AMR Q2 loss $286mil

[Frank Szabo]

Its not a bank, its Obama's stash..........

I had a stash once, then they started drug testing ...

 

[eolesen]

The "fancy statistics" some experts throw about are no different than you guys comparing pay rates, pensions, etc. It's a way to measure the company's effectiveness.

But, please note that I'm not one to focus so much on percentages, CASM, RASM, LF, etc. or anything else that requires massaging, stage length adjustments, etc. to get a truly clear comparison.

Sure, it's useful information, but at the end of the quarter, you either made money or you didn't. AMR didn't. And it looks like everyone else did. If WT's numbers are correct, UA's costs are about 8.5% lower than AMR's. And that's before any of you guys get raises....

1-2% is a reasonable mark-up, but nobody (not even mileage whores like me) is going to pay 8 or 9% more for the privilege to fly on AA.

That's one of your core issues. When you break even, UA's earning an 8% profit.

New airplanes will go a fair way towards reducing that gap. But it's not going to be enough by its own.

AMR's got the ability to be profitable again, but as long as the infighting between workgroups, management, etc. continues to go on, you can expect to tread water while everyone else keeps moving.

You don't have to match them one for one on a cost basis, but you do need to be earning more than you're spending. Right now, that's not even close to happening.

Did it ever appear to you that maybe UA's management is MUCH better at running an airline than Arpey & co.???????

Without a doubt, CO's management is definitely better. The only guys in my opinion who really do it better than CO are G4, AS, and WN.

But, let's see how they hold up as the integration moves forward, and how well they hold onto a cost gap that's approaching . Not everyone wants to move to Chicago, and there doesn't seem to be a Project Visine equiv at UA just yet (Maybe Project Roundup, since it kills tulips?....)

 

[WorldTraveler]

Gee.....use the credit cards to pay your bills and keep the cash in the bank. And, that's a good thing????

Is this concept taught in Finance 101???? No wonder corporate america is in deep sh%t!

I certainly don’t support it… but when you can’t or don’t make cuts, the only choice is to take on debt.

Give it TIME, my boy.......AA & TWA merger looked rosy at the beginning, too.

The only thing that airlines get with mergers is......HEADACHES

You, Josh and Eric appear to be experts on this forum with fancy acronyms, numbers, and solutions.......Well, did it ever appear to you that maybe UA's management is MUCH better at running an airline than Arpey & co.???????

With all due respect, there is a mindset among AA fans that mergers don’t work for anyone just because they haven’t work for us… and the evidence is overwhelming that there are other companies that have managed to make mergers work.
The un-finished aspect of the DL and US mergers and where the likely problems will be with UA-CO will be labor integration- but from a network and strategic standpoint, each of these mergers have already shown themselves to be successes.

The "fancy statistics" some experts throw about are no different than you guys comparing pay rates, pensions, etc. It's a way to measure the company's effectiveness.

But, please note that I'm not one to focus so much on percentages, CASM, RASM, LF, etc. or anything else that requires massaging, stage length adjustments, etc. to get a truly clear comparison.

Sure, it's useful information, but at the end of the quarter, you either made money or you didn't. AMR didn't. And it looks like everyone else did. If WT's numbers are correct, UA's costs are about 8.5% lower than AMR's. And that's before any of you guys get raises....

1-2% is a reasonable mark-up, but nobody (not even mileage whores like me) is going to pay 8 or 9% more for the privilege to fly on AA.

That's one of your core issues. When you break even, UA's earning an 8% profit.

New airplanes will go a fair way towards reducing that gap. But it's not going to be enough by its own.

AMR's got the ability to be profitable again, but as long as the infighting between workgroups, management, etc. continues to go on, you can expect to tread water while everyone else keeps moving.

You don't have to match them one for one on a cost basis, but you do need to be earning more than you're spending. Right now, that's not even close to happening.



Without a doubt, CO's management is definitely better. The only guys in my opinion who really do it better than CO are G4, AS, and WN.

But, let's see how they hold up as the integration moves forward, and how well they hold onto a cost gap that's approaching . Not everyone wants to move to Chicago, and there doesn't seem to be a Project Visine equiv at UA just yet (Maybe Project Roundup, since it kills tulips?....)

Fancy statistics are no different than x-rays or lab work to a dr…they show where the problems are and provide some insight as to what kinds of solutions are needed.
.
It was easy for CO to be the best in the business… they had the lowest costs in the network carrier segment as a result of their dual bankruptcies in the decades before and their rapid growth in the 90s and 2000s, a new fuel-efficient fleet, and relatively little competition in their key hubs.
.
It’s not a surprise that CO decided it was worth selling out once their costs reached levels comparable with other network carriers and the NYC market all of a sudden became much more competitive.