Amr Debt And Bankruptcy

[mweiss]

Well at least you are finally admitting that I'm in a better position to see what is going on than you are.

I never felt otherwise. Unfortunately, you're not actually looking. What good is having the view if you don't use it? It's the fundamental reason that I trust what I hear from Former ModerAAtor and jimntx, and don't trust what I hear from you.

From the position of AAs balance sheet whats the difference? They still no longer own the assett and now pay for the service.

You suggested that AA had the same motivation in selling Sabre that EA had in selling their CRS. They didn't. EA's was sold at a fire sale price, with the goal of bleeding EA to support CO. That motivation didn't exist for AA. Jim accurately described AA's motivations.

Because the members can read the papers and as in the case of all the Executive bonuses some savy reporter could break the news.

Yeah, and you can read all of it yourself, yet you choose to remain paranoid and uninformed. Obviously nobody needs to go to the trouble of cooking the books.

No, they dont need to depress load factors if they are giving away tickets.

No, they don't. Remind me...what tickets were being given away?

However if you see the way things were being run, even if you simply read the news about USAIR in Phil, you can see that management appears to be trying to drive away customers.

Ineptitude does not nefariousness make.

 

[Bob Owens]

And, what leads you to believe that the service was free when it was in-house? Not only did the sale produce a lot of cash for the company, but there are distinct tax advantages to paying for a service vs. providing it in-house.

[post="256071"][/post]​

If you have sufficient volume then thats only true when management is inept.When you pay for a service that means the person you are paying can provide the service, cover his costs and and make money off of it too.

 

[Bob Owens]

mweiss,Mar 16 2005, 03:43 PM]
I never felt otherwise. Unfortunately, you're not actually looking. What good is having the view if you don't use it?

Once again you dont see what we see. That being the case how would you know what I should be seeing?

It's the fundamental reason that I trust what I hear from Former ModerAAtor and jimntx, and don't trust what I hear from you.

Only because they agree with you.

You suggested that AA had the same motivation in selling Sabre that EA had in selling their CRS. They didn't.

How would you know?

EA's was sold at a fire sale price, with the goal of bleeding EA to support CO.

And I'm sure that at the time EAL, Lorenzo and "industry experts" denied it and came up with all these other logical reasons for the move. What was the motivation for bleeding EAL?

That motivation didn't exist for AA.

How do you know their motive?

Jim accurately described AA's motivations.

Jim accurately repeated what the company said at the time. Do you believe that management always reveals their true motivations for every move they make?

No, they don't. Remind me...what tickets were being given away?

The ones that were sold below the cost of providing the service.

Ineptitude does not nefariousness make.

No, but it could be used as an excuse to hide it. Whats the common term? "Plausible deniability".

 

[FWAAA]

If you think you can do better with the proceeds from selling a productive asset, then you sell it and invest the proceeds where you think you can do better.

If you think a productive asset has reached its peak in value and it poised to drop in value, it's a good idea to sell it. Remember when DL sold over $1 billion of its Priceline stock when it was near its peak value?

 

[Bob Owens]

If you think you can do better with the proceeds from selling a productive asset, then you sell it and invest the proceeds where you think you can do better.

If you think a productive asset has reached its peak in value and it poised to drop in value, it's a good idea to sell it. Remember when DL sold over $1 billion of its Priceline stock when it was near its peak value?

[post="256271"][/post]​

Yea but Sabre is still making profits while AA is not.

 

[FWAAA]

Yea but Sabre is still making profits while AA is not.

[post="256279"][/post]​

Could that possibly have anything to do with stupid, inept AMR management no longer running the show? After all, if it were still a part of AMR, then Carty and Arpey would have mismanaged it the same way they mismanaged the airline, right? 😀

 

[mweiss]

If you have sufficient volume then thats only true when management is inept.

[post="256245"][/post]​

Not only then. It's also true if the business is simply not a core competency. That hardly means inept management. Is it inept management that keeps AA from owning the entire fuel system from upstream to the engines? How about growing the food that shows up in catering? Should AA be manufacturing airplanes? You have to draw the line somewhere.

Once again you dont see what we see. That being the case how would you know what I should be seeing?

I know that you are claiming to see things based on public facts, and yet the things you claim to see are solely a result of not understanding the meaning of the public facts. That certainly undermines your credibility.

[You trust what you hear from Former ModerAAtor and jimntx, and don't trust what you hear from me] Only because they agree with you.

I trust them because their arguments match the evidence. I agree with many things that USA320Pilot says, but I don't trust what I hear from him because most of his allegations don't match the evidence. So clearly it's not a question of agreement.

How would you know [that AA had a different motivation in spinning off Sabre than EA did]?

Because AA necessarily received market value for the spinoff, and EA didn't. Because AA didn't sell Sabre to another company owned by the same CEO. Because the value proposition of owning a CRS had changed in the intervening decade.

And I'm sure that at the time EAL, Lorenzo and "industry experts" denied it and came up with all these other logical reasons for the move.

Not really.

What was the motivation for bleeding EAL?

Essentially the same motivation for AA requiring TW to file bankruptcy in order to acquire the company. The motivation was to transfer assets without associated liabilities.

The [tickets being given away were the] ones that were sold below the cost of providing the service.

You've contradicted yourself again. You said that the load factors were extremely low, and at the same time are claiming that they didn't depress load factors because they were "giving away" tickets. It clearly couldn't have been both. Which one was it?

 

[Bob Owens]

mweiss,Mar 16 2005, 11:31 PM]
Not only then. It's also true if the business is simply not a core competency. That hardly means inept management. Is it inept management that keeps AA from owning the entire fuel system from upstream to the engines? How about growing the food that shows up in catering? Should AA be manufacturing airplanes? You have to draw the line somewhere.

Does AA have the volume of demand for those things where they could do it cheaper in house? Probably not. The market for food and fuel is massive compared to the market for reservations services. Like you said, you have to draw the line somewhere, as far as I know AA never did own their own oil wells, aircraft manufacturing or farms. AA did however start and own their own reservation system that not only helped put AA into the number one spot but also made a profit by selling its services to other carriers.

I know that you are claiming to see things based on public facts, and yet the things you claim to see are solely a result of not understanding the meaning of the public facts. That certainly undermines your credibility.

Such as?

I trust them because their arguments match the evidence. I agree with many things that USA320Pilot says, but I don't trust what I hear from him because most of his allegations don't match the evidence. So clearly it's not a question of agreement.

And I'm sure that most of the "evidence" released from Enron supported the assertion that the company was doing well until it collapsed.

Because AA necessarily received market value for the spinoff, and EA didn't.

Well thats not what Lorenzo claimed. The market was depressed at the time wasnt it and didnt Lorenzo claim that it was a "fair deal"?


Essentially the same motivation for AA requiring TW to file bankruptcy in order to acquire the company. The motivation was to transfer assets without associated liabilities.

And what was the main "liability" that Lorenzo sought to escape from at EAL?

You've contradicted yourself again. You said that the load factors were extremely low, and at the same time are claiming that they didn't depress load factors because they were "giving away" tickets. It clearly couldn't have been both. Which one was it?

Sure it could. It depends on the time frame. Prior to 9-11 load factors were very low, however by 2003 they had rebounded. It wasnt until 2003 that the company demanded concessions, you brought in the issue of pay cuts .

M Weiss
Yes, indeed. And I'm sure you're ready to claim that airline management was deliberately depressing load factors in order to reduce your wage.

You seem to be having trouble following your own posts.

 

[mweiss]

AA did however start and own their own reservation system...

...because no such systems existed on earth yet. That, by definition, meant that they had produced the best reservation system in the world. It did not, however, mean that they were producing the best reservation system possible.

...that not only helped put AA into the number one spot...

Times change. It is good to periodically review the alignment between a company's core competencies and the industry as a whole, to determine what to keep and what to sell.

but also made a profit by selling its services to other carriers.

Since you don't know how much money is involved, you don't know if AA made more money through the sale than they would have made through accumulated profits.

Such as?

You claimed that AA was manipulating goodwill. You claimed that AA was artificially creating losses by cooking the books. The "evidence" you provided in support of these arguments consisted of hand-waving and claims that are only supportable through ignorance of GAAP.

And I'm sure that most of the "evidence" released from Enron supported the assertion that the company was doing well until it collapsed.

If you don't trust the publicly reported numbers, then it's probably not a good idea for you to use them as evidence to support your arguments. Point to the black helicopters instead; they're more closely aligned with your theories.

AA can't pull the same crap that Enron and WorldCom did, simply because the industries are vastly different. Enron and WorldCom bought and sold intangibles. AA does not...especially since Sabre was spun off.

Well thats not what Lorenzo claimed. The market was depressed at the time wasnt it and didnt Lorenzo claim that it was a "fair deal"?

It doesn't matter what he claimed. Lorenzo sold a division of one of his companies to another of his companies. That presents an opportunity for graft. Spinning a company off does not.

Don't you see the pattern? Your arguments all require a belief in large, complex conspiracies. As evidence, you always point to small, relatively simple instances of graft, and claim that the same thing is going on. However, it always requires that you ignore the available evidence, and instead believe in the black helicopters. The world is not mostly made up of Mythology.

Sure it could. It depends on the time frame.

OK, so let's assume that both are true. What should AA have done in 2001, when load factors were extremely low? Based on your past posts, I'm assuming you will insist upon no wage cuts or layoffs. How do you deal with the reduced demand? Or was that a fabrication, too?

 

[jimntx]

Yea but Sabre is still making profits while AA is not.

[post="256279"][/post]​

But, Bob, that is not proof that the Sabre division was making a profit when it was part of AMR. A lot has changed there since it was spun-off.

Bob, I spent over 20 years in the Information Technology field. There were times in the 80's that I thought I would puke if I heard one more industry guru at a conference I attended hold up AMR and SABRE as the ultimate example of using IT for strategic advantage.

When Sabre was developed in the 1960's, the advantage was twofold.

First, a computerized reservations system did not exist prior to Sabre.
Second, AMR beat out the others that were under development--such as Worldspan which came along shortly afterward--by putting a Sabre terminal on thousands of travel agents' desks for free.

But, the real strategic advantage was that when an agent started looking for a flight from Bugtussle to Frog Level for you or me, the system displayed all possible AA flights and combinations thereof before it displayed any competitor's flight info. Because air fares were controlled by the government at the time, there was no incentive for an agent to look down the list for DL or an EA flight to save you money. The price from Bugtussle to Frog Level was the same on all airlines that flew the route. So, more than likely the agent would book you on AA unless you insisted on flying on another airline.

When the courts put a stop to this practice--by that time UAL's reservation system was up and running as was Worldspan and they showed all UAL and TWA flights respectively before they showed competitor info--the airline owners of the particular reservation system lost a BIG competitive advantage.

They then had to depend for revenue on terminal usage charges from agents and ticketing fees from other airlines. At this point it became a bidding war because the technology had advanced to the point that it wasn't a big deal to go out to some remote travel agent's office and install a terminal. (Remember, they used to get them free; so, some were naturally disposed to switch to UAL's system (I forget the name) or Worldspan to "teach AMR a lesson." Ticketing fees from other airlines had always been there and did not increase appreciably under the new rules. So, AMR was bearing the entire cost of SABRE with a loss of competitive advantage in the listings and no real increase in outside fees.

Enter the 1990's and the Internet and independent reservations systems--such as Orbitz, Travelocity, etc--that looked at ALL flights from point A to point B and listed them in order by fare charged, and the race to the bottom began.

As a separate company, SABRE reduced operating overhead and costs by eliminating a number of positions that had existed while it was part of AMR--much as AMR is doing today in all departments. Fewer people doing more work.

Also, SABRE gets to charge ALL users, including AMR which is still the largest single user, for its services. The profit that SABRE is making today is largely due to the fact that AMR is a client rather than an owner.

When Sabre was part of AMR, it may have shown a net profit, but it was a paper profit because almost every dime it showed as revenue from AA or AE was shown on AA and AE's books as expenses, and therefore was a financial wash on AMR's behalf. It was accounting funny money. Today it is real dollars in the bank.

P.S. I've never known for sure about Bugtussle, but I can tell you that Frog Level, Alabama actually exists or did exist when I was growing up. It's not an incorporated town, but it is/was a community in Bibb County.

 

[Bob Owens]

mweiss,Mar 17 2005, 03:28 PM]
You claimed that AA was manipulating goodwill. You claimed that AA was artificially creating losses by cooking the books. The "evidence" you provided in support of these arguments consisted of hand-waving and claims that are only supportable through ignorance of GAAP.

While I'll admit I'm not an expert on GAAP I am familiar with its intent. And for what I'm claiming was done, GAAP standards would have been met. Once again you have to realize that the interests of the stockholder and the employee are in many cases diametrically opposed.

The fact is that you stated that Goodwill should not be listed as part of the Operating loss-it was. Why was that? What was the purpose of listing it as an operating loss? Do you deny that this inflated the reported loss? Sure it had the disclamer but why include it as an operating loss if not to inflate the number?Couldn't this loss have been claimed over a period of years to offset taxes in future years when profits are made?

Artificially creating losses? No more like manipulating them to give us a desired impression that was more dire than reality.



AA can't pull the same crap that Enron and WorldCom did, simply because the industries are vastly different. Enron and WorldCom bought and sold intangibles. AA does not...especially since Sabre was spun off.

AA does not deal in Intangibles? Then what are "routes"? What was the $988 million in "goodwill" made up of if not "intangibles"?

I didnt say that they pulled the same stuff. Enron and Worldcom set out to decieve stockholders, we have the SEC and GAAP and a slew of laws on the books in order to protect stockholders from being decieved in such a way,(despite all this it still happened) I claim that they set out to decieve employees, there are no laws or government agencies to protect workers from that.

Whats really beautiful about this is that presenting these losses this way puts them in complance with GAAP, extrodinarly so compared to many other companies, while serving the dual purpose of making the employees believe that the company is likely going to cease to exist unless they agree to massive long term concessions.

It doesn't matter what he claimed. Lorenzo sold a division of one of his companies to another of his companies. That presents an opportunity for graft. Spinning a company off does not.

Oh really? Another textbook lesson? More often than not, just about any large transaction presents some sort of opportunity for graft.

Don't you see the pattern? Your arguments all require a belief in large, complex conspiracies.

Not really. Conspiracy is your word. Do you deny that airlines work to lower wages? Do you deny that they would work in concert to some degree in order to do so? Do you deny that airlines would go to extrodinary legnths in order to gain the upper hand on labor?

If you say Yes to any of these then you know nothing other than what they teach you in the textbooks about this industry.

As evidence, you always point to small, relatively simple instances of graft, and claim that the same thing is going on. However, it always requires that you ignore the available evidence, and instead believe in the black helicopters. The world is not mostly made up of Mythology.

And not everything can be mathimatically explained and charted out on a graph either. Not everything fits into your formulae.

OK, so let's assume that both are true. What should AA have done in 2001, when load factors were extremely low?

Immmediately stop hiring unless absolutely neccissary. Put a hold on all unneccisary capital improvements and equipement purchases.

In 2001 our headcount went up dramatically considereing what was going on in the industry, we also saw the company engage in frivolous capital improvement projects such as painting the hangar doors, putting a new roof on the hangar,paving the parking lot, landscaping the hangar entrance and buying expensive and unnneeded equipement,and thats just JFK.

If that did not stem losses then start cutting unprofitable routes and layoff as needed.

Based on your past posts, I'm assuming you will insist upon no wage cuts or layoffs.

Layoffs, unfortunately yes, if you dont have the work then you must let people go , that is if you have brought outsourced work back in and still do not have work for them. Paycuts -no, because if anything you will need the workforce that remains to be willing to go above and beyond in order to get you through the tough times.Once you cut their pay you have demoralized your workforce at a time where you need them the most.

How do you deal with the reduced demand? Or was that a fabrication, too?


The reduced demand was real, however thats part of the typical businesses cycle. Thats the way this industry always was. However demand had started to rebound by 2003. I believe a recent report claimed that more people flew last year than any other year.

 

[mweiss]

...for what I'm claiming was done, GAAP standards would have been met.

That's not my point. My point is that you don't understand what the reports mean. Beyond that, I'm not rehashing this issue. We've been over it before, and it's clear that you're starting with a conclusion and grasping for straws to back it up.

AA does not deal in Intangibles?

Sure they do, but they're a tiny, tiny fraction of the revenue passing through the business. That's why I say they're not an Enron or a WorldCom.

I claim that they set out to decieve employees...

...and use as evidence your confusion over accounting.

Conspiracy is your word.

Conspiracy is your life! Look over your post history. At least a half-dozen posters have called attention to the conspiratorial nature of your accusations. It's pretty much all you ever talk about around here. Not only that, but you encourage the creation of new conspiracies to combat the ones you believe exist...and never seem able to understand why they don't happen. I'll give you a hint. It's because they are incredibly hard to create and even harder to maintain. Get more than about a dozen people involved, and they fall to pieces.

Do you deny that airlines work to lower wages? Do you deny that they would work in concert to some degree in order to do so? Do you deny that airlines would go to extrodinary legnths in order to gain the upper hand on labor?

1. No. They just don't have to jump through your conspiratorial hoops to do it. 2. No. They just don't have to, and beyond sharing ideas with each other on how to do it better, they don't work in concert. 3. Extraordinary lengths? Whatever do you have in mind? Murder?

And not everything can be mathimatically explained and charted out on a graph either. Not everything fits into your formulae.

You don't have a clue about me. The formulae aren't mine, and even if they were they'd be tools in a very large belt.

Immmediately stop hiring unless absolutely neccissary. Put a hold on all unneccisary capital improvements and equipement purchases.

How many more line employees worked at AA at the end of 2001 than at the end of 1999? How many new capital improvement and equipment acquisition contracts were signed in 2001?

However demand had started to rebound by 2003. I believe a recent report claimed that more people flew last year than any other year.

Therefore, quantity demanded was higher in 2003 than in 2000. Was demand? That's a harder question to answer. Revenue peaked in 2000, hit a local bottom in 2002 at 25% off of the peak, and has somewhat recovered, to a point 10% off of the peak.

In other words, the airlines are carrying more people, but receiving less revenue. Unless you have more data to supply, we cannot conclude that demand has recovered. Nonetheless, I'm inclined to agree that demand is on the rise.

But what does this have to do with what you would have done in 2001?

 

[Bob Owens]

mweiss,Mar 18 2005, 03:36 AM]
That's not my point. My point is that you don't understand what the reports mean. Beyond that, I'm not rehashing this issue. We've been over it before, and it's clear that you're starting with a conclusion and grasping for straws to back it up

You didnt answer the question. Why did they list the $988 million as part of their operational losses? I say it was for "Headline value".

Sure they do, but they're a tiny, tiny fraction of the revenue passing through the business. That's why I say they're not an Enron or a WorldCom.

Sure but in this business tiny fractions make the difference between a very good year and a very bad one.

...and use as evidence your confusion over accounting.


Well you still have not shown me where I'm wrong, you just make conclusions without backing it up with anything other than your claim to have a PHD in economics..

1. No. They just don't have to jump through your conspiratorial hoops to do it.

So you are agreeing that they do "work in concert" but do not conspire? Clearly what you might consider working in concert, would be considered conspiracy, by the party whose interests were compromised by your concerted action.

2. No. They just don't have to, and beyond sharing ideas with each other on how to do it better, they don't work in concert.

Now you are saying that they dont work in concert whereas you just agreed that airlines do work in concert to lower wages. So which is it? Do they work together or not? If not then how do you explain Aircon.org?

Two cars pull up to a light. The drivers dont even acknowledge each other. The light turns green and both drivers nail the gas, lighting off their tires and speeding forward, A cop witnesses the whole thing and writes them up for drag racing. Were they?

3. Extraordinary lengths?

Sure. Look at what happened between AAs pilots and the company during the Reno Air integration. Look at what happened in March of 2001 when the company cancelled all flights into and out of JFK because they claimed the mechanics were having a 24 hour job action. I was there, I saw what went on and I saw how nobody in the press questioned the company's accusations and claims.

Look at what Lorenzo did!

Check out Aircon.org, you might also read the text of SR1327. While not a smoking gun it certainly supports what I've been saying. The fact is that a victim of an injustice would have a clearer view than some outsider.

You don't have a clue about me. The formulae aren't mine, and even if they were they'd be tools in a very large belt.

Fair enough, I have to make my judgements based on what you post here, as you have done. Once again you appear to have become insulted when someone does to you what you so often do to others.

How many more line employees worked at AA at the end of 2001 than at the end of 1999? How many new capital improvement and equipment acquisition contracts were signed in 2001?

To the best of my knowledge they continued hiring until Sept 21, 2002. From Jan 1 2000 to Sept 2002 they added 3235 mechanics. They hired 188 mechanics after Sept 11, 2001. I did not break it down between overhaul and line.

Therefore, quantity demanded was higher in 2003 than in 2000. Was demand? That's a harder question to answer. Revenue peaked in 2000, hit a local bottom in 2002 at 25% off of the peak, and has somewhat recovered, to a point 10% off of the peak.

In other words, the airlines are carrying more people, but receiving less revenue. Unless you have more data to supply, we cannot conclude that demand has recovered. Nonetheless, I'm inclined to agree that demand is on the rise.

Ok, load factors have recovered. Now we would have to start the debate over whether people would have been willing to pay more or not. Once again we would have to go back to the point that air travel is the means to an end. Are people really seeking to ride on a plane or get somewhere?

But what does this have to do with what you would have done in 2001?

??

OK, so let's assume that both are true. What should AA have done in 2001, when load factors were extremely low?

Immmediately stop hiring unless absolutely neccissary. Put a hold on all unneccisary capital improvements and equipement purchases.

In 2001 our headcount went up dramatically considering what was going on in the industry, we also saw the company engage in frivolous capital improvement projects such as painting the hangar doors, putting a new roof on the hangar,paving the parking lot, landscaping the hangar entrance and buying expensive and unnneeded equipement,and thats just JFK.

If that did not stem losses then start cutting unprofitable routes and layoff as needed.

 

[mweiss]

Why did they list the $988 million as part of their operational losses? I say it was for "Headline value".

First of all, you have the number wrong. Secondly, I'm assuming that you're referencing the Cash Flow Statement. The specific reference in the Cash Flow Statement (which, incidentally, was not a footnote) shows goodwill impairment. This is specifically related not to the amortization of goodwill, but rather to the accounting change mandated by FASB 142. That's hardly "headline value." They didn't get to choose where it would appear on the financial statement. That was the FASB's job.

Sure but in this business tiny fractions make the difference between a very good year and a very bad one.

You've got the wrong order of magnitude here.

Well you still have not shown me where I'm wrong

Sure I have. You just didn't understand the answer...because you don't understand accounting.

without backing it up with anything other than your claim to have a PHD in economics..

So that's my claim? Prove it. Post the quote where I claimed to have a PhD in economics.

So you are agreeing that they do "work in concert" but do not conspire?

I agree that they share ideas, in precisely the same way that union leadership does. That's where "conspiracy" ends.

The fact is that a victim of an injustice would have a clearer view than some outsider.

Really? So why is it that the judicial system doesn't fill the juries with victims?

To the best of my knowledge they continued hiring until Sept 21, 2002.

Excuse me, but you didn't answer my questions. Since you didn't break it down, I'll rephrase. How many more mechanics worked at AA at the end of 2001 than at the end of 1999? How many new capital improvement and equipment acquisition contracts were signed in 2001?

Now we would have to start the debate over whether people would have been willing to pay more or not.

There's another thread for that discussion, just waiting for three very simple answers from you.

My final question here was in reference to how what happened in 2003 was going to influence what you would have done in 2001. Unless you have a crystal ball, you had no way of knowing how bad it was going to get, nor how long it would last.

 

[Bob Owens]

mweiss,Mar 18 2005, 03:30 PM]
First of all, you have the number wrong.

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

Secondly, I'm assuming that you're referencing the Cash Flow Statement.

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

The specific reference in the Cash Flow Statement (which, incidentally, was not a footnote) shows goodwill impairment. This is specifically related not to the amortization of goodwill, but rather to the accounting change mandated by FASB 142. That's hardly "headline value." They didn't get to choose where it would appear on the financial statement. That was the FASB's job.

Well werent you the one who said that it should not appear as part of "operating costs"? Claiming to have lost $3.5 billion when losses due to operations were $2.5 billion is headline grabbing. Maybe $1billion doesnt mean much to you but 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. It made AA losses appear much larger than anyone elses and on its own made it appear that AA was in the worst shape finacially. Its not important what the facts were, what is important is what it was made to appear like to the employee.

A similar thing happened in the early 90s when they changed rules governing amortization, allowing corporations to alter the schedules, and the airlines came out with statements claiming that the industry lost more money in one year than they made in it previous 50 years.

So yes, despite your assertions bordering along the lines of "plausible deniablity" these are headline grabbing tactics where they are exploiting changes in accounting rules in order to misinform and manipulate employees and I dont buy the excuse that they were merely following whats permitted by law. I maintain that they knew rightly how these things would be interpreted by the workers and they deliberately delivered them in such a way that they would interpret them that way.

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.

By the way how much did AMR actually pay for TWA?


Sure I have. You just didn't understand the answer...because you don't understand accounting.

Then why not just cut and paste them?

So that's my claim? Prove it. Post the quote where I claimed to have a PhD in economics.

Well you claim to have all these tools in a "very large belt", so one would assume that you had reached the pinnicle of higher learning. If your tool belt is "very large" without a PHD then what would one with a PHD have?

I agree that they share ideas, in precisely the same way that union leadership does. That's where "conspiracy" ends.

And how would you know this? Have you ever been an airline executive or a union officer? Have you ever looked into Aircon?

Really? So why is it that the judicial system doesn't fill the juries with victims?

The idea is to try to fill them with people who have no pecuniary or personal interest in either side, neutral. We on the other hand are not playing the role of jurists here, instead we are presenting evidence to support our positions, jurors would not be good witnesses, victims are. When presenting what happened, victims are usually the most compelling witnesses.

Excuse me, but you didn't answer my questions.

Well I gave you the information I had readily available, if thats not good enough then too bad.


My final question here was in reference to how what happened in 2003 was going to influence what you would have done in 2001.

Well that certainly was not clear from your post. The fact is that in 2000 the economy started slowing down, this is not the first time the economy had ever slowed down, but the airlines did not take actions in order to prepare for it, instead they went on like the boom was just getting started.

Unless you have a crystal ball, you had no way of knowing how bad it was going to get, nor how long it would last.

Well like I just said, 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 would think that those at the top would know how to better deal with them if all this is as undeliberate as you claim.

I still claim that they deliberately failed to apply the brakes when they saw impending disaster, either way we would have faced hard times, they just made them harder in order to achieve another objective.

I claim that they did this in order to gain huge decreases in labor costs that will save many many billions of dollars over a several year period and permanently reset the bar at lower level. Whether they actually sat down and collectively discussed it or whether they all just saw the same opportunity and exploited it, really doesnt matter to me, only the results of do. And the results are clear, the airlines saw huge decreases in labor costs they they could never have acheived any other way.Whether the airlines actually see this money or the banks, fuel companies and others that all derive huge amounts of revenue from this industry get it instead is another debate.