Amr Debt And Bankruptcy

[mweiss]

Oh really? It says right in the Notes-$988 million.

And, yet, the version I see on AA's website says $889M. Not that the difference matters.

I referenced Item 6, pg 25 of the 10K filed in 2003.

Item 6, Page 25 of the 10K filed in 2003 refers to a stock split. Look, if you're going to cite something, at least verify your citation first.

Well werent you the one who said that it should not appear as part of "operating costs"?

I claimed that depreciation of goodwill shouldn't appear as part of operating costs. It wasn't depreciation; it was impairment.

...the fact is that the company and the union made no effort in their press releases to clarify that an extra billion $ of the "loss" was due to an accounting change.

Which press releases? Please post links.

Over a short span of time they went from record breaking losses to record breaking profits even though the financial metrics concerning rpms and did not change that much. I know, demnad vs quantity demanded. BS.

You calling it BS speaks volumes. You're clearly one of those people who is unwilling to let facts get in the way of a good juicy conspiracy. For example...

Well I gave you the information I had readily available [regarding the financials associated with Sabre], if thats not good enough then too bad.

See, that's a really long-winded way of saying "I don't really have a clue whether or not it was a good idea to sell Sabre." And yet, you're absolutely sure that it was a bad idea. Why let silly things like facts get in the way of something so pure and simple, eh?

...but the airlines did not take actions in order to prepare for it, instead they went on like the boom was just getting started.

How would you know? You don't have nearly enough information to formulate a plausible hypothesis about what happened. To wit...

...even though I'm just a mechanic, I've been in this industry for 25 years and have seen a few economic cycles come and go.

You're a long-time employee with a myopic view stemming from working a small portion of a single station in a very large, complex company in a very large, complex industry. You don't do the research to figure out what's going on. Instead, you extrapolate from the tiny sliver of the company that you see, and assume that you see the whole thing. This puts you in good company with these men.

This is where I get off. There's no point in arguing with someone who chooses to be ignorant.

 

[Bob Owens]

mweiss,Mar 21 2005, 03:45 PM]
And, yet, the version I see on AA's website says $889M. Not that the difference matters.

Well in the 10k sent to every employee and stockholders home it clearly reads $988 million.

Item 6, Page 25 of the <a href='http://java script: window_popup('EdgarDetail.cfm?CIK=6201&FID=1047469-03-13301&SID=03-00','HTML',650,350,'yes','no','yes')' target='_blank'>10K filed in 2003</a> refers to a stock split. Look, if you're going to cite something, at least verify your citation first.

I think that any employee or stockholder can vouch that I am right. The 10k, filed in either March or April of 2003, for the calendar year of 2002, lists as Item 6 "Selected Consolidated Financial Data" on pg 25. Your link did not work.

I claimed that depreciation of goodwill shouldn't appear as part of operating costs. It wasn't depreciation; it was impairment.

I dont recall if we defined it other than the "$988 million in Goodwill".

You calling it BS speaks volumes. You're clearly one of those people who is unwilling to let facts get in the way of a good juicy conspiracy. For example...
See, that's a really long-winded way of saying "I don't really have a clue whether or not it was a good idea to sell Sabre." And yet, you're absolutely sure that it was a bad idea. Why let silly things like facts get in the way of something so pure and simple, eh?

Oh really? Well how do you figure that when the questions you asked had nothing to do with Sabre? The questions were how many mechanics did AA have at a certain point in time and how much did they committ to capital improvements at a certain time. Nice try.I feel like I'm debating with Rush Limbaugh or Bob Grant! Claim that I said whatever fits into your arguement and dont let a little lying get in the way of a good comeback!

How would you know? You don't have nearly enough information to formulate a plausible hypothesis about what happened. To wit...

Because I witnessed it.

You're a long-time employee with a myopic view stemming from working a small portion of a single station in a very large, complex company in a very large, complex industry. You don't do the research to figure out what's going on. Instead, you extrapolate from the tiny sliver of the company that you see, and assume that you see the whole thing. This puts you in good company with these men.

More assumptions on your part.

This is where I get off. There's no point in arguing with someone who chooses to be ignorant.

Bye!