Employees got (or now have) around 55% of the shares -- soon to be worth little, in that previous bailout. They also got three seats on the Board. Yeah, you have to wonder what the govt agenda is. Previously (last year?) they turned down the attempted merger of United with another big carrier. Also turned down the merger of Northwest and Continental.
If the industry stays "unregulated" -- and the Bushies won't go back to regulating anything -- then they have to permit a tighter oligopoly. They are in internal conflict -- interesting to watch.
Gene Coyle
does anyone know what UAL's business plan was? what was wrong with it? it didn't call for enough wage cuts?
Another question: What is the gov't's agendda. Wasn't United Airlines taken over by its employees in a previous fianancial scramble? Or was that another airline?
Dan Scanlan
- [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
- [PEN-L:32795] Re: Re: Re: FW: today's papers: Crash Landing?, Doug Henwood Thu 05 Dec 2002, 18:41 GMT
- [PEN-L:32796] Re: Re: Re: Re: FW: today's papers: Crash Landing?, Eugene Coyle Thu 05 Dec 2002, 18:52 GMT
- [PEN-L:32797] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FW: today's papers: Crash Landing?, Michael Perelman Thu 05 Dec 2002, 19:00 GMT