AMR Sees Over $5.5B Cash, Short-Term Invest At End Of 2Q

[jimntx]

Good work "OneFlyer."
Like selling the HDQ building to an AMR subsidiary then leasing it back to AA for much more than necessary. It's legal, but ridiculous.

First off, making all your posts oversized and bold does not make them any more believable. In fact, it is considered rude--the Internet Bulletin Board equivalent of shouting.

Second, selling a building to a subsidiary of the company is done all the time. We were doing it at Texaco 20 years ago. It's perfectly legal.

One of the main reasons for doing it is that certain expenses involved with owning the building are not tax-deductible if the building is owner-occupied, but are if the space is income-producing rental property.

The same thing is true about your home. As long as you own it and live in it, if the roof leaks, too bad, the money comes out of your pocket. However, if you move out and rent the house, then the roof repair can be deducted from the rental income--even if you have rented it to another member of your family. The difference between your situation and AMR's "business" situation is that you can not live in the house as a renter, if you are also the owner.

The advantage to the company is not the income produced by renting the HDQ building--that's a wash. $1 rental income on this subsidiary's business ledger is a $1 rental expense on the company's ledger. The financial advantage is that every single expense associated with upkeep is now deductible on the subsidiary's books--in fact some of it may even be tax credits. In dealing with the dollar amounts involved in that large a physical plant, the savings can be substantial. Even to the point that the real estate subsidiary "loses" money, therefore reducing the tax liability of the parent corporation.

 

[Wretched Wrench]

First off, making all your posts oversized and bold does not make them any more believable. In fact, it is considered rude--the Internet Bulletin Board equivalent of shouting.

Ahh, it's not so bad. All capitals is what is normally considered shouting. Shouting aside, all caps is hard for me to read. It appears all run together.

But this bold is no biggie.

 

[Nor'Easta]

4) Aircraft replacement

Downpayments are expensive, and AA knows it needs to do something about the aging MD80 fleet.

Ideally, I would like to think they'd want to secure a few 787 delivery positions, since by the time that aircraft enters the market, the brunt of AA's 763 fleet will be 15-20 years old, and that puts AMR at a cost disadvantage.

AA's contract with Boeing through 2013 allows them to give only a 15-18 month lead time to get new aircraft. AA is the only domestic carrier to have this in a contract with Boeing.

I think AA would be smart to place an order for the 787 to replace some 767's and the next generation 737 (737-900ER)to replace the MD80's.

 

[buhbye]

What you're saying doesn't even make sense. I wouldn't generate cash and it wouldn't create a gain or a loss. Both intities are owned by the same company.

There are a ton of ways to make a company look like its losing money, thousands of Americans do it every year when they don't pay as much tax as they owe. What you are coming up with is a very complicated solution to a very simple problem.
Another red heiring, Eagle is profitable, AA buys every seat, bla, bla, bla.

Its all owned by AMR, it doesn't matter.

AMR is reporting loses not AA, there are no huge profits elsewhere.

You are believing something so that it fits what you want to believe, not looking at the facts in an educated manner.

I was only citing one example.

Ahh, it's not so bad. All capitals is what is normally considered shouting. Shouting aside, all caps is hard for me to read. It appears all run together.

But this bold is no biggie.

Yes capitalization is considered shouting. not letter size number 4. I prefer it larger so when I go back to read it it is easier. It is not my lifes goal to please a guy named Jim.

 

[buhbye]

First off, making all your posts oversized and bold does not make them any more believable. In fact, it is considered rude--the Internet Bulletin Board equivalent of shouting.
Second, selling a building to a subsidiary of the company is done all the time. We were doing it at Texaco 20 years ago. It's perfectly legal.
One of the main reasons for doing it is that certain expenses involved with owning the building are not tax-deductible if the building is owner-occupied, but are if the space is income-producing rental property.
now deductible on the subsidiary's books--in fact some of the real estate subsidiary "loses" money, therefore reducing the tax liability of the parent corporation.

I ask no one to believe or disbelieve what I write.
If you do your homework and know your facts their is no need for insult.
Your post is so petty, maybe you should work for management instead.
They are into petty little stuff like you. "You write to big, Your hair is too long, Your pants aren't right..blah, blah, blah!"
Maybe that is your goal is? Go apply they need more sheep.
I know what I know. That is enough for me.
If you don't like what or how I write don't read it. Get your panties out of a wad.
Buh-Bye :huh:

 

[MCI transplant]

I ask no one to believe or disbelieve what I write.
If you do your homework and know your facts their is no need for insult.
Your post is so petty, maybe you should work for management instead.
They are into petty little stuff like you. "You write to big, Your hair is too long, Your pants aren't right..blah, blah, blah!"
Maybe that is your goal is? Go apply they need more sheep.
I know what I know. That is enough for me.
If you don't like what or how I write don't read it. Get your panties out of a wad.
Buh-Bye :huh:

<_< ----- Don't worry about that one friend! Your hat size is a way too big for me!!!!! Buh-Bye!!!!

 

[jimntx]

I know what I know. That is enough for me.
If you don't like what or how I write don't read it. Get your panties out of a wad.
Buh-Bye :huh:

And, how would you know the state of my underwear? Some more of that "I know what I know" business with no basis other than the imaginings of your fevered brain?

"It ain't the things that you know that get you in trouble. It's the things that you know that ain't so."

 

[Ifly2]

Strike Fund

 

[buhbye]

Strike Fund

absolutely!

And, how would you know the state of my underwear? Some more of that "I know what I know" business with no basis other than the imaginings of your fevered brain?

"It ain't the things that you know that get you in trouble. It's the things that you know that ain't so."

:down: You so smart, so smart! Why can't we all be like you??? sheeple come and sheeple go....:boring: :jerry:

 

[jimntx]

Please forgive me. I'm old and forgetful. Tell me again, what grade are you in?

 

[buhbye]

Please forgive me. I'm old and forgetful. Tell me again, what grade are you in?

you are forgiven!

 

[WorldTraveler]

If you could read (doubtful), you'd already know that VS accused BA of telling them that they were going to raise their fuel surcharge.

In fact, I can read enough to know that you read about the last 2 words of my post before jumping into defensive mode.


The BA price fixing accusations are far from determined to have occurred but until the case is fully laid out every party that BA could collude with has be considered, including its partner AA. I’m not saying AA agreed but nothing has been ruled out or in yet.

The mere thought that BA would try to collude with VS is laughable. Is BA oblivious to the long-standing bad blood that exists between it and VS, or at least VS seems to think exists? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to consider that one’s enemy is probably not going to be the best partner in crime, esp. when that enemy is much smaller and stands to gain far more from a BA conviction than VS would get in increased fares.

The point of the discussion (and the part YOU conveniently failed to read) is that perhaps AA’s grand plan to use its cash stash is to swoop in and buy BA. Everyone has assumed that under a EU-US open skies agreement w/ relaxed ownership rules the European airlines would buy US airlines but perhaps AA wants to turn the tables around. There isn’t a great need to beef up AA’s transatlantic service if it is going to inherit the world’s largest international hub. And there isn’t much of a need to buy airplanes when BA is sitting on hundreds of international capable aircraft.

Just a thought to consider for those who can read.

 

[1 VF-1 2NV]

I just realized maybe AA is building up the cash to BUYOUT people like other companies. Or to give back all employee concessions if they are allowed to get rid of the pensions .

 

[LGA Fleet Service]

They come out with a five & five, watch the stampede out the door.

 

[eolesen]

In fact, I can read enough to know that you read about the last 2 words of my post before jumping into defensive mode.
The BA price fixing accusations are far from determined to have occurred but until the case is fully laid out every party that BA could collude with has be considered, including its partner AA. I’m not saying AA agreed but nothing has been ruled out or in yet.

Well, the BBC disagrees with you:

Are there any airlines that are definitely not facing investigation.

Three airlines have said they are assisting with inquiries from the Office of Fair Trading in the UK and the US Department of Justice.

One of them - American Airlines - has specifically said that it is "not a target of the investigation".

The second, Virgin Atlantic, has not followed suit. A spokesman for the airline declined to say whether or not the investigations are directed at Virgin.

The third, United Airlines, has not commented on whether it is being investigated or merely helping out.

In addition to American Airlines, six airlines - Ryanair, BMI, Lufthansa, Finnair, Air France KLM and SAS - have specifically said they are not being investigated

I'm sure that there's a chance the probe could expand to any one of those carriers, but if you go read the BBC's coverage, it's pretty clear that there was communication between someone at BA and someone at VS, which VS took to be signaling of BA's intent to raise fuel surcharges, and alerted the authorities.

The point of the discussion (and the part YOU conveniently failed to read) is that perhaps AA’s grand plan to use its cash stash is to swoop in and buy BA.

Oh, I read it, but pee'd myself laughing and had to go change my pants and forgot to respond to it.

If you really think that any regulator would permit AA and BA to merge anytime soon, there's probably a drug test cup waiting at DL Medical with your name and payroll number on it. Hell, they can't even get frequent flyer reciprocity on routes between the U.S. and LHR.

There's a huge difference between allowing foreign ownership of U.S. airlines and the U.K. allowing foreign control of its airlines.

Then there's the little issue of open skies, and I think you'll see a fully unrestricted Love Field before there's a fully unrestricted Heathrow for U.S. carriers.

Possible? Sure. Probable? AMFA and the TWU would merge first.