AANOTOK
Veteran
- Oct 10, 2009
- 4,627
- 2,242
You guys are hearing a lot. The sources you must have.
American to keep Eagle's 2 billion plus debt
- Thread starter furp
- Start date
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #32
Attempting to deflect that AMR has not defaulted on its obligations completely overlooks the fact that AMR did exactly the same types of things that other carriers did -AMR just did them out of court. And the traditionally largest cut in airline bankruptcies comes from the employees and AA employees paid that price. Trying to pick out pieces of what AA has NOT done as if it is a trophy of victory to be held up is patently seen as the deception that it is by anyone that can engage in critical thinking. And in the case of outsourced maintenance, they are expanding what they are doing as we "speak"
But the real crux of the matter is that AMR hasn't turned the company around by staying out of BK. UA and US entered BK almost a decade ago; NW was the last carrier to leave BK and they did it almost 4 years ago... AMR mgmt has completely failed to adapt to the realities of the new business environment. Other companies have managed to do it.
.
But the bottom line is that AMR's strategy of sitting on the sidelines and doing nothing wasn't sustainable eight years ago and it isn't sustainable now. If AMR and AA actually had turned the company around, then they would surely be lauded for not filing for BK and shafting employees and everyone else in the process. But they haven't turned the company around and are on the verge of having to do what everyone else did years ago - and then subsequently turned their companies around.
.
AMR's moves with Eagle can only be viable if someone has to pay the same price that others paid in their restructuring... including the likely possibility that aircraft leases and or debt, some employee functions, and or the scope of what AA pilots have previously allowed are tossed out in terms of a clean sheet which is consistent with what other carriers allow.
If AA restructures w/o doing exactly the same thing other carriers do, then you can crow about what AA has accomplished. Continuing to argue about what AA hasn't done - and yet they are not a viable airline - only argues that they WILL have to do that eventually.
.
Union solidarity will go out the window in a restructuring when one group - typically the pilots - signs deals that throw other groups under the bus. Sadly, it has been done before in the industry - and there is no reason to believe it won't happen at AA/AMR too.
But the real crux of the matter is that AMR hasn't turned the company around by staying out of BK. UA and US entered BK almost a decade ago; NW was the last carrier to leave BK and they did it almost 4 years ago... AMR mgmt has completely failed to adapt to the realities of the new business environment. Other companies have managed to do it.
.
But the bottom line is that AMR's strategy of sitting on the sidelines and doing nothing wasn't sustainable eight years ago and it isn't sustainable now. If AMR and AA actually had turned the company around, then they would surely be lauded for not filing for BK and shafting employees and everyone else in the process. But they haven't turned the company around and are on the verge of having to do what everyone else did years ago - and then subsequently turned their companies around.
.
AMR's moves with Eagle can only be viable if someone has to pay the same price that others paid in their restructuring... including the likely possibility that aircraft leases and or debt, some employee functions, and or the scope of what AA pilots have previously allowed are tossed out in terms of a clean sheet which is consistent with what other carriers allow.
If AA restructures w/o doing exactly the same thing other carriers do, then you can crow about what AA has accomplished. Continuing to argue about what AA hasn't done - and yet they are not a viable airline - only argues that they WILL have to do that eventually.
.
Union solidarity will go out the window in a restructuring when one group - typically the pilots - signs deals that throw other groups under the bus. Sadly, it has been done before in the industry - and there is no reason to believe it won't happen at AA/AMR too.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #33
deleted - dupe
Frank Szabo
Veteran
In the case of AMR, there never has been any solidarity to speak of amongst the represented employees, rather, only the 'we've got ours' mentality coming from all three groups. All it takes is one non-player, as all three of American's unions have taken turns being over the years, and everyone remains pissed off at each other to the benefit of both the company and the 'big boys' of each union. It's become evident nothing of consequence is coming down the pike for anyone save the 6th floor Centrepork infestation so why not laugh at them?
Union solidarity has been seriously lacking since I hired on in 1990 - I can't speak of anything before then. I know every contract was a "sell out the newer guys for old fart favors", something that didn't happen after the assurances of a 70% passage rate on the failed TA. I was happy to see the people ARE getting some sense of unity about them. There are many things I'd like to have in a contract but not by making another worker pay for it.
We'll see what happens - my guess would be the company eventually "gives up" and grants some of our contract wishes knowing full well they'll be taken back during a BK filing.
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
You will be speaking a different tune after the BK filing leaves you and me looking for work in a 9.4% unemployment rate, the US debt rating lowered, Gold trading at all time highs, crime at all time highs, ect.
You have it pretty damn good right now, and AA was offering to allow you to keep it pretty good, plus a nice raise.
See you at the unemployment, and food stamp line. Then see at the personal Bankruptcy Judges room.
There is no rising sense of unity, there is just personal anger. The "I got mine" is still alive and well, while this union is more divided now than I have seen it 28 years.
My guess is you are dead wrong and you will soon wish you could return to "the good o'le days"
If you are 1990 seniority, you no doubt voted yes on the contract extension that gave you a 4 1/2 to 5 year top out in pay.
Pretty damn good pay while you work in area where workers wont file a grievance or complain because the Supervisor might "make everyone go to work" in retaliation. Working in area where children take smart phone photos of their turds and compare them in the break areas while making $30+ per hour.
Yeah we are really getting F'ed. :blink:
D
Deleted member 14439
Guest
Gee I must have missed the "nice raise" part. Was that the .82 cents they were so generously offerring?
Super FLUF
Senior
- Jun 10, 2011
- 313
- 206
I find it laughable that some on here are so SURE of an impending BK filing by AMR. Lots of talk about the "benefits" to management, but no mention of any negative consequences to this action. No mention of the changes to the BK laws several years ago, and how that would differ from the DL & NWA BKs. No mention of a self-financed pre-pack BK and the implications of that. No mention of the losses to management PUP stock. No mention of how labor's rights have changed in Ch. 11. No mention of how management would be scrutinized and have their hands tied by third party oversight. No mention of negative implications of borrowing ability. No mention of implications with our suppliers and vendors. No mention of political implications or involvement.
Filing BK and wringing a few million savings from labor could be a costly Pyrrhic "victory" for management. I don't see it happening.
Filing BK and wringing a few million savings from labor could be a costly Pyrrhic "victory" for management. I don't see it happening.
Frank Szabo
Veteran
I've brought up the "New" rules of 2005 numerous times. The problem is how would they be implemented? Nobody seems to know as a major airline with all its "under the table" dealings (mainly with unions) has not filed for Chapter 11 protection since - the last two were Delta and Northwest getting in under the wire to take advantage of the old laws.
Many things would change but it's not a certainty as to the "HOW" part even though I do believe management would be dragged though the proverbial knothole and lose all control over their piggy bank, as I've said before.
It may well be costly to management, but they still have the "before" times to reward themselves for jobs undone and file after the 90 day exclusionary period, keep their booty and get "hosed" (NOT) during the BK proceedings.
Only an opinion. A coin toss may be more accurate.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,939
- 9,366
Personally, I think the changes in the law are over-rated... Mesa Airlines filed in January 2010, and emerged with the same management team in place.
The only major consequence I can think of is that there won't be repeated extensions of exclusivity to file a reorganization plan, like there was with UAL (who spent 30 months or so coming up with an exit strategy).
Fact is that the only way management would be at risk is if there were someone else who wanted to launch a competing plan.
I don't see a white knight appearing in a bear market. Even US bonds would be a better investment than trying to take on AMR.
The other major change from 2005 is there's more of a "means test" applied when looking to gut union contracts. If AMR can show that the current contracts are unsustainable, they can be gutted. They can't simply go in and say they need cuts to be competitive. They have to prove it. Given the history of losses when everyone else is making money, I don't think that will be a problem...
Frank Szabo
Veteran
In all honesty, that may be the workers' problem.
Dinglespeed was mouthing a while ago that without representation, many would have to do their jobs instead of sleeping or diddling their computers on the company's dime. If that's the only function of a damned union anymore, I'm not interested in the least. Paying $46 per month in order to allow someone else to screw the pooch with impunity is a bit much.
I've worked in union shops where the equivalent of our executive board would police their membership, knowing full well a wage was negotiated for "X" amount of work and to do otherwise invited a hard-nosed approach by the company come contract time - sound familiar? Yet the house of little doesn't want to cut heads or make those heads at least work 4-5 hours per day. The company hasn't the balls to stand up for itself probably due to some manner of unholy agreement between them and the twu at some point in the past - very reminscent of the agreement (the text of which was never published) between GW Bush and Vincente Fox years allow that basically allowed our country to be overrun. Not the same agreement, but the same typ of agreement - one made to the detriment of the United States or, in our case, the union membership.
will fix for food
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 664
- 50
The form 10 was filed.
Frank Szabo
Veteran
I'd like to think the court would have enough sense to see the paper losses vs: actually occuring losses.
There was another little "thing" in that the execs wouldn't be receiving their typical failure bonuses of years past unless they could show the court a viable employment offer from another company - the court would then weigh the need of keeping the "management team" together.
It's doubtful the present "team" could do so or they would have already exploited their "talent" to the greatest extent possible, raking in an even higher salary from the highest bidder, as their "talents" would most certainly demand.
- Banned
- #43
SEC Form 10 filing to be submitted today. Details include:
* Eagle generated $1.2B in 2010 revenue, including $250M from ground handling
* Eagle would operate 281 aircraft for AMR under a 9-year capacity purchase agreement
* AMR would competitively re-bid up to 12 prop aircraft beginning in 2012, and up to 40 jets beginning in 2014
* Agreement provides for rate re-set after four years to account for any market changes
* Under an additional 8-year agreement, Eagle would provide ground handling for AMR at 106 airports
* AMR would have the right to competitively re-bid a specified number of ground handled stations each year
* All of Eagle's jets (and the associated debt) would pass to AMR ownership before the spin-off
* Spin-off does not require AMR shareholder approval
* Eagle generated $1.2B in 2010 revenue, including $250M from ground handling
* Eagle would operate 281 aircraft for AMR under a 9-year capacity purchase agreement
* AMR would competitively re-bid up to 12 prop aircraft beginning in 2012, and up to 40 jets beginning in 2014
* Agreement provides for rate re-set after four years to account for any market changes
* Under an additional 8-year agreement, Eagle would provide ground handling for AMR at 106 airports
* AMR would have the right to competitively re-bid a specified number of ground handled stations each year
* All of Eagle's jets (and the associated debt) would pass to AMR ownership before the spin-off
* Spin-off does not require AMR shareholder approval
Frank Szabo
Veteran
No word as to what kind of soap and shampoo Garton prefers for his late night fountain baths, I see ...
