However, you are now selling tickets for less than are willing to pay, so they will be more than happy to take the discount since they had previously were willing to pay $1000. In this example, the airline just gave up $250 times 100, or $25000, in lost revenue. Maybe you can provide an example of how a constant year round fare will help them make more money. In the meantime, you might want to enroll in ECON 101. FWIW, I won the Dow Jones Award at my college in 1985. It goes to the most outstanding economic’s student at a univerisity. To make money, the airlines must maximize income and minimize expenses. That is why having a lower price structure is needed to make money. If you notice, Southwest’s costs are a lot lower than those of the airlines that have been losing money. However, to do this, lower salaries or a smaller workforce might be needed. Maybe someone should let the unions know.
Response:
>Why do you feel that charging more in busier > times and less in none busy times is causing > the airlines to be worse off than if they kept > fares the same all of the time?
It doesn’t matter what I understand. If your theory is plausible and in a good economic environment, it "should" work, then why isn’t it working for the airlines? But to be honest, their problems aren’t just because of their pricing, it has a lot to do with how unsatisfactory flying has become in general since 9/11, IMO. It used to be such a joy to go to the airports and now so many, like myself, just dread it because we don’t know what we may encounter. Yet there will always be a necessity for airlines to get us to places much faster than we can get to in cars, trains etc. So…..in my opinion, though some may whither away, certain stronger companies will always be there to take us where we need to go. For this, I will be grateful since I do love to fly. Mary
Response:
>I don’t know, perhaps something called > "supply and demand". If they can get enough > people to pay $1000 for a ticket, why would > the sell it to Joe Blow for $500?
It looks to me like the "supply and demand" tactic isn’t working too well since the airlines are threatening bankruptcy. They may have the "supply" but the "demand" part seems out of whack and their profit margins are suffering. I still think my idea might work better in the long term if they gave it a try. BTW, my contention is that they are selling it to Joe Blow for certain seasons at way under $500 and that is why they are suffering. Doesn’t anyone who works for the airlines know what it really costs to transport passengers across the Pond? So add a bit of a profit margin to their costs and come up with a decent price and stick by it all year. They play their price war games with us and it is coming back to bite them in their "tails". Mary
Response:
> It’s very easy to see why these airlines are going bankrupt even though > people are still flying, IMO. They fill their planes for a certain part > of the year with these ridiculous "cheapo" fares (and believe you me "I" > like them as well as anyone else) then for another so called "high" > season they price them (especially internationally) out of the range of > your average Joe Blow. Why don’t they instead, IMO, come up with a FAIR > price to fly ALL YEAR and we pay the same and don’t have to play these > horrible "see if you can catch a low fare" game with them.
I don’t know, perhaps something called "supply and demand". If they can get enough people to pay $1000 for a ticket, why would the sell it to Joe Blow for $500? Think of it like an auction. Say there is one unique item that 10 people would like to own. One of them is going to be willing to pay more for it than the others. Some items might only have one person interested (off peak), so the price is going to end up lower since there is no competition among buyers.
Response:
> (http://www.amrcorp.com/news/january03/22_4qfinancial.htm), it looks > as if they did more business in 2002 but made less money somehow. I’m > not exactly sure how that’s possible but here’s what I read:
Consider that in 2001, airlines were effectively shutdown for a week or two. And after that, very slow to regain business. consider that prior to 9-11, the airlines were already losing money due to low yields. So it is not very difficult to imagine 2002 being better than 2001, but still losing much money. Also, from a paper point of view, they probably wrote off many things in 2002 that they didn’t have time to do in 2001, making 2002 still unprofitable. Remember that immediatly post 9-11, UA’s then chairman stated that bankrupcy of UAL was very likely. He was shot for saying this and quickly replaced, At the time, it was thought that things could/would quickly return to normal. So Airlines didn’t start taking drastic measures until later.
Response:
It’s very easy to see why these airlines are going bankrupt even though people are still flying, IMO. They fill their planes for a certain part of the year with these ridiculous "cheapo" fares (and believe you me "I" like them as well as anyone else) then for another so called "high" season they price them (especially internationally) out of the range of your average Joe Blow. Why don’t they instead, IMO, come up with a FAIR price to fly ALL YEAR and we pay the same and don’t have to play these horrible "see if you can catch a low fare" game with them. I think if they would come up with a reasonable fare without trying to stick it to us, those who want to fly will fill their planes all year long and they won’t be suffering trying to survive on $200 fares to Europe during low season. I don’t give a hoot about competition just as long as I feel the airlines are charging me a "fair" price to get where I want to go. Frankly, I prefer certain carriers and I will still chose them even if another airline is low-balling their price. They need to redo their pricing structure on all fares including those sky high fares to businesses who have to book at the last minute sometimes. Just my thoughts and if anyone disagrees with me, I would appreciate your keeping your nasty remarks to responding via this "uncensored" group and not sending me personal emails. Unless you want to compliment me for my wisdom.<g Mary
Response:
No wonder AMR is hiring bankruptcy attorneys. According to this link on the parent company website (http://www.amrcorp.com/news/january03/22_4qfinancial.htm), it looks as if they did more business in 2002 but made less money somehow. I’m not exactly sure how that’s possible but here’s what I read: Revenue passenger miles (millions) 121,747 in 2002, 120,606 in 2001, 0.9% increase but– American Airlines made: $14.4 Billion in 2002, $15.7 Billion in 2001 (8.5% decrease) Did they arrive at that number before or after subtracting expenses? AA did decrease almost all their expenses except for aircraft rentals, wages/salaries/benefits (which went up 4.5%). I can appreciate their wanting to definitely do something about labor costs, seeing that number. I’m not an accountant so these numbers are little confusing to me, does anybody have some more insight to shed on this issue? It is nice to know they lost $205 Million less this quarter than they did last quarter. Dairenn Lombard Los Angeles, CA
Response:
>CHICAGO (Reuters) – More major U.S. airlines, including the world’s >largest, American Airlines, have hired bankruptcy lawyers in the face >of an unprecedented downturn as war with Iraq looms, sources familiar >with the matter said on Tuesday.
Woohoo! "America Blue", here we come. Alan Gore | is like giving whiskey and car keys Software For PC’s, Inc. | to teenaged boys" – P. J. O’Rourke http://www.alangore.com
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> [ snip ] >>> In his 4 years at the white house, Bush Jr will have cause at >>> least 10 years of very high anger against the USA, unless the >>> idiot tones dowb his rethoric and troup movements ASAP. >>The UN’s Annan disagrees with you. He states that the military >>pressure on Iraq is what got the inspectors back in and wants >>pressure to continue. I posted a direct quote on this a few weeks >>ago. >>Now, if you want to USA-bash or Dubya-bash, and it isn’t very hard, >>get good material! There’s plenty out there! >>I’m still waiting for your data on how Dubya didn’t kow that US >><–> Canada trade is orders of magnitude more than US <–> Japan >>trade. The numbers available from the US Government, which I >>posted, don’t support your bash. Of course, I have no way of >>knowing if they cooked the books or not, just to give me material >>for this Usenet post. It could be another vast wrong-wing >>conspiracy! >>Perhaps you can go into a rant about the 20+ years that Saddam was >>in charge and > 1,000,000 deaths, while deciding to attack at least >>three countries. Does that result in "very high anger?" >>I’d say that > 1,000,000 deaths is worse than "rhetoric and troop >>movements." But what do I know? I’m just a typical "dumb >>American." > There is no justification for Bush to invade Iraq. Iraq is no > threat to our national security. >I made no comment about whether there is or is not justification to >invade Iraq. Please read carefully.
Well, how about getting off the fence? Exactly what IS your opinion on: US invading Iraq? Bush new foreign policy doctrine of pre-emptive strikes? Apparently you have no well thought out position on the "big picture". John – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->There was also no justification for Iraq’s invasions which left > >1,000,000 dead. > Bush has defined his foreign policy as one of making pre-emptive > strikes against any country that may be a threat to the USA. >Like he did against Osama? >Saddam has defined his foreign policy by invading and attacking >countries that weren’t a threat against him, leaving over 1,000,000 >dead, using weapons of mass destruction and targetting civilians. > [ rant snipped ] >My point was stated clearly: > I’d say that > 1,000,000 deaths is worse than "rhetoric > and troop movements." But what do I know? I’m just > a typical "dumb American." >Perhaps you think rhetoric and troop movements are worse then having >over 1,000,000 dead. You are entitled to your opinion.
Response:
> largest, American Airlines, have hired bankruptcy lawyers in the face > of an unprecedented downturn as war with Iraq looms, sources familiar > with the matter said on Tuesday.
read: American is about to start asking for major concessions from unions, and if they refuse, AA will go into bankrupcy to force those concessions. It isn’t the war on Irak that will kill the USA airlines, it will be the backlash from the rest of world, especially the angry arabs who will threathen increased terrorist actions against the USA that will scare the bejesus out of americans. In his 4 years at the white house, Bush Jr will have cause at least 10 years of very high anger against the USA, unless the idiot tones dowb his rethoric and troup movements ASAP.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > [ snip ] > In his 4 years at the white house, Bush Jr will have cause at least > 10 years of very high anger against the USA, unless the idiot tones > dowb his rethoric and troup movements ASAP. >The UN’s Annan disagrees with you. He states that the military pressure >on Iraq is what got the inspectors back in and wants pressure to >continue. I posted a direct quote on this a few weeks ago. >Now, if you want to USA-bash or Dubya-bash, and it isn’t very hard, get >good material! There’s plenty out there! >I’m still waiting for your data on how Dubya didn’t kow that US <–> >Canada trade is orders of magnitude more than US <–> Japan trade. The >numbers available from the US Government, which I posted, don’t support >your bash. Of course, I have no way of knowing if they cooked the books >or not, just to give me material for this Usenet post. It could be >another vast wrong-wing conspiracy! >Perhaps you can go into a rant about the 20+ years that Saddam was in >charge and > 1,000,000 deaths, while deciding to attack at least three >countries. Does that result in "very high anger?" >I’d say that > 1,000,000 deaths is worse than "rhetoric and troop >movements." But what do I know? I’m just a typical "dumb American."
There is no justification for Bush to invade Iraq. Iraq is no threat to our national security. Bush has defined his foreign policy as one of making pre-emptive strikes against any country that may be a threat to the USA. If he wants to invade a country to make a "regime change" then that is covered under the new policy. Bush fancies himself as the "new Roman Emperor". Bush has defined his "axis of evil" and I guess he is going to try to take them out one at a time. It is interesting to see how Bush is reacting to the North Korea threat which is a more dangerous threat than Iraq. He decides to invade Iraq because they are an easy pushover and they have oil. He knows that North Korea is a tougher threat and Bush can not deal with North Korea militarily at this time especially if South Korea and Japan are attacked. They say that the North Korean leader is a madman and meglomaniac. I would say he is pretty clever. He listens to the rhetoric of Bush and figures this SOB is going to make a pre-emptive strike at my country sooner or later. He then figures that he will arm up with nuclear bombs and, even though his country would be bombed to hell, he intends to fight to the end. I believe that is why he is trying to arrange for a non-aggression pact with the US. John John
Response:
Reuters Major Airlines Hire Bankruptcy Lawyers Tuesday January 21, 2:26 pm ET By Kathy Fieweger CHICAGO (Reuters) – More major U.S. airlines, including the world’s largest, American Airlines, have hired bankruptcy lawyers in the face of an unprecedented downturn as war with Iraq looms, sources familiar with the matter said on Tuesday. The sources said the hiring of various firms does not necessarily mean that the airlines are preparing imminent bankruptcy filings. But it signals they are keeping options open as billions of dollars in industry losses continue since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks threw the industry into an unprecedented financial crisis. UAL Corp. (NYSE:UAL – News), parent of United Airlines, and US Airways Group Inc. (OTC BB:UAWGQ.OB – News) filed for bankruptcy last year, after lagging revenue and high costs drained their cash. Both airlines are using the bankruptcy process to sharply cut costs with union employees, change work rules and restructure aircraft leases. Analysts and airline executives say that will leave competitors at a serious disadvantage. Also, as United and US Airways restructure, sources said competing carriers wishing to purchase any assets that might come up for sale during a court-mediated reorganization would also require bankruptcy advice for that purpose. Wall Street estimates the major U.S. carriers lost between $8 billion and $10 billion in 2002, levels which cannot be sustained for long. American, a unit of Dallas-based AMR Corp. (NYSE:AMR – News), has retained lawyers Marcia Goldstein and Martin Bienenstock at its long-time legal adviser Weil Gotshal & Manges, sources said. The law firm partners were not immediately available to comment. Harvey Miller, the former well-known head of the bankruptcy group at Weil Gotshal, has also been retained as an adviser to American from his current banking firm of Greenhill & Co., several sources said. Miller was not immediately available to comment. Also said to have hired bankruptcy attorneys for various purposes were Continental Airlines (NYSE:CAL – News) and America West Holdings Corp. (NYSE:AWA – News) A source familiar with the matter said Delta Air Lines Inc. (NYSE:DAL – News) and Northwest Airlines Corp. (NasdaqNM:NWAC – News) were also "shopping around." PRUDENT MOVE Tim Doke, a spokesman for American, declined to comment on whether AMR had retained either firm, but noted that the airline had a long-standing legal relationship with the Weil Gotshal law firm. "With a third of the airline industry in bankruptcy and the prospect of war with Iraq…it would be imprudent of any airline not to be exploring all of its options," Doke said. America West spokeswoman Patty Nowack said the Phoenix-based carrier had retained Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom back in the fall of 2001 and continues to consult with their attorneys from time to time. America West was the first major U.S. airline to win backing from the federal government for backing of private sector loans. US Airways also won conditional approval but United was denied its bid for backing of $1.8 billion in loans. Continental spokesman Dave Messing declined to comment on what firms if any may have been hired. Shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the airline’s outspoken chief executive, Gordon Bethune, had predicted imminent bankruptcy at the Houston-based carrier without immediate aid from the federal government. At one point in 2002, Continental was predicting a return to profitability. But in the spring, a nascent industry recovery evaporated and Continental last week said it did not expect profits in 2003. In a recent research report, Merrill Lynch analyst Michael Linenberg noted that the most of the industry is very highly leveraged already. "The industry’s average debt/total capitalization ratio is 90 percent, similar to where it was in the early 1990s and high versus most other industries," he said. Other than United and US Air, Linenberg listed Northwest and America West as having the highest debt-to-cap ratios of 107 percent and 96 percent as of September, 2002. AMR’s ratio was listed at 90 percent and Continental, at 91 percent.