97.9%

[TWU informer]

It's a crying shame that the TWU lied to Mr Owens. Apparently someone at the TWU told members that AA might liquidate if the concessions were not approved. Throw the bums out, I say.

Of course, anyone with any experience in the airline industry could have seen the inaccuracy of such a prediction - airlines as large as AA almost never go straight to Ch 7; usually, a long, protracted journey thru Ch 11 occurs first (see UAL and USAir for examples).

[post="272338"][/post]​

Excuse me, but the bigger lies were that 3200 members did not get a pin number to vote, the only way to have a legitimate ratification is a complete re-vote, and that any letter of agreement that changes or amends the collective bargaining agreement must have membership ratification.

The one about liquidation was small compared to these lies.

Throw the bums out, I say!

 

[Bob Owens]

1) He said liquidation. "This supports what I've been saying all along.

If we would have said no to concessions in 2003 would the owners of AMR stock, who are either one and the same as the creditors or closely aligned with them, have liquidated the company? "

I think the point was that we were not going to liquidate despite what Jim Little said.

2) It was not a bluff. We had a complete filling and DIP aligned ... we were going to do it.

So? We would have been better off if we had gone C-11. With AA in there DL, CO and NWA would have been right behind us. Do you think that the whole industry might have gone the next step into C-7? At least if we had gone C-11 we could have gotten new top management.


3) FWAAA provides the explanation to why we have improved. And by the way AA's revenue upside is amongst the highest in the industry, something of course management does not get any credit for, just more insults. Go read quarterly filings and look at RASM increase.

What are the figures? Is revenue up or are costs way down because we lost 25% of our compensation? It sems that you and FWAA are contradicting each other. You are claiming that things are getting better and that RASMs are up he wrote "But high oil prices aren't the problem - domestic overcapacity is the problem. Overcapacity means that announced fare hikes don't translate into higher unit revenue."

By the way FWAA I'm not saying that the airlines caused 9-11 or the recession, I'm claiming that they capitalized on them, they made things look worse than they actually were.

 

[Bob Owens]

No, thanks. AMR has been a much better gamble lately. B)

[post="272333"][/post]​

Thats right FWAA and the cheaper we work the more likely it is that you will make a ton of money off our labor without ever setting foot on the ramp.

At least I admit that I'm here for a purpose, you are here simply to watch your cash investment but you try to make out like you are just a neutral observer.

Tell me what you find to be incorrect about the opening post.

 

[mjk]

At least I admit that I'm here for a purpose, you are here simply to watch your cash investment but you try to make out like you are just a neutral observer.

[post="272372"][/post]​

You act as if that's a bad thing. Don't you want the companies you invest in via your 401k to do what's best for you as a shareholder? Or do you refuse to invest in any company that isn't in your eyes to be "labor friendly"?

Bob, something tells me your portfolio contains corporations that treat their employees 10x worse than AMR does.

 

[Bob Owens]

You act as if that's a bad thing. Don't you want the companies you invest in via your 401k to do what's best for you as a shareholder? Or do you refuse to invest in any company that isn't in your eyes to be "labor friendly"?

Bob, something tells me your portfolio contains corporations that treat their employees 10x worse than AMR does.

[post="272383"][/post]​

I dont go on websites related to industries that I dont even work in and tell people there to accept paycuts because I want to make money off their labor.

 

[air_guy]

1) He said liquidation. "This supports what I've been saying all along.

If we would have said no to concessions in 2003 would the owners of AMR stock, who are either one and the same as the creditors or closely aligned with them, have liquidated the company? "

I think the point was that we were not going to liquidate despite what Jim Little said.

But using some random number of % institutonal investors and your page long speculation deos not contradict anyone that thought liquidation was a possibility.
a Neither UA nor US are out of the woods yet.
b US is now part of an LCC
b They both lost their pensions.
c They are paying their managment whatever they want, and I know that from all the people from AA that are leaving to UA for grossly more pay (beyond cost of living if you were planning to make that point)
d UA is been throwing 10M a month in restructuring lawyers

2) It was not a bluff. We had a complete filling and DIP aligned ... we were going to do it.

So? We would have been better off if we had gone C-11. With AA in there DL, CO and NWA would have been right behind us. Do you think that the whole industry might have gone the next step into C-7? At least if we had gone C-11 we could have gotten new top management.
You wanna bid for Tilton and Co.?
3) FWAAA provides the explanation to why we have improved. And by the way AA's revenue upside is amongst the highest in the industry, something of course management does not get any credit for, just more insults. Go read quarterly filings and look at RASM increase.

What are the figures? Is revenue up or are costs way down because we lost 25% of our compensation? It sems that you and FWAA are contradicting each other. You are claiming that things are getting better and that RASMs are up he wrote "But high oil prices aren't the problem - domestic overcapacity is the problem. Overcapacity means that announced fare hikes don't translate into higher unit revenue."

Both ... or is one thing exclusive or the other. We've cut costs and we have improved revenue. Not enough to make a dime (because of overvapacity) but definetely better than the competition.

By the way FWAA I'm not saying that the airlines caused 9-11 or the recession, I'm claiming that they capitalized on them, they made things look worse than they actually were.

Nope 9-11 just accelerated what was inevitable. It just did not give any airline time to adapt whith so many changes coming. Usually changes like this take decades in an industry not a couple of years.

[post="272370"][/post]​

 

[Bob Owens]

air_guy,May 24 2005, 04:17 AM]


But using some random number of % institutonal investors and your page long speculation deos not contradict anyone that thought liquidation was a possibility.

But was it likely? NO.And you know it.

So? We would have been better off if we had gone C-11. With AA in there DL, CO and NWA would have been right behind us. Do you think that the whole industry might have gone the next step into C-7? At least if we had gone C-11 we could have gotten new top management.
You wanna bid for Tilton and Co.?

Would it really matter?Both USAIR and UAL went BK and we took more of a pay and benifit cut than either of them did. In fact our cuts were so deep that even after several rounds of going to the Judge they still have more than we do, the only thing that we have is the pension. And now our unions are helping the company to lobby the government into changing the rules so the company can put off paying into the pension. Common sense dictates that if they allow the company to defer the payments that they will in fact never be paid.

What are the figures? Is revenue up or are costs way down because we lost 25% of our compensation? It sems that you and FWAA are contradicting each other. You are claiming that things are getting better and that RASMs are up he wrote "But high oil prices aren't the problem - domestic overcapacity is the problem. Overcapacity means that announced fare hikes don't translate into higher unit revenue."

Both ... or is one thing exclusive or the other.

We've cut costs and we have improved revenue. Not enough to make a dime (because of overvapacity) but definetely better than the competition.

Because of overcapacity or because of fuel, which is it? Seems that you are so programmed behind the overcapacity line that you just cant get away from it even when the obvious is staring you in the face. Overcapacity despite the fact that the planes are full. With the reduced costs the reason why they did not make any money is because the increased price of fuel absorbed the savings from labor.


Nope 9-11 just accelerated what was inevitable.

It was not inevitable.

It just did not give any airline time to adapt whith so many changes coming. Usually changes like this take decades in an industry not a couple of years.

Other than slashing compensation for the workers not much else has changed. We have seen this stuff before where ANALysts claim that the industry has changed for good and that low costs will carry the day and the old dinosaurs are going to be extinct etc. Saw it in the early 80s and again in the 90s. A few years later one or two of the legacies dissapeared along with all the upstarts that were supposedly taking over. The fact is that even during the regulated era airlines would occasionally dissapear.

 

[air_guy]

air_guy,May 24 2005, 04:17 AM]
But using some random number of % institutonal investors and your page long speculation deos not contradict anyone that thought liquidation was a possibility.

But was it likely? NO.And you know it.

It WAS likely. As I said before the ones in BK are not out yet. Many things have happened after UA and US filed that have saved them. NO one could have anticipated that. When the US invaded IRAQ it paid good money to the airlines. GE has been pumping money into US Bk like there is no tomorrow. UA DIP financiers have been waving covenants over and over. Did we know that before hand NO. was it worth taking the risk of going BK and finding out otherwise. Absolutely NOT. But all is of of course my opinion. And I could be wrong. What about you ... Would you ever say that you may be wrong. From reading your 10MEG postings over the months it seems to me that you believe you are the infallible messiah of the airline industry and not a disgruntled mechanic from JFK.


So? We would have been better off if we had gone C-11. With AA in there DL, CO and NWA would have been right behind us. Do you think that the whole industry might have gone the next step into C-7? At least if we had gone C-11 we could have gotten new top management.
You wanna bid for Tilton and Co.?

Would it really matter?Both USAIR and UAL went BK and we took more of a pay and benifit cut than either of them did. In fact our cuts were so deep that even after several rounds of going to the Judge they still have more than we do, the only thing that we have is the pension. And now our unions are helping the company to lobby the government into changing the rules so the company can put off paying into the pension. Common sense dictates that if they allow the company to defer the payments that they will in fact never be paid.

You know man, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. You may be speaking for yourself. We have benchmarked UA contract to ours and we find in TOTAL UA's contracts less expensive than AA's. OF course that may vary person by person. Unfortunately I don't have access to that information. But if you are so convinced otherwise why don't you prepare a comparison and support your claims.

What are the figures? Is revenue up or are costs way down because we lost 25% of our compensation? It sems that you and FWAA are contradicting each other. You are claiming that things are getting better and that RASMs are up he wrote "But high oil prices aren't the problem - domestic overcapacity is the problem. Overcapacity means that announced fare hikes don't translate into higher unit revenue."

Both ... or is one thing exclusive or the other.

We've cut costs and we have improved revenue. Not enough to make a dime (because of overvapacity) but definitely better than the competition.

Because of overcapacity or because of fuel, which is it? Seems that you are so programmed behind the overcapacity line that you just cant get away from it even when the obvious is staring you in the face. Overcapacity despite the fact that the planes are full. With the reduced costs the reason why they did not make any money is because the increased price of fuel absorbed the savings from labor.

Darn because of both. Can't you read? Overcapacity affects the revenue line and makes harder to pass to the customer the increased cost of fuel. I am just claiming that AA is being more successful passing up that cost but is still not enough.

Nope 9-11 just accelerated what was inevitable.

It was not inevitable.

It just did not give any airline time to adapt whith so many changes coming. Usually changes like this take decades in an industry not a couple of years.

Other than slashing compensation for the workers not much else has changed. We have seen this stuff before where ANALysts claim that the industry has changed for good and that low costs will carry the day and the old dinosaurs are going to be extinct etc. Saw it in the early 80s and again in the 90s. A few years later one or two of the legacies dissapeared along with all the upstarts that were supposedly taking over. The fact is that even during the regulated era airlines would occasionally dissapear.

Keep dreaming buddy. What we see now is here to stay. Is called the internet. Customers now can shop for fares in ways no one could have imagined a few years ago. "why should a consumer pay more to a legacy carrier to support its inefficiencies and expensive labor contracts if I they can fly for less with an LCC" Go blame the LCC workers for wanting to work for a lot less. Air service is almost a commodity. There are some things that we offer that drive some more revenue like network, loyalty programs, but not enough to support the cost differences. A lot more things than cutting your pay have done. you just need to read flagship news to learn about them. Probably you throw it away as soon as you receive it and mumble darn company propaganda. So if you don't know about them, it is your fault, no the company's.

[post="272475"][/post]​

 

[Bob Owens]

But was it likely? NO.And you know it.

It WAS likely.

So you are actually claiming that AMR, the largest airline in the world was going to go straight into liquidation? Give us a break. At least FWAA recognizes that it was not likely and that typically airlines liquidate after a prolonged period of failure and after they have shrunk considerably.The fact is that AMR was in better shape than UAL was in March of 2003, before the concessions.

As I said before the ones in BK are not out yet. Many things have happened after UA and US filed that have saved them.

Sure like the War in Iraq and the near doubling of fuel prices right? Boy you really are spinning now!

NO one could have anticipated that. When the US invaded IRAQ it paid good money to the airlines.

Yea but war tends to decrease air travel and we were told that the company did not make much on the CRAF flights. You are the first person that I've seen write that the war in Iraq helped the airlines.

GE has been pumping money into US Bk like there is no tomorrow.

Yea because GE owns a lot of the planes that USAIR flies and if USAIR ceases operations they will eat them. So even though USAIR is losing money as long as the leases get paid it must be worth it for GE to keep USAIR going.

UA DIP financiers have been waving covenants over and over. Did we know that before hand NO.

Like I said before, if they call in the loans or whatever they stand to lose more. By making the threats to call in the loans it puts more pressure on the workers to make more concessions. Do you really expect us to believe that the financiers and the other creditors would not work hand in hand with the company to get workers to make concessions? Why wouldnt they?

Some of these covenants were probably put in precisely for thie purpose of using the threat of BK to squeeze the workers, whoever heard of having to have over $1billion in cash on hand, then after they got the 25% from the workers, when AMR would appear to be even less of a risk, we were told it was raised to $2billion?

was it worth taking the risk of going BK and finding out otherwise. Absolutely NOT.

Not for you but did you lose 25% of your compensation, is your real pay going to continue to decline until at least 2009??

But all is of of course my opinion. And I could be wrong. What about you ... Would you ever say that you may be wrong.

Sure, I have, but from where I am, with a 25% paycut, which will be a nearly 40% paycut if I stick around to 2009 after inflation is added in I would have rather kept my pay at the higher rate as long as possible and taken whatever risks that BK entailed. The reason why UAL and USAIR are having such a hard time is because the biggest carrier in the world, their biggest competitor, AMR, was able to slash labor costs by 25% without the exense of BK.

From reading your 10MEG postings over the months it seems to me that you believe you are the infallible messiah of the airline industry and not a disgruntled mechanic from JFK.

I never claimed that I was infallible, but I have noticed that when opponents cant make a valid arguement they turn to personal attacks.


You know man, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. You may be speaking for yourself. We have benchmarked UA contract to ours and we find in TOTAL UA's contracts less expensive than AA's.

Yea we have heard that lie a lot. However over the years when you compared paychecks at the end of the year UALs were always more. They went to top pay faster, got paid more, had fully company paid medical yet the company claimed that we got more. Prove that our contracts are more expensive per person. It could be that since we have more employees that the total value paid out may be slightly higher but to claim that we get more is a lie.

OF course that may vary person by person. Unfortunately I don't have access to that information. But if you are so convinced otherwise why don't you prepare a comparison and support your claims.


Then how can you make the statement? Go to the-mechanic.com and you can see all the comparasions you like.


Darn because of both. Can't you read?

Sure I can read, you just seem to have trouble expressing your thoughts, outside of personal attacks that is.

Overcapacity affects the revenue line and makes harder to pass to the customer the increased cost of fuel. I am just claiming that AA is being more successful passing up that cost but is still not enough.

Passing over that cost you mean, to the workers.


Keep dreaming buddy. What we see now is here to stay.

Yea they said that both times before too.

Is called the internet.

Now who is dreaming? Sure the internet made shopping around easier but people could shop around before the internet became so popular too.

Customers now can shop for fares in ways no one could have imagined a few years ago. "why should a consumer pay more to a legacy carrier to support its inefficiencies and expensive labor contracts if I they can fly for less with an LCC"


Because the LCCS dont have enough planes to fly everybody everywhere thats why. People can shop around on the internet all they like, unless they are "virtually" travelling, the internet does not create more seats or create new routes.

Go blame the LCC workers for wanting to work for a lot less.

Do they work for a lot less? SWA was the LCC that execs from AA have been talking about for years, and yes it has grown considerably and if I had the same amount of time in there that I have where I am I'd be making a lot more money than I am.

 

[air_guy]

But was it likely? NO.And you know it.

It WAS likely.

So you are actually claiming that AMR, the largest airline in the world was going to go straight into liquidation? Give us a break. At least FWAA recognizes that it was not likely and that typically airlines liquidate after a prolonged period of failure and after they have shrunk considerably.The fact is that AMR was in better shape than UAL was in March of 2003, before the concessions.

As I said before the ones in BK are not out yet. Many things have happened after UA and US filed that have saved them.

Sure like the War in Iraq and the near doubling of fuel prices right? Boy you really are spinning now!

NO one could have anticipated that. When the US invaded IRAQ it paid good money to the airlines.

Yea but war tends to decrease air travel and we were told that the company did not make much on the CRAF flights. You are the first person that I've seen write that the war in Iraq helped the airlines.

GE has been pumping money into US Bk like there is no tomorrow.

Yea because GE owns a lot of the planes that USAIR flies and if USAIR ceases operations they will eat them. So even though USAIR is losing money as long as the leases get paid it must be worth it for GE to keep USAIR going.

UA DIP financiers have been waving covenants over and over. Did we know that before hand NO.

Like I said before, if they call in the loans or whatever they stand to lose more. By making the threats to call in the loans it puts more pressure on the workers to make more concessions. Do you really expect us to believe that the financiers and the other creditors would not work hand in hand with the company to get workers to make concessions? Why wouldnt they?

Some of these covenants were probably put in precisely for thie purpose of using the threat of BK to squeeze the workers, whoever heard of having to have over $1billion in cash on hand, then after they got the 25% from the workers, when AMR would appear to be even less of a risk, we were told it was raised to $2billion?

was it worth taking the risk of going BK and finding out otherwise. Absolutely NOT.

Not for you but did you lose 25% of your compensation, is your real pay going to continue to decline until at least 2009??

But all is of of course my opinion. And I could be wrong. What about you ... Would you ever say that you may be wrong.

Sure, I have, but from where I am, with a 25% paycut, which will be a nearly 40% paycut if I stick around to 2009 after inflation is added in I would have rather kept my pay at the higher rate as long as possible and taken whatever risks that BK entailed. The reason why UAL and USAIR are having such a hard time is because the biggest carrier in the world, their biggest competitor, AMR, was able to slash labor costs by 25% without the exense of BK.

From reading your 10MEG postings over the months it seems to me that you believe you are the infallible messiah of the airline industry and not a disgruntled mechanic from JFK.

I never claimed that I was infallible, but I have noticed that when opponents cant make a valid arguement they turn to personal attacks.
You know man, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. You may be speaking for yourself. We have benchmarked UA contract to ours and we find in TOTAL UA's contracts less expensive than AA's.

Yea we have heard that lie a lot. However over the years when you compared paychecks at the end of the year UALs were always more. They went to top pay faster, got paid more, had fully company paid medical yet the company claimed that we got more. Prove that our contracts are more expensive per person. It could be that since we have more employees that the total value paid out may be slightly higher but to claim that we get more is a lie.

OF course that may vary person by person. Unfortunately I don't have access to that information. But if you are so convinced otherwise why don't you prepare a comparison and support your claims.
Then how can you make the statement? Go to the-mechanic.com and you can see all the comparasions you like.


Darn because of both. Can't you read?

Sure I can read, you just seem to have trouble expressing your thoughts, outside of personal attacks that is.

Overcapacity affects the revenue line and makes harder to pass to the customer the increased cost of fuel. I am just claiming that AA is being more successful passing up that cost but is still not enough.

Passing over that cost you mean, to the workers.
Keep dreaming buddy. What we see now is here to stay.

Yea they said that both times before too.

Is called the internet.

Now who is dreaming? Sure the internet made shopping around easier but people could shop around before the internet became so popular too.

Customers now can shop for fares in ways no one could have imagined a few years ago. "why should a consumer pay more to a legacy carrier to support its inefficiencies and expensive labor contracts if I they can fly for less with an LCC"
Because the LCCS dont have enough planes to fly everybody everywhere thats why. People can shop around on the internet all they like, unless they are "virtually" travelling, the internet does not create more seats or create new routes.

Go blame the LCC workers for wanting to work for a lot less.

Do they work for a lot less? SWA was the LCC that execs from AA have been talking about for years, and yes it has grown considerably and if I had the same amount of time in there that I have where I am I'd be making a lot more money than I am.

[post="272637"][/post]​

The war in Iraq hurt traffic and revenue but the government issued all airlines compensation. UA got 300+ million. In addition, they managed to stop payments to their pension plan. They got a refund from the IRS of about 350M. They secured temporary paycuts from BK judge right after they went in. They were able get away from secured airport debt and they keet cutting workers pay. And still have not made it out. When they went in the odds of liquidation were very high and they knew it but they had no choice. We did have a choice and did not want to take the risk. Anyway we are deviating form the topic. You claimed that because 97% of our stockholders are institutions we would not have liquidated. If we had filed as I said before the ownership would have been wipped out and become irrelevant to wheather we emerge or liquidate. I think the debate of what could have happened is valid but let's start another topic. Lets close this one by having you admit that stock ownership has little to do with the odds of a bankrupt company liquiditaing or not.

 

[Bob Owens]

air_guy,May 25 2005, 03:33 PM]
The war in Iraq hurt traffic and revenue but the government issued all airlines compensation. UA got 300+ million. In addition, they managed to stop payments to their pension plan. They got a refund from the IRS of about 350M. They secured temporary paycuts from BK judge right after they went in. They were able get away from secured airport debt and they keet cutting workers pay.

Yea, and if they keep getting more cuts they may even catch up to AMR right? Even if UAL gets the cuts they are asking for UAL workers will still get more vacation, sick time and Holidays than TWU/AA workers. What does this have to do with AA going straight into liquidation?

And still have not made it out.

Why should they go out? They still have to catch up to AA. Those airlines dont have the luxury of having company unions in place.

When they went in the odds of liquidation were very high and they knew it but they had no choice.

Really? What were the odds?

We did have a choice and did not want to take the risk.

Why should you when you could simply take it from us? I would rather have kept my pay, even if it meant BK.

You claimed that because 97% of our stockholders are institutions we would not have liquidated. If we had filed as I said before the ownership would have been wipped out and become irrelevant to wheather we emerge or liquidate.


Ownership liquidated? Is that a given? If the Institutions that own the company are also creditors who make a lot of money as long as AA is operating then perhaps they may not be as concerned about their stock value (which is volitile and could recover quickly) as compared to the revenue that gets channelled their way through operations?

I think the debate of what could have happened is valid but let's start another topic. Lets close this one by having you admit that stock ownership has little to do with the odds of a bankrupt company liquiditaing or not.[/b]

Why should I concede that? First of all we were not talking about a bankrupt company liquidating, we were talking about a company that was threatening to go Bankrupt and the threat that was put out that it may go striaght into liquidation. I said it was not likely, you said "IT WAS".

Like I said if I owned controlling interest in a company that loses money but generates a lot of money through other dealings, leases, loans, sales etc maybe I would not care if that company loses money because my losses on the one hand may be more than offset by the revenue in the other.

If the company is claiming losses as a means to gain huge concessions from labor where in a few years I can collect both on my ownership and my business dealings why wouldnt I go along with it?. If I simply work with management in order to screw someone else, like the employees of the company thats even better right? The concessions they get could even assist me in getting concessions from my employees."Hey, dont complain look at whats happening to airline workers".

So, all I have to do is help management make things appear worse than they are. If I'm a bank, I put rediculous covenants on loans and say "if you dont maintain a cash balance of $2billion dollars I will call in my loans", then management tells the employees "Look, its not us, the "BANKS" want us to have this on hand". Management could even expand on that to claim that if they fall below the $2billion threshold, that the company will liquidate or file BK in order to protect themselves from the bank. Couldnt they have approached the banks to release them from the covenants because if they dont they will filke for BK? Couldnt the bank have simply said OK but in return for the higher risk we are talking we have to charge you more interest? Sure they could have but thats assuming that everything was above board and that the airlines did not play a part in exaggerating things in order to gain concessions on a scale never seen before. We all know that a BK judge is not going to jump in and slam the brakes on a company that moves hundreds of thousands of people everyday, millions of tons in mail and cargo and put 100,000 more people on the unemployment rolls in any sort of a hurry.


Why should we end the debate? Just because you keep stepping on your d**k?

I'll repeat the question; "So you are actually claiming that AMR, the largest airline in the world was going to go straight into liquidation?"

 

[Bob Owens]

Oddly enough,I just went when to the MSN site it said this:

Instit. Ownership NA