AA bonuses

[Hopeful]

Sorry to be such a pedantic SOB, but your options were not worth $5/sh until AMR hit $10/sh. The $5 represents the price you had to pay to buy the shares (since you got the increase in price over the $5 option price). When issued, the stock was selling for $5 (hence the $5 price) so your options were worth $0 on May 1, 2003. At AMR's peak in Jan 2007 of $41/sh, your 449 shares were worth $16,164 ($36/sh x 449 sh). Of course, nearly every poster to this website posted that they sold their shares as soon as they vested because everyone was certain that AA would file Ch 11.



No, your options did not come close to making up for your concessions. Even if the represented employees had been given 100% of the outstanding AMR stock in 2003, its value in January, 2007 at the peak of $41/sh would not have made up for the employees' concessions.

The executives gave up the same percentage paycuts in their base guaranteed salary as the represented employees and their total compensation over the past deacade has been only about 65% of their target compensation, so it looks like their concession percentage is about 35%. No doubt you'll argue that it was not enough. As an aside, what concession percentage for execs would have been large enough?

Since you and others like to cite "total" compensation for executives, then so will I.

My TOTAL loss equated to roughly 25%. 17% cut in base pay, and the remaining 8% cut in vacation, sick time, holidays and holiday pay and double time.

So while the "poor" execs weren't getting their normal "due.", we got $.40 an hour for the first 5 years.

So to answer your question, FWAAA, the execs should have lost 25% of their "total" package, and recieved the $.40 an hour us lowlife workers recieved. Oh yea, and maybe 1/10th of the usual shares they get every April.

 

[Hopeful]

As I have stated in the past many times.
Prior to the 2003 RAPING, I could have cared less what an executive made.
The fact remains they do not continue to SHARE in the sacrifice.

 

[Frank Szabo]

As I have stated in the past many times.
Prior to the 2003 RAPING, I could have cared less what an executive made.
The fact remains they do not continue to SHARE in the sacrifice.

I'd be quite happy to "sacrifice" the executives along with their sympathizers ...

 

[FWAAA]

Since you and others like to cite "total" compensation for executives, then so will I.

My TOTAL loss equated to roughly 25%. 17% cut in base pay, and the remaining 8% cut in vacation, sick time, holidays and holiday pay and double time.

So while the "poor" execs weren't getting their normal "due.", we got $.40 an hour for the first 5 years.

So to answer your question, FWAAA, the execs should have lost 25% of their "total" package, and recieved the $.40 an hour us lowlife workers recieved. Oh yea, and maybe 1/10th of the usual shares they get every April.

Now I'm confused. AA claims that the execs have received about 65% of their target compensation for the 10 years ended 12/31/08. In a couple months, when AA releases the next Proxy Statement, we should see 2009 stats. If they received only 65% of the target, then it looks to me like their concession percentage is about 35%, more than the 25% you mentioned.

Arpey's 2009 and 2010 base salary was $670k, or 17% less than Carty's base salary in 2002 ($811k). Arpey's 2004 base salary was $519k, or 36% less than Carty made in 2002. Arpey's base salary increased when Horton was hired so that Arpey's pay would exceed the pay demanded by Horton; think of it as a step increase for Arpey.

Looks to me like Arpey's base pay complies with with your concession expectation. In some years since 2003, the long-term variable pay component has paid off in spades (PUP/PSP plans). But even including those, the execs have earned only 65% of their target pay. Yet that 35% concession isn't enough (as many people post here for several years that management isn't "sharing" in the sacrifice).

The facts make it appear that the execs have been "sharing" in the sacrifice. Perhaps that's why they haven't made any apologies for taking their variable pay? For some of you, 100% concessions by management would not be enough.

Maybe Arpey and the others should have been limited to just their base salary, which would have represented a concession of about 85% or more. I doubt any Fortune 500 company would attract or retain any key execs if there was no upside potential in their pay package, but I may be wrong.

 

[Hopeful]

Now I'm confused. AA claims that the execs have received about 65% of their target compensation for the 10 years ended 12/31/08. In a couple months, when AA releases the next Proxy Statement, we should see 2009 stats. If they received only 65% of the target, then it looks to me like their concession percentage is about 35%, more than the 25% you mentioned.

Arpey's 2009 and 2010 base salary was $670k, or 17% less than Carty's base salary in 2002 ($811k). Arpey's 2004 base salary was $519k, or 36% less than Carty made in 2002. Arpey's base salary increased when Horton was hired so that Arpey's pay would exceed the pay demanded by Horton; think of it as a step increase for Arpey.

Looks to me like Arpey's base pay complies with with your concession expectation. In some years since 2003, the long-term variable pay component has paid off in spades (PUP/PSP plans). But even including those, the execs have earned only 65% of their target pay. Yet that 35% concession isn't enough (as many people post here for several years that management isn't "sharing" in the sacrifice).

The facts make it appear that the execs have been "sharing" in the sacrifice. Perhaps that's why they haven't made any apologies for taking their variable pay? For some of you, 100% concessions by management would not be enough.

Maybe Arpey and the others should have been limited to just their base salary, which would have represented a concession of about 85% or more. I doubt any Fortune 500 company would attract or retain any key execs if there was no upside potential in their pay package, but I may be wrong.

You're real slick using the term "target pay."
You like to say that what Arpey and Co. "coulda, shoulda" been paid but weren't is the same as a paycut.
That skewed logic doesn't work with me.

Ridiculous,,,,,TARGET PAY...

But, hey,,,thanks FWAAA....You just made our argument more logical....
My target pay is $50 an an hour.....So using your math, I am under a 35% paycut concession as opposed to a 25%..

Thanks, FWAAA.....

 

[eolesen]

Hopeful, it would be a good argument if that $50 target pay been in your current contract... or your 2003 contract....

But it's not. Unlike Arpey & the 949 piglets who do have their target pay in their contracts.

 

[strikeforce]

AMR paid $823 million in interest in 2010, not $2.5 billion. You only tripled the interest paid numbers. You may have a future on Wall Street! 😛

Netting out the interest earned and capitalized interest, AMR paid only $766 million in net interest in 2010. Numbers are here:

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9NDEwMzQyfENoaWxkSUQ9NDIwMzg4fFR5cGU9MQ==&t=1

Related News:U.S. .AMR Corp. plans sale of $657M in notes
Jan 25, 2011 4:29 PM CT By The Associated Press

inShare.0More
Business ExchangeBuzz up!DiggPrint Email .FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) — American Airlines parent AMR Corp. says it has taken steps to issue $657 million in notes secured by 30 Boeing jets.

The company said in a filing Tuesday that it entered into an agreement that provides for the future issuance of the equipment notes. The company outlined its plans last week.

AMR plans to sell the notes in two series, $503.2 million worth bearing annual interest of 5.25 percent, and $153.8 million at 7 percent interest.

AMR reported last week that it ended 2010 with unrestricted cash and short-term investments totaling $4.5 billion. The company has $1.5 billion in public debt maturing this year, according to JP Morgan analyst Jamie Baker, who expects the company to be busy in the capital markets.

Fort Worth-based AMR lost $97 million in the fourth quarter as fuel costs increases wiped out revenue gains. Analysts predicted it would be the only major U.S. airline operator to post a loss for the quarter.

Shares of AMR fell 20 cents, or 2.7 percent, to $7.21 in Tuesday afternoon trading.

Sorry, but int + debt due =2 billion

 

[FWAAA]

Sorry, but int + debt due =2 billion

Interest in 2011 will likely be $800 million and maturing debt in 2011 is $2.3 billion, for a total of interest plus maturing debt of $3.1 billion in 2011.

Unless the credit markets dry up, the maturing debt will simply be refinanced, like the $657 million note issue.

 

[iluvaa]

te

Interest in 2011 will likely be $800 million and maturing debt in 2011 is $2.3 billion, for a total of interest plus maturing debt of $3.1 billion in 2011.

Unless the credit markets dry up, the maturing debt will simply be refinanced, like the $657 million note issue.

Could FWAAA or eolsen plz tell me what southwest exec. Total pay has been in the last few years

 

[iluvaa]

te
Could FWAAA or eolsen plz tell me what southwest exec. Total pay has been in the last few years

It just seems to me they treat there employees like people and they work hard for the success of there company and there management team cares about them

 

[iluvaa]

When Herb retired the pilots union thanked him for his years of service in the paper that screams volumes of the relationship he had with.his employees. Maybe AA should take note off that

 

[eolesen]

When Herb retired the pilots union thanked him for his years of service in the paper that screams volumes of the relationship he had with.his employees. Maybe AA should take note off that

What did they say when Herb's successor retired?.... Bet you don't even know who that was without a Google search. I'll give you a hint -- it was more along the lines of "good riddance"....

I don't have the magic industry exec compensation comparison button on my iPhone, so feel free to dig thru the archives or the 10-K's.

What I do recall is that DL's CEO took home over $8M in 2009 (>250x that of the average employee???), and thatArpey's $4.somethingM in pay was almost the same as the Alaska Airlines CEO (despite AS being less than half the size of AA...).

WN has always paid less in terms of salary, but exec comp isn't always salary. The guys at WN have decades of stock grants and options worth many times over what their salaries are. As do the employees (which goes back to my suggestion that you consider stock in lieu of cash for retro). Having literal ownership stakes in the company probably helps as much as anything else they do.