What's new

AMR stock at $2.43/shr

Re: they lied to us.

Some of you by now have spent more than a fourth of your career at AMR pissing and moaning about 2003.

Move on already...

AMR at $2 and change could be a decent upside, but not worth the brokerage charges right now.
 
I have been reading this board for awhile, sick and tired of the "Screw this place, screw this, screw that. Ok, tough guy, when the company goes into bankruptcy and you don't have any health insurance, tell that to your wife and kids if you have any. Good luck getting any either in today's world that is less than $1000 a month for any coverage other than ridiculous high deductible. I think the tough guys look out for their family, not the screw this, screw that crowd. Unfortnately, alot of people are going to find out what it is like other than the job they have had for the last twenty years, wake up call.
went thru 2 bks with twa never lost my health ins. lost about couple dollars a hour. did the same job nothing really changed. here without bk i lost 6 dollars and hour and pay more for health ins. hmmm dont know which one was worse, at least in bk management got screwed also.
 
wheres bob, i'm sure bob and the twu will get 45 hr this week
 
Re: they lied to us.

Some of you by now have spent more than a fourth of your career at AMR pissing and moaning about 2003.

Move on already...

AMR at $2 and change could be a decent upside, but not worth the brokerage charges right now.

You don't even work for AA anymore...exactly who should move on? 😛
 
AA employees are not the highest paid. I don't know about other employee groups, but Southwest's flight attendants are by several dollars/hr the highest paid domestic flight attendants. They are paid by the "trip"--1 trip=243 air miles (IIRC), but when you convert those trips to hourly pay, they top out at over $50/hr.

Perhaps nothing better crystallizes the gulf between the unions and the company than the above statement.

It's not about what AA employees are paid, but rather what they cost. Those are two very different things.

For certain work groups, in certain circumstances, other airlines' employees in comparable labor groups are paid more on a base pay ($/hour) salary basis. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that those work groups' cost to those airlines is higher. Beyond base pay, AA's cash outlays for its defined benefit pension plans have a substantial cost that many other airlines have reduced by either dumping their plans on the government, freezing their plans and halting any future contributions, and/or shifting new (and old) workers into defined contribution and/or 401(k) plans.

And - critically - while many airlines may pay certain work groups more on a per-person basis, those airlines all generally employee relatively fewer people in the operation of their system. So sure - do other legacy carriers have a bit higher base pay for pilots and flight attendants? Perhaps. But those airlines also use those mainline pilots and flight attendants for a smaller and smaller portion of their system as more flying has shifted to regionals. Do other legacy carriers have a bit higher base pay for mechanics? Perhaps. But those airlines also have dramatically fewer mechanics since they have nearly or completely outsourced overhauls to third parties. Those costs add up, and thus AA has among the lowest productivity - measured by a variety of metrics - of any airline in the U.S.

AA's current labor contracts have also hamstrung AA's ability to match what other airlines have done in several areas - most notably with SCOPE and outsourcing of flying to regionals, and with some long-haul flying, where other airlines' contracts (particularly with pilots) are often substantially less restrictive. This has given those airlines more flexibility to rapidly adapt to evolving market conditions and competitive dynamics. AA's labor challenge isn't all about merely direct "cost" - some of it is about missed opportunities, or "opportunity cost". I don't claim to know how to quantify that opportunity cost - but it does exist.
 
Wall Street has finally closed... and AMR finished down 33% - to the $2 level Jim "predicted".... and lest anyone think the low fare carriers were exempt, LUV and ALK closed down 8% which wasn't a whole lot better than DAL and UAL's 11%.
This was a broad selloff across the US economy with the weakest companies being most heavily targeted.

Comm,
the simple fact is that not ALL other airlines ditched all of those costs that you want to say AMR is burdended with.
DL has MORE pension liabilities than AA AND pays into 401Ks for its present employees.
The notion that pension benefits MUST be terminated is simply not accurate.
.
The reality is that AMR didn't take advantage of the cost cuts it already obtained - end of story. They had more than enough to run with but they pulled back in 2005 when oil prices spiked and have been in an unrecoverable spin ever since.
Those airlines obtained productivity - and you are right - SCOPE - but they also returned to obtaining premium revenue while AMR has lost it as evidenced by AA's RASM growth which has trailed the industry for a number of quarters and likely will continue to do so.
.
You can bet that AA's competitors will aggressively prey on AA's top customers to move those contracts over to AA... that is part and parcel of what happens in BK.
.
You and I know that those statistics about AA employee productivity are true... but employees don't set their productivity, management does. Acknowledge that the employees of AA gave up more than enough for AA to have turned the cmopany around - but mgmt failed to take what it was given... and it is very likely they will have to pay again - and deeply - if there is any chance of AA making it long-term.
 
Perhaps you could refresh our memories as to which "leader" claimed "we could get everything back in one scoop". At the time we were faced with a TA that called for unlimited labor loaning within workgroups and 20% SMA's on the docks. That was unacceptable. Since those items are off the table I'm sure their last offer would garner 50% +1 approval. As to your last comment, one has to be pretty naive to not know who's really in charge in the TWU.

His tag line is "Number two won't do."
 
I smell a pre-packaged BK and then a merger ..... hope I wrong?
 
News is reporting no BK at this tme, more to follow


KRMG called the media relations people in Dallas.

They sent a statement that says, “There is no company-driven news that has caused the volatility in AMR shares today. The pause in trading of AMR shares was due to automatic triggers established by the New York Stock Exchange (under Rule 80C) that pause trading based on share price volatility.”

They also responded to a question of a court-supervised restructuring.

The statement from the airlines says, "Regarding rumors and speculation about a court-supervised restructuring, that is certainly not our goal or our preference. We know we need to improve our results, and we are keenly focused as we work to achieve that."
 
AA's cash outlays for its defined benefit pension plans have a substantial cost that many other airlines have reduced by either dumping their plans on the government, freezing their plans and halting any future contributions, and/or shifting new (and old) workers into defined contribution and/or 401(k) plans.

Not buying it. Sorry. Management and its cheerleaders always used the DB pension plans as an excuse for the fact that their costs are higher than other airlines. Just one little problem with that. They aren't actually funding the pension plans with one penny more than the government requires. ALL of the db plans are underfunded to a great extent. It's really convenient to add those costs in whether or not they are actually incurred, isn't it? You know, that little accounting trick of "if we were funding the pension plan, that would be a $1 billion reduction in cash on hand. Now, we are not actually going to fund the plan, but we are going to show a $1 billion cost for it."

For the most part, the "costs" are nothing more than numbers on a page, but no money is actually going into the plans if the company can avoid it. I 'spect that in BK what's left will get dumped on the government.
 
Not buying it. Sorry. Management and its cheerleaders always used the DB pension plans as an excuse for the fact that their costs are higher than other airlines. Just one little problem with that. They aren't actually funding the pension plans with one penny more than the government requires. ALL of the db plans are underfunded to a great extent. It's really convenient to add those costs in whether or not they are actually incurred, isn't it? You know, that little accounting trick of "if we were funding the pension plan, that would be a $1 billion reduction in cash on hand. Now, we are not actually going to fund the plan, but we are going to show a $1 billion cost for it."

For the most part, the "costs" are nothing more than numbers on a page, but no money is actually going into the plans if the company can avoid it. I 'spect that in BK what's left will get dumped on the government.
Regaurdless of what the TWU tells you just remember under the PBGC when they take over you recieve your bennies if your 55 well if your not you take a 5 % hit from 65 so if you are 54 and 364 days old when the PBGC takes over you will receive 50 PERCENT reduction if you elect to draw then, you will gain 5 percent each year until the day you actually start drawing it then it stops cold turkey no more that's it. Talk to a few guys from TWA we arn't or nor would we wish this on anyone it's just that we've been there done that.
 
I smell a pre-packaged BK and then a merger ..... hope I wrong?
With whom and are they going to merge or be bought by and are they going to staple AA's mechanics to the bottom. Just asking felllas
 
Their "bonus" was based on stock return within a certain period of time which AMR stock did very well it (to the tune of $40/share).

AA's financial condition had improved in 2006-2007.
First, the stock did very well because of the pay reductions the employees provided. That benefit was later overcome by losses from "competitive" route and scheduling responses. (JFK- Santiago, Dominican Republic 3x daily A300 for $99 vs B6 single red-eye, JFK-LGB; off the top of my head.) Second, the, "bonus" criteria was engineered and then re-engineered to be successful despite later poor stock results. It's to the point that a "bonus" was paid this year even though AMR was
a distant last in the comparative stock results.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top