from Slate's news summary:
>The Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, USA Today, and Wall
Street Journal biz-box all lead with a federal panel's rejection
of United Airlines' request for $1.8 billion in loan guarantees.
The decision means that United, the world's second-largest
airline, will almost certainly have to file for bankruptcy. The
panel said that United's problems were of its own making and that
execs still didn't have a workable business plan. If and when
United does file for Chapter 11, it will probably be able to keep
most of its planes flying. <
does anyone know what UAL's business plan was? what was wrong with it? it didn't call for enough wage cuts?
------------------------
Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
- [PEN-L:32785] applied cost benefit analysis, Michael Perelman Thu 05 Dec 2002, 18:16 GMT
- [PEN-L:32782] IMF Loan Conditions for Nicaragua Require Privatization Measures That Would Enrich Corporations at the Expense of People], Eugene Coyle Thu 05 Dec 2002, 17:16 GMT
- [PEN-L:32781] Why Venezuela's Middle Class (for the most part) Opposes Chavez, Yoshie Furuhashi Thu 05 Dec 2002, 17:14 GMT
- [PEN-L:32780] Re: Counting the poor, F G Thu 05 Dec 2002, 16:51 GMT
- [PEN-L:32779] FW: today's papers: Crash Landing?, Devine, James Thu 05 Dec 2002, 16:30 GMT
- [PEN-L:32783] Re: FW: today's papers: Crash Landing?, Dan Scanlan Thu 05 Dec 2002, 18:07 GMT
- [PEN-L:32784] Re: Re: FW: today's papers: Crash Landing?, Michael Perelman Thu 05 Dec 2002, 18:14 GMT
- [PEN-L:32788] Re: Re: FW: today's papers: Crash Landing?, Eugene Coyle Thu 05 Dec 2002, 18:19 GMT
- [PEN-L:32789] Re: Re: Re: FW: today's papers: Crash Landing?, Michael Perelman Thu 05 Dec 2002, 18:24 GMT