----------------
On 5/15/2003 8:12:04 PM RV4 wrote:
Strange,
Bob comes forward with an honest opinion and you respond with a negative and sarcarstic comment. It is obvious that as soon as this airline turns in a direction that will negatively impact yourself, the whining we have all done will seem like a walk in the park compared to what your attitude will the become.
I actually look forward to switching sides and blasting you with a taste of your own medicine.
Who is "AA" anyway?
I would bet the outcome will conclude, "WE" are or "were" the airline, not some outside entity which you like to make reference to all of the time!
----------------
You're right. I sincerely apologize to Mr Owens and to you. Why did I post such a sarcastic response? Well, to be truthful, it was because of the outlandish opinion of Mr Owens. That, and the fact that over the past several weeks, some of the same points made by Mr Owens have been answered and/or refuted. But here goes:
1. I doubt that AA is keeping six airplanes idle every day at every station systemwide. I haven't looked at each one, but I doubt it. Maybe eolesen could provide some confirmation.
2. AA could walk away from some airplane leases if it filed Ch11. But along with that benefit comes a cost. For UAL it was $248 million in the first quarter of 2003.
That's a lot of money that AA does not need to spend, since concessions have been wrung from everyone without bankruptcy.
What about the bookaway that inevitably occurs with a bankruptcy filing? Wouldn't that hurt revenue? But then again, nobody in management at AA is smart enough to think that all the way through, are they?
Did you see how much better AA's Q1 yield was than UAL? If I recall, it was nearly two whole cents per mile better. Why be in such a rush to join them?
3. Why would AA cancel the AAdvantage program?? Mr Owens, are you aware that Citibank is AA's best customer?? Last year Citi bought nearly $900 million worth of AAdvantage miles - used to fill otherwise empty seats (if even used at all). Or used to upgrade to higher classes (when the traveler has no means of paying full J or F). It was probably this comment that caused my sarcastic and caustic response. Again, I'm sorry. But why on earth would you have AA walk away from nearly $900 million in annual revenue (especially revenue that entails almost ZERO in marginal expense)??? Are you on crack?
Have you ever spoken to someone who spends $20,000+ per year on AA (other than me, that is)?? If so, you might spend your lunch hours trying to find additional buyers for AA miles instead of harboring such ludicrous thoughts.
4. Construction is on again at the new JFK terminal because it is funded almost entirely with tax free bonds issued by the Port Authority. What this means is that others are financing the bonds in exchange for future rent payments by AA. In other words, it ain't costing AA very much dough right now to build it. It will cost in the future (when, hopefully, AA is cashflow positive rather than cashflow negative) but AA will be eating other carriers' lunch at JFK and will be able to afford it.
5. Advertising expenses. AA's ad budget has dropped each year since 2000. AA is spending much less than WN per pax. Why should AA cut advertising further? Would a cut in advertising increase revenue? I keep hearing from the organized workforce in this forum that revenue needs to grow as well as costs reigned in. Since advertising is one area that might actually enhance revenue, maybe AA should spend more??
Again, I apologize. I am truly sorry for my outlandish response.