Ooops

[lagilman]

Shares of United Airlines lost nearly all their value Monday morning when a false rumor swept financial markets that the struggling carrier had filed for bankruptcy protection.

United’s stock fell 76 percent to $3 before trading was halted at 11:08 a.m. Trading resumed at 12:30 p.m. and shares closed down $1.49, or 12.1 percent, to $10.92, on a volume of 54.6 million shares.

A United spokeswoman, Jean Medina, denied the bankruptcy rumor. The circumstances surrounding the rumor were still being sorted out Monday afternoon. In a statement, United said the rumor occurred when the Web site of The Sun-Sentinel, a Florida newspaper, posted a six-year-old article from The Chicago Tribune archives about United’s previous bankruptcy filing. The airline operated under bankruptcy protection from 2002 through 2006.

Anyone else get a chill at reading that? I mean, anyone who isn't a UA shareholder?

Nice to know some of the safeguards installed post-Great Crash are still working...

Meanwhile:

"LONDON (AP) — Three men were convicted Monday of conspiracy to murder in a terrorist bombing campaign, but the jury could not reach a verdict on allegations they plotted to use liquid explosives to down trans-Atlantic airliners.

The jury failed to reach any verdict at all for four defendants, and one man was acquitted in a case that caused travel chaos in 2006 at the height of the summer vacation season. Prosecutors said they were considering a retrial."

Since these were the bastids that made the "3oz liquid carry-on" restriction, thereby reducing my ability to bring home wine from various locations, I was hoping they'd get the book slammed down on them. *grumble*

EtA:

Holeeee fkcu.

"Speaking before voters in Colorado Springs, the Republican vice presidential nominee claimed that lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had 'gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers.'

Okay, I'll be the first to admit that Fannie and Freddie make my head hurt, not being a Financial Wonk, but, um, what part of "privately held" did she not understand? Lady, I don't expect you to be a Financial Wonk either. But you are clearly in need of some remedial financial vocabulary lessons.... (eta to the eta: yes, I know it's going to cost the taxpayers [us] to bail them out, and the squealing you hear are the shareholders getting sheared. But neither of those things = "too expensive to the taxpayers" as a reason for the companies to fail. The companies failed because too many of their holdings [the mortgages they bought from banks] were suddenly worthless or close to it [and first person to ask me to define 'tranches' is going to see a grown meerkat cry.])

Comments

[lagilman]

The shmucks who gave them the excuse are just as liable for kicking as the shmucks who took the excuse. Incompetence, like stupidity is no excuse in the face of the law -- or an annoyed air traveler.

[vee-ecks.livejournal.com]

Incompetence, like stupidity is no excuse in the face of the law

Like I said, that charge hasn't held up in court at all, so I'm not even sure it's true, at this point.* And there certainly is no real reason to ban liquids on airplanes, so I think I'll give like 99% of the liability to the authorities who decided to do so, anyway.

*The Brits, remember, used traces of common household cleaners and whatnot to spin a story about Irish bomb makers and put a bunch of completely innocent people in prison for terrorism over that a few decades back.

[lagilman]

Yes, I know. I am still Cranky, and railing at the airline people just gets me Put on Lists.

[vee-ecks.livejournal.com]

I feel your pain. I almost got us thrown out of the airport and maybe arrested or something, the first time I flew after that crap went into effect. We both had to throw stuff we needed out, because we'd forgotten, and that produced one of those rare moments of "Don't Care, I am GOING OFF" that could have ended a lot worse if the TSA employee had been slightly less patient or bored or tired or whatever.