AMR CEO's compensation rises 11 percent to $5.2M

[Frank Szabo]

1.5% raises 2004 thru 2008 swallowed up by yearly increases in our medical plans. No "raises" since May 2008 but medical continues to increase yearly. I`m pretty sure the same pain is not felt by the upper management of this company.

... nor do the goblins of Centrepork have any intention of allowing that pain to be felt - by them.

 

[Bob Owens]

Understood, but that's why there's the old saying "no risk, no reward". AMR's management put a chunk of their paycheck at risk in the markets, and have been rewarded for that. The unions chose the safer road and got steady, contractual pay. It's hardly fair to complain about that now. Sounds like the unions wanted a deal of "no risk, high reward".

Rubbish, they devised a plan where they get their bonus no matter what the stock does and no matter how much money they claim to lose, the amount varies but even if they came in last they still get something and thats on top of the six figures they get so its not as if they are gambling with the rent money.

 

[Frank Szabo]

Rubbish, they devised a plan where they get their bonus no matter what the stock does and no matter how much money they claim to lose, the amount varies but even if they came in last they still get something and thats on top of the six figures they get so its not as if they are gambling with the rent money.

... good "work" if one can get it ...

If I recall correctly, the management payouts devised in 2003 were initially to have been in cash but the mighty TWU objected to that, "forcing" the payments to be in stock instead - something to do with making the 449 shares of crap stock we received for $100k+ of concessions per head more palatable to the rabble on the floor.

 

[eolesen]

To be fair, I'm pretty certain the PSP and PUP programs hadn't been changed in 2003 aside from paying in stock, and had been that way for most of the 1990's.

What changed was external: comparison stocks getting wiped out via bankruptcy and consolidation.

It's pretty easy to have the highest property value in the neighborhood when all your neighbors houses burn down... That's why I've said that the metrics are flawed and should have been changed to measure internal things like, oh, dependability and profitability... But I don't sit on the compensation committee.

 

[Bob Owens]

But I don't sit on the compensation committee.

Niether do we. Who does?

 

[Hopeful]

Niether do we. Who does?

Ohhhh, just some more members of the good ol boys club....(which, incidentally is the greediest, most unrealistic union of all!)


http://investing.businessweek.com/businessweek/research/stocks/people/committees.asp?ticker=AMR:US

I hear they all have the same arm/back problems cause by perpetually patting themselves on their backs and also scrubbing each others's backs!

 

[eolesen]

You can call it a good old boy's club, but the current directors look like they have just as many ties to the investment banks who own AMR as than they do to other corporations.

But don't let facts confuse a good breakroom myth.

 

[Hopeful]

You can call it a good old boy's club, but the current directors look like they have just as many ties to the investment banks who own AMR as than they do to other corporations.

But don't let facts confuse a good breakroom myth.

Ok, Eric, you're right...BODs and CEOS and EXECS are all above board..they would never even THINK of padding one anothers wallet..Ok you win.....
The upper crust of society, the masters of the univers are just so decent and moral...I get it.....
Only union leadership are the crooks...not the corporate leadership...

 

[Bob Owens]

You can call it a good old boy's club, but the current directors look like they have just as many ties to the investment banks who own AMR as than they do to other corporations.

But don't let facts confuse a good breakroom myth.

Arent investment banks corprations as well?

Is it a breakroom myth that compensation for CEOs has skyrocketed over the last 30 years?

Isnt it also true that we have more MBAs in this country now than ever before? So market forces (demand) obviously isnt driving the compensation increases.

Is it a breakroom myth that executives sit on each others boards and determine pay for other executives? Sure they throw a few token celebrities and academics in every now and then but the majority is usually other executives.

Is it a breakroom myth that these people are peers and that by voting for increases it raises the standard for all executives?

How much of AA revenues go to banks? Isnt it close to $1 billion a year just in interest, not counting bank owned leases? They are getting their money so despite losses they are obviously happy with how AA is doing. The billions that AA has spent refurbishing their operation also stimulates economic activity and other sources of revenue for the banks as well.

 

[Hopeful]

Arent investment banks corprations as well?

Is it a breakroom myth that compensation for CEOs has skyrocketed over the last 30 years?

Is it a breakroom myth that executives sit on each others boards and determine pay for other executives? Sure they throw a few token celebrities and academics in every now and then but the majority is usually other executives.

Is it a breakroom myth that these people are peers and that by voting for increases it raises the standard for all executives?

You heard Eric.......Don't let facts confuse breakroom myths..

But of course the CORPORATE breakroom is what he is referring to!

 

[eolesen]

Ok, Eric, you're right...BODs and CEOS and EXECS are all above board..they would never even THINK of padding one anothers wallet..Ok you win.....
The upper crust of society, the masters of the univers are just so decent and moral...I get it.....
Only union leadership are the crooks...not the corporate leadership...

Not even remotely what I said, Hopeful. Do you think that it's unreasonable for the actual owners to have a say in how the companies they invest in are run, andhow much to pay the current management?

You think it's all about padding individual's wallets. Try to remember that the only wallets the investment banks are interested in padding are the banks'. They're not interested in overpaying anyone, but they also don't want to see their investment go to crap.

 

[Hopeful]

They're not interested in overpaying anyone, but they also don't want to see their investment go to crap.

They're not interested in overpaying anyone? How about the ratio of CEO pay to the average worker?

 

[Bob Owens]

Not even remotely what I said, Hopeful. Do you think that it's unreasonable for the actual owners to have a say in how the companies they invest in are run, andhow much to pay the current management?

You think it's all about padding individual's wallets. Try to remember that the only wallets the investment banks are interested in padding are the banks'. They're not interested in overpaying anyone, but they also don't want to see their investment go to crap.

Actual owners? And who might that be? Chase, Morgan Stanley? Can you show me a portrait of Mr Chase or Mr Stanley and tell me how they voted? Oh thats right, these "owners" you talk about are not individuals, they are other corporations, other corporations run by executives that sit on each others compensation committees and determine each others pay.

 

[eolesen]

Is it a breakroom myth that executives sit on each others boards and determine pay for other executives? Sure they throw a few token celebrities and academics in every now and then but the majority is usually other executives.

Is it a breakroom myth that these people are peers and that by voting for increases it raises the standard for all executives?

Let's see, Bob. Compensation committee has four members...

Miles is a retired executive from Kraft and Phillip Morris, and has been retired for about 15 years.

Purcell runs an investment fund, and came out of Morgan Stanley as a career banker.

Rodin is a retired academic, and also sits on the board of Citigroup.

Rose is the only active CEO on the committee.

Should I go on?....


Bachman is a senior partner with Edward Jones. Another career investment banker.

Staubach is a real estate investor, and another local (along with Rose).

Korologos... connected to Benedetto, Gartland & Co, another investment bank.

Codina... Used to be in real estate and railroads, but connected to Merrill Lynch & Bank of America

Robinson... had 35 years with subsidiaries of AT&T, but was never CEO of anything significant.

Ibarguen.... the token MIA representative, and his background is in non-profits and journalism.


So there you have it... A bunch of retired folks. Rose is the only contemporary for Arpey (he's a year younger).

Everyone else on the AMR board is over 60. And not a one of them in a position to be gaining from the rising tide of CEO compensation...


Not quite a bunch of stogie puffing CEOs as you'd portray it. Looks to me like they'd seem more at home at the Golden Corral buffet during senior citizen's hour than they would with cigars and Scotch at the Manhattan Athletic Club...

 

[Frank Szabo]

Not even remotely what I said, Hopeful. Do you think that it's unreasonable for the actual owners to have a say in how the companies they invest in are run, andhow much to pay the current management?

You think it's all about padding individual's wallets. Try to remember that the only wallets the investment banks are interested in padding are the banks'. They're not interested in overpaying anyone, but they also don't want to see their investment go to crap.

You are correct - CEO/officer pay has been generously adjusted to keep up with the ever inflating (dropping in value) dollar while the workers get to suck eggs. We most certainly wouldn't want any changes to the "imminently qualified" Centrepork infestation simply because they could get paid more elsewhere, now would we?

Since the Shrub/Obozo bailouts/giveaways/gifts to the bankers, the FED's printing presses have operated nonstop, cutting our currency's value by more than 50% (as evidenced by the price of gold), so the bankers wouldn't have to bear any responsibility for their actions - ergo, betting the wrong way. Profits are private but losses are borne by the taxpayers.