Bottom Line

[Bob Owens]

Associated Press
Facts About American Airlines
By The Associated Press 10.07.07, 1:31 PM ET


Facts and figures about AMR Corp., the parent of American Airlines:
Number of employees: 81,800.
Fleet: 693 planes on June 30.
Daily flights: About 2,300 departures serving about 150 cities in the United States, the Caribbean, Latin America, Europe and Asia.
Full-year revenue:
_ $22.56 billion in 2006
_ $20.71 billion in 2005
_ $18.65 billion in 2004
_ $17.44 billion in 2003

Since 2003 AA has shed around 40,000 employees yet their revenue has INCREASED by $5 BILLION. Forget all their smoke, mirrors and frivilous easily manipulated statistics, the bottom line is that AMR has drastically reduced labor costs while at the same time greatly increased revenue, they can easily afford to give us back everything they took and more.


NO LESS THAN SOUTHWEST!!!!!

 

[eolesen]

[/quote]

Revenue has nothing to do with wages, Bob. It has to do with ticket prices and ancillary sales (i.e. buy on board, fees for using a skycap or talking to an agent) and, of course, load factors.

Want to make it a valid post? Try including operating expenses and ASM's. Operating expenses are up almost $3B from 2003 to 2006, and likely to be in excess of $23B for 2007.

2006 $22.56 in Revenue - $21.5 in OpEx = 1.06B
2005 $20.71 in Revenue - $20.8 in OpEx = 0.09B
2004 $18.65 in Revenue - $19.0 in OpEx = -0.35B
2003 $17.44 in Revenue - $18.5 in OpEx = -1.06B

 

[swdriver]

Watch it Bob, the know it all mouth has spoken again. As smart as he lets on, why did he leave AA. He should have taken over after Carty was dumped. He would have been a better choice than Arpey. NOT.

Revenue has nothing to do with wages, Bob. It has to do with ticket prices and ancillary sales (i.e. buy on board, fees for using a skycap or talking to an agent) and, of course, load factors.

Want to make it a valid post? Try including operating expenses and ASM's. Operating expenses are up almost $3B from 2003 to 2006, and likely to be in excess of $23B for 2007.

2006 $22.56 in Revenue - $21.5 in OpEx = 1.06B
2005 $20.71 in Revenue - $20.8 in OpEx = 0.09B
2004 $18.65 in Revenue - $19.0 in OpEx = -0.35B
2003 $17.44 in Revenue - $18.5 in OpEx = -1.06B

 

[Bob Owens]

Revenue has nothing to do with wages, Bob. It has to do with ticket prices and ancillary sales (i.e. buy on board, fees for using a skycap or talking to an agent) and, of course, load factors.

Revenue has everything to do with everything, including wages.

Revenues increased by $5billion with 40,000 less employees.

Operating expenses are not under our control, we cant stop management from pissing away all the money we saved them or helped them earn, we can only demand what we are entitled to.We helped them bring in $5billion more with 40,000 less workers.

Not including paycuts for the remaining workers, 40,000 less employees comes out to around $2,000,000,000 less in wage expense, so that gives the company an increase of $7billion to work with even if we were at full 2003 wages and benifits.


NO LESS THAN SOUTHWEST!!!

 

[eolesen]

You've got it backward, Bob. Revenues are more or less a reflection of the market and what AA can charge for their product.. Operating expenses are what it costs to run the airline, and yes, there are thing that are in your control to fix if it weren't for the ongoing pissing contest between labor and management over the bonuses.

 

[FWAAA]

Since 2003 AA has shed around 40,000 employees yet their revenue has INCREASED by $5 BILLION. Forget all their smoke, mirrors and frivilous easily manipulated statistics, the bottom line is that AMR has drastically reduced labor costs while at the same time greatly increased revenue, they can easily afford to give us back everything they took and more.
NO LESS THAN SOUTHWEST!!!!!

You left out some key numbers. Allow me to add to the facts:

Full-year revenue (billions):

2002 $17.42
2001 $18.96
2000 $19.7
1999 $17.7

Total Wage/Benefit expense (billions):

2006 $6.813
2005 $6.755
2004 $6.719
2003 $7.264
2002 $8.392
2001 $8.032
2000 $6.783
1999 $6.120

Total Fuel expense (billions)

2006 $6.402
2005 $5.615
2004 $3.969
2003 $2.772
2002 $2.562
2001 $2.888
2000 $2.495
1999 $1.696

The fuel bill in 2006 was $4.7 billion more than in 1999 while revenue was about $4.8 billion more. Wages were $700 million more last year than in 1999. In a nutshell, fuel price increases have almost completely soaked up the additional revenue since 1999 even though wages have only increased modestly in that time. Over the last few years, wages went way up (with the TWA purchase and with the the contract increases won by the APA, TWU and APFA), and have now come back down. Revenues went up - and peaked in 2000 (which wouldn't be matched again until 2005), fell with the 2001 recession and terrorist attacks and have since recovered. Fuel has done nothing but go up, wiping out the revenue recovery.

I like how you chose 2003 as the year to which you made comparisons. THAT didn't skew the conclusions at all.

Best of luck recovering those wage cuts. Given oil is currently at $90/bbl, I doubt it will be a cakewalk. If you could get the Tulsa, Kansas City and AFW mechanics to agree to small or no raises, the line guys could probably get to WN wages. Good luck with that.

 

[TIME FOR CHANGE]

Great idea let the rank and file pay for the high cost of fuel.

You have showed us all how smart you really are.
Maybe AA management should come up with a better way to offset the cost of oil. We arent giving anymore I guarantee it

 

[FWAAA]

Great idea let the rank and file pay for the high cost of fuel.

I'm sure that was the plan all along.

Seriously, though, the passengers have paid for some of it and the employees have paid for some of it. Pain-sharing, if you will. Wages were slashed and RASM has increased dramatically.

The terminally ignorant will say "Why not just raise the ticket prices another $40 or $50 or $100 each so the company could pay for the fuel AND the snapbacks?

The answer to that is to either review your econ 101 textbook or, if you never took economics, to enroll in a course at the local community college. Through education one can easily learn why businesses can't always just raise the price to cover higher costs.

You have showed us all how smart you really are.
Maybe AA management should come up with a better way to offset the cost of oil. We arent giving anymore I guarantee it

I want you guys to make more money. Problem is finding the money.

You're not giving anymore? Prove it.

Has the TWU been removed over the weekend? Has it suddenly become a democratic organization? Did you remove Little and the other Totally Worthless leaders?

If not, I wouldn't be issuing guarantees your union might not be willing to honor.

 

[local 12 proud]

The terminally ignorant will say "Why not just raise the ticket prices another $40 or $50 or $100 each so the company could pay for the fuel AND the snapbacks?

Hard to compete against carriers that are allowed to continue to fly during BK, escaping the pitfalls of paying their bills, or we could raise the ticket prices $40 or $50 or $100 to offset the fuel!

 

[FWAAA]

Hard to compete against carriers that are allowed to continue to fly during BK, escaping the pitfalls of paying their bills, or we could raise the ticket prices $40 or $50 or $100 to offset the fuel!

Exactly. Competition prevents AA from raising ticket prices high enough to cover all the costs.

Oh, yeah, AA could raise fares $50 across the board anyway, but it's pretty obvious the competition wouldn't all go along, and AA would sell very few tickets until the increase was rescinded. So AA and everyone else tries $5 or $10 increases, and hopes they stick.

 

[WeAAsles]

You've got it backward, Bob. Revenues are more or less a reflection of the market and what AA can charge for their product.. Operating expenses are what it costs to run the airline, and yes, there are thing that are in your control to fix if it weren't for the ongoing pissing contest between labor and management over the bonuses.

Americans supposed tennant since 03, " Pull Together Win Together" Bullpuckey!! You're right the bug in the craw is those bonuses. If AA Mgmt had decided to distribute that money fairly among all it's employees including Mgmt then this pissing contest might not be here today. But No! It just showed all of us laborers that they don't know the meaning of shared sacrifise. If they had done this very simple little gesture then we might not have been so ready to go to war with them and would have kept working together to make American strong again. Yes it's personnal and whatever happens maybe you should blame Mgmt for there greed, disrespect, and totally thoughtless idiocity!!!!

 

[Raptor]

One more reason that I think Tulsa will buy pretty much buy anything the Company comes up with.
I think the Company will threaten to sell of Maintenance in order to scare the masses in Tulsa.

The line guys will not be concerned about that because the know they will still have a job but,
here in Tulsa we oke's will be panicking because if they sell off Maintenance even if we have
the senority to bump say someone in New York how many oke's do you think would exercise
that seniority :unsure: not me for sure, most Oke's would not last 2 weeks in a fast paced, crowded
city like New York, therefor we would be out of a Job.

After 20+ years I am not looking to be unemployed and starting over for a little extra money. <_<

NO I don't think Tulsa will take a chance on AA selling Maintenance, let alone bankruptcy, etc.
We have a good thing here and I am pretty sure the Majority does not want to lose it.

Face it with 7,000 people Tulsa controls the vote.
If we get half of what we lost back, ( considering we will be compared to the wage and benefits of the bankrupt carriers ) then we
will be doing good.
I personally do not think we will get half back thought as that would put up way above Northwest, United, Delta, and Continental,
and that is just not likely to happen, the odds are not in favor.

 

[Birdman]

I think the Company will threaten to sell of Maintenance in order to scare the masses in Tulsa.

Selling off maint. would remove corporate control over it's own affairs, not that management has done a banner job with control. A spin-off would allow AMR to remain "in charge". Changes certainly need to be made and getting the union off this "we're undermanned" concept would be a step forward.

 

[Raptor]

Selling off maint. would remove corporate control over it's own affairs, not that management has done a banner job with control. A spin-off would allow AMR to remain "in charge". Changes certainly need to be made and getting the union off this "we're undermanned" concept would be a step forward.

That's what I meant a spin-off but I spin-off would not be AA anymore but a subsidary of AMR.
Meaning it basically would be a whole new company with new employee's new everything.
I think I will pass.

 

[TWU informer]

One more reason that I think Tulsa will buy pretty much buy anything the Company comes up with.
I think the Company will threaten to sell of Maintenance in order to scare the masses in Tulsa.

The line guys will not be concerned about that because the know they will still have a job but,
here in Tulsa we oke's will be panicking because if they sell off Maintenance even if we have
the senority to bump say someone in New York how many oke's do you think would exercise
that seniority :unsure: not me for sure, most Oke's would not last 2 weeks in a fast paced, crowded
city like New York, therefor we would be out of a Job.

After 20+ years I am not looking to be unemployed and starting over for a little extra money. <_<

NO I don't think Tulsa will take a chance on AA selling Maintenance, let alone bankruptcy, etc.
We have a good thing here and I am pretty sure the Majority does not want to lose it.

Face it with 7,000 people Tulsa controls the vote.
If we get half of what we lost back, ( considering we will be compared to the wage and benefits of the bankrupt carriers ) then we
will be doing good.
I personally do not think we will get half back thought as that would put up way above Northwest, United, Delta, and Continental,
and that is just not likely to happen, the odds are not in favor.

You need to speak for yourself.

I am fully prepared to do whatever it takes to take a stand against fear tactics and fear mongers. You think alot Raptor but seem to take little action. Everything you think is related to fear and/or reaction to fear.

Just as I don't need the TWU or the AFL-CIO speaking on my behalf in the political arena, I sure as hell don't need you spewing fear and cowardice while speaking about or on behalf of the overhaul station I am currently working at.

Why don't you just walk into your Supervisors Office tommorow and request a BBQ Sandwhich? Better yet, get involved in a "working together" team and save yourself from the fear laden brain washing you have experienced. At least the "working together" particiapants think we are owed something and have a little leverage. You on the other have already given up before section 6 openers are even exchanged. How does it feel to live your life more afraid than a company bootlicker? How do you look in the mirror?

There is more than one way to resolve the ASM cost issues rather than cower in fear and hide before negotitations begin. Don't be so short sighted and you might actually see more possible avenues than running with your tail between your legs. If you had someone to lead that had half a brain, maybe you would already know a few available options.

Sorry, but I wont be posting my ideas here for the company to read. You go ahead and enjoy posting your fear rhetoric and have the company believe we are already beat. By doing so, I believe you are actually moving up closer to real conflict rather than rational negotiations. But that is just my opinion.