AMR

[SparrowHawk]

Not really. "Groupthink" is not simply collaborative effort but more specifically the phenomena of individuals in a group either consciously or unconsciously going along with the group consensus out of fear of being ostracized or seen as counter-productive to the group's efforts. It's an example of what some call "peer pressure". Even when a group claims to welcome dissent or alternative points of view a groupthink mentality can still punish anyone who actually does. In groupthink the group becomes an echo chamber where opinions and plans become self-reinforcing because there's general agreement; quite bad ideas have gone quite far simply because no one was willing to commit heresy against the group's adopted doctrine. The escalation of the Vietnam War was in part due to groupthinking in multiple administrations..

The decision to declare independence on behalf of the united colonies was a very long and fiercely argued issue. Of course, only a single man penned the original version of the DOI, Thomas Jefferson, with changes in committee by Ben Franklin and J. Adams, after which it had further revisions under general debate before being adopted in the version we're all now familiar with. There was a lot of collaboration and passionate debate but not really any "groupthink" as defined above.

I strongly recommend getting your hands on the HBO original series on John Adams; Part II covers the Second Continental Congress and it is infinitely excellent.

The John Adams series is indeed excellent. Parse my statement please. I said "One Could easily argue", not that the argument was valid. I don't like union bashers and I'm not a huge fan of the modern unions either. However as you well know, history is an excellent teacher, we however suck as students. The whole country is one big sound bite, groupthink herd of sheep. Try being a Ron Paul supporter and you get a good idea of what I mean. I think I know how Custer must have felt LOL.

 

[Travelpro72]

I won't read through all 19 pages here but from what I have read I can get this: Most at AA are in for a RUDE awakening and many at US are delusional. NOBODY here from the armchair CEO pilot to the nitwits that write for the papers have a clue. As with when US went through the first bankruptcy, employees had no clue what to expect. AA employees are no different in that they feel many things are safe, off limits and sacred. Cash on hand and assets WILL NOT have any affect on what the company wants from you and WILL GET via the judge. So all of this "AA wants no part of US" and "My company is better/bigger than yours" means absolutely nothing. Be ready to be cut by the judge or shot by your management. If a merger between AA and US comes to fruition there is nothing anyone will do about it. I for one am all about job security and working for a strong carrier. If that means a merger has to happen so be it. Direct the attitude toward management not toward each other as employees or casual observers because you don't like someone's viewpoint. Nobody here is any the wiser unless you're in the room with Doug.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I think it is facinating to watch how deregulation has developed and shaped the airline industry since it was implemented.
It's original intent was to drive fares lower (which it did) via the opportunity for new entrant companies to fly between any city pair of their choosing (that happened,too). What the progenitors of dereg didn't do was carry it far enough into the future, where opportunity still exists, but free market forces have created mega-corporations that dominate markets, thus producing a dis-incentive to new entrants. I chuckle when I look around and see the latest result of deregulation: oligopoly.
Cheers.

this isn't true just with airlines... unbridled free market competition ultimately leads to consolidation and concentration of power.. the rich will get richer, the powerful more powerful.... that is why the notion of completely free markets will probably be revisited because even the government as a major consumer will be forced to pay higher prices for many services and products if a sector consolidates and prices rise....
but right now, much of the benefit from consolidated markets has not reached individual Americans... it won't take many pay raises before Americans can start believing that consolidated markets and powerful markets are good for them...
faced with the threat of stronger regulations, companies will throw a little bit of dough to the little folks....

.
as for WN, there is no mention that he is in the least bit worried about a merger between AA and anyone else.. he is focusing on AA as a restructured company. His basis for comparison is DL and UA who are examples of airlines that have successfully restructured - and as he notes - are now doing better than WN in many regards.

 

[usa1]

I think it is facinating to watch how deregulation has developed and shaped the airline industry since it was implemented.
It's original intent was to drive fares lower (which it did) via the opportunity for new entrant companies to fly between any city pair of their choosing (that happened,too). What the progenitors of dereg didn't do was carry it far enough into the future, where opportunity still exists, but free market forces have created mega-corporations that dominate markets, thus producing a dis-incentive to new entrants. I chuckle when I look around and see the latest result of deregulation: oligopoly.
Cheers.

Consumers got their cheep tickets ........ and the entire industry's pensions at the same time???. The tax payer will be paying for those cheep tickets for years to come, via a PBGC bailout. Which is just around the corner?

 

[NYCDelta]

This is the point I'm trying to make about AA. They need to get to a size equal to UA and DL in order to compete effectively. Resolving their cost issues through bankruptcy won't be enough. They can do this organically, suggested by NYCDelta, or they can do it through a merger with either AS, B6, or US. Organic growth in a mature industry is very difficult to do. Merging is very costly and challenged with operational and labor discord. Either way, it's going to be expensive, but got to be done IMO.

That's true. It does seem, however, that I read somewhere (I can't remember, sorry) that when you add all of AA's new planes coming in, and subtract those going out it was still a surplus of +100 aircraft. Those planes have to be flown somewhere. I think the plan I heard was about additional lift out of LAX and more mainline out of ORD. All of this, of course, was before the BK. Who knows now.

Congrats to you too. It's very difficult. I've started to cut back on flying and I miss it already. Friends of mine who have transitioned into other lines of work tell me it will be the hardest thing I'll ever do. What is it about this industry that makes us so passionate, defensive, and difficult to leave? I haven't been able to give up TA flights for one days, but that day is coming soon. Best of luck to you too.

LOL. I was at ORD the day before Thanksgiving. Just go there when you miss flying-that works for me!

 

[ChockJockey]

Parse my statement please. I said "One Could easily argue", not that the argument was valid.

Oh believe me, I'm well used to you making invalid arguments. Nice backtrack, and you're welcome for learning what 'groupthink' is.

 

[usa1]

Consumers got their cheep tickets ........ and the entire industry's pensions at the same time???. The tax payer will be paying for those cheep tickets for years to come, via a PBGC bailout. Which is just around the corner?

QUOTE ""The bankruptcy filing by American Airlines could saddle the obscure federal agency that insures company pensions with a $9 billion loss, officials say, raising the financial pressures on the debt-laden government fund and the possibility it could need a taxpayer bailout.""

LINK http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/government-pension-agency-braces-for-american-airlines-bankruptcy/2011/12/02/gIQA4LYEMO_story.html

QUOTE “The PBGC is yet another government program that is facing a solvency crisis,” said David Kudla, chief executive and chief investment strategist of Mainstay Capital Management.

QUOTE ""Based in Michigan, Kudla counts as clients hundreds of retirees from the auto-parts maker Delphi, which shifted its pension plan to the PBGC in 2009. He warned workers and retirees with pensions not to assume all of their pension will be there when they need it.""

 

[jimntx]

Consumers got their cheep tickets ........ and the entire industry's pensions at the same time???. The tax payer will be paying for those cheep tickets for years to come, via a PBGC bailout. Which is just around the corner?

From Wikipedia (same information on PBGC website)...
"The PBGC is not funded by general tax revenues. Its funds come from four sources:
Insurance premiums paid by sponsors of defined benefit pension plans;
Assets held by the pension plans it takes over;
Recoveries of unfunded pension liabilities from plan sponsors' bankruptcy estates;[4] and
Investment income."

What we all have to worry about is the fact that the way PBGC is set up, if there is a shortfall between revenue and pension payments, the pension payments have to be prorated to match revenue. In theory, the insurance premiums paid by sponsors would increase (not likely). I'm not saying that a government bailout won't happen, but given the current do-nothing, "if we pay this we have to cut that", Congress, I wouldn't consider it likely, either.

 

[usa1]

From Wikipedia (same information on PBGC website)...
"The PBGC is not funded by general tax revenues. Its funds come from four sources:
Insurance premiums paid by sponsors of defined benefit pension plans;
Assets held by the pension plans it takes over;
Recoveries of unfunded pension liabilities from plan sponsors' bankruptcy estates;[4] and
Investment income."

What we all have to worry about is the fact that the way PBGC is set up, if there is a shortfall between revenue and pension payments, the pension payments have to be prorated to match revenue. In theory, the insurance premiums paid by sponsors would increase (not likely). I'm not saying that a government bailout won't happen, but given the current do-nothing, "if we pay this we have to cut that", Congress, I wouldn't consider it likely, either.

Read my lips (Last post) http://airlineforums.com/topic/52096-amr/page__view__findpost__p__851898

My Senator is on the oversight committee ..... and he told me personally, it's broke!

 

[nycbusdriver]

I won't read through all 19 pages here but from what I have read I can get this: Most at AA are in for a RUDE awakening and many at US are delusional. NOBODY here from the armchair CEO pilot to the nitwits that write for the papers have a clue. As with when US went through the first bankruptcy, employees had no clue what to expect. AA employees are no different in that they feel many things are safe, off limits and sacred. Cash on hand and assets WILL NOT have any affect on what the company wants from you and WILL GET via the judge. So all of this "AA wants no part of US" and "My company is better/bigger than yours" means absolutely nothing. Be ready to be cut by the judge or shot by your management. If a merger between AA and US comes to fruition there is nothing anyone will do about it. I for one am all about job security and working for a strong carrier. If that means a merger has to happen so be it. Direct the attitude toward management not toward each other as employees or casual observers because you don't like someone's viewpoint. Nobody here is any the wiser unless you're in the room with Doug.

Agreed. But AA employees do have the luxury of seeing what has gone before them in relatively recent history under the law as it is now written. The only difference in this case is the amount of cash AA has on hand. But losing $100 million/month is not sustainable and they knew that something had to be done. The low hanging fruit is the employees who will be pummeled just like the other legacy carriers. The vendors will get screwed out of a few months receivables, and then their business will go on at a profitable rate, or they won't sign new contracts. The employees concessions will last for years/decades.

Consumers got their cheep tickets ........ and the entire industry's pensions at the same time???. The tax payer will be paying for those cheep tickets for years to come, via a PBGC bailout. Which is just around the corner?

I don't think there will be a PBGC bailout unless Congress gets very Democrat in 2012. The Republicans would NEVER allow a bailout of the PBGC after the fallout from the bank bailouts of 2008. And besides, that would be more spending of taxpayer dollars on the middle class....something that Republicans will not entertain in any way, shape or form. The 1% are not dependent on the PBGC surviving. The Republicans will simply let it rot rather than bail it out.

 

[usa1]

Agreed. But AA employees do have the luxury of seeing what has gone before them in relatively recent history under the law as it is now written. The only difference in this case is the amount of cash AA has on hand. But losing $100 million/month is not sustainable and they knew that something had to be done. The low hanging fruit is the employees who will be pummeled just like the other legacy carriers. The vendors will get screwed out of a few months receivables, and then their business will go on at a profitable rate, or they won't sign new contracts. The employees concessions will last for years/decades.



I don't think there will be a PBGC bailout unless Congress gets very Democrat in 2012. The Republicans would NEVER allow a bailout of the PBGC after the fallout from the bank bailouts of 2008. And besides, that would be more spending of taxpayer dollars on the middle class....something that Republicans will not entertain in any way, shape or form. The 1% are not dependent on the PBGC surviving. The Republicans will simply let it rot rather than bail it out.

My senator is a very conservative Republican .... but even he realizes that not bailing it out is not an option.

 

[usa1]

This industry's government over-site has nearly destroyed it .... from an employee stand point and from an investors stand point. The only winners have been the CEO's and their buddies. And the demise wasn't their fault, but they did manage to take care of themselves as it went down.

 

[FWAAA]

I gotta believe that as dismal as the annual rates of return might have been while the funds were managed by airline-picked trustees and investment managers, the PBGC is probably more conservative and thus probably won't ever achieve high rates of return even when the markets do well, dooming the PBGC to an eventual bailout. I doubt it will take hundreds of billions of dollars like the 2008-09 bailouts required.

 

[Iclubbabyseals]

My senator is a very conservative Republican .... but even he realizes that not bailing it out is not an option.

Apparently his understanding of finance is all politics. His only understanding of finance has to do with where his donors are and how much.

Spending trillions on fake wars and tax cuts to get re-elected are all he understands.

 

[Iclubbabyseals]

I doubt it will take hundreds of billions of dollars like the 2008-09 bailouts required.

I doubt it will take of trillions of dollars like the 2008-09 bailouts required.

There I fixed it for you.

Last I read, the bailouts accounted for at least 8 trillion (some say as high as 17 trillion), which the institutions then lent back at higher interest rates making hundreds of billions in profit.