Hackman
Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2003
- Messages
- 3,997
- Reaction score
- 892
Sold all of mine at about $23. I hate airline stock about as much as I hate greedy, lying, selfish, hypocritical AA management. :down: 😉 :unsure:
Citigroup lifts price target for AMR stock
- Thread starter MiAAmi
- Start date
Hopeful
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
- Messages
- 5,998
- Reaction score
- 347
Hey, I have an idea! Lets give the company more concessions and invest thousands in company stock because the price most likely going to climb after emplyees give billions back to the company.
Even better, lets just get paid in stock!
Funny, that is how Southwest Airlines funds their employees retirement. But I'm sure that you will some how find a way to twist something that SW does into a positive, even though AA tried you'd scream bloody murder.
Hopeful
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
- Messages
- 5,998
- Reaction score
- 347
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
If AMR was staffed with as many mechanics per aircraft as WN has, AMR could afford pay you more.
You can have less pay for more people, or more pay for fewer people. TWU chose less pay for more people.
Bob asked how may shares traded below $2... March 10 thru 14 is the week the shares stayed below $2, and with volumes 2x and 3x the average for that timeframe (1Q03), there were well over 60M shares available for those interested.
3/10: 4M @ $2.71 open / $2.40 low / $2.41 close
3/11: 14M @ $2.40 open / $1.59 low / $1.59 close
3/12: 16M @ $1.60 open / $1.25 low / $1.41 close
3/13: 27M @ $1.48 open / $1.36 low / $1.50 close
3/14: 8M @ $1.49 open / $1.46 low / $1.52 close
There were at least another 14 days where you could have bought the stock for less than the cost of a Happy Meal, so this wasn't a rare buying opportunity by any means.
You can have less pay for more people, or more pay for fewer people. TWU chose less pay for more people.
Bob asked how may shares traded below $2... March 10 thru 14 is the week the shares stayed below $2, and with volumes 2x and 3x the average for that timeframe (1Q03), there were well over 60M shares available for those interested.
3/10: 4M @ $2.71 open / $2.40 low / $2.41 close
3/11: 14M @ $2.40 open / $1.59 low / $1.59 close
3/12: 16M @ $1.60 open / $1.25 low / $1.41 close
3/13: 27M @ $1.48 open / $1.36 low / $1.50 close
3/14: 8M @ $1.49 open / $1.46 low / $1.52 close
There were at least another 14 days where you could have bought the stock for less than the cost of a Happy Meal, so this wasn't a rare buying opportunity by any means.
ThirdSeatHero
Veteran
Sorry, I believe theres alittle more to it than that.
SWA only has 737s, what does a 737 carry, a third of the payload that a 777? So why dont we go with tonnage of Cargo and ASMs instead of number of aircraft.Besides mechanics dont dictate how many mechanics they decide to keep per aircraft, management does. If they decide to have more per aircraft its due to the equipement they choose to operate and the way they choose to do their maintenance. Another point, you either have to calculate in total costs for maintenance and add mechanics that are employed by subcontractors to do SWA work and add that to mechanics per airplane or elimate counting OH mechanics into the ratio. Just because SWA sends their OH out it doesnt mean that they dont have the expense.
Are you claiming that was an option? You know that regardless of what they pay they are only going to keep what they need.
The question was whether or not we could have earned back what we gave up through concessions by buying stock. I doubt that we could have. Your numbers dont prove anything because it only tells the number of shares traded or more accurately the number of trades broken down to individual shares. The same shares could have been traded a multitude of times even within one day, they could have been traded back and forth between the same two parties. If that happened a few hundred thousand shares could easily have generated millions of trades.
In order for us to have earned back our concessions we would need around 100 million shares of stock. (Our concessions in reality are at least double the $1.8 billion posted) Thats $3.6 billion at $35/share. My guess is that if we had tried to purchase $100 milion shares at that time the price would have been nowhere near $2/share, if they were available at all. Even if all of a sudden there was a buyer for 50 million shares at one point the price would have changed drastically.
The number of trades broken down into individual share?
What the hell are you talking about? Its the number of shares traded, not the number of trades, or the number of trades divided by the number shares. The shares aren't traded back and forth by the same people. The two parties don't even know each other.
In other analyst moves, Bear Stearns lifted its target price on AMR Corp. parent of American Airlines, to $52 from $38. The analysts there also raised their 2007 earnings forecast for the carrier to $5.05 a share from $4 a share.
If share# SU100000 gets sold at 9 am for $1, then gets sold again at 10 am for $2, then gets sold again at 11am for $1.50 Would it be relected as one share traded three times or simply as three shares traded?
Maybe they are, maybe they arent. Maybe they are and they dont even know it.
I never said they, whoever they are, if there is a they,since the whole thing was a hypothetical scenario anyway, knew each other. But they could.
My god you are one stubborn sob.
If FM told you the sky is blue, you'd probably reply like this...
If FM told you the sky is blue, you'd probably reply like this...
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
Bob asks
It's three transactions, but the fact still stands that there were 60M transactions where people bought and sold AMR shares, and either made or lost money. It really doesn't matter which exact shares traded hands how many times. The other fact of the matter is that with brokerage fees and taxes, you don't see too many people buy and sell NYSE listed shares on the same calendar day.
It's three transactions, but the fact still stands that there were 60M transactions where people bought and sold AMR shares, and either made or lost money. It really doesn't matter which exact shares traded hands how many times. The other fact of the matter is that with brokerage fees and taxes, you don't see too many people buy and sell NYSE listed shares on the same calendar day.
You have posted this numerous times but the financial statements don't reflect your claim that the concessions yielded double the $1.8 billion of claimed savings.
From the 10-Ks:
2002 wages and salaries were $8.392 billion (before concessions)
2003 wages and salaries were $7.264 billion (half a year of concessions)
2004 wages and salaries were $6.719 billion (full year of concessions)
2005 wages and salaries were $6.755 billion
2006 wages and salaries were $6.813 billion (from press release)
The numbers don't support your claim that the concessions were worth double the advertised value of $1.8 billion annually.
Any evidence to support your claims that the concessions saved AA more than $1.8 billion a year?
Add in the fact that over 8000 TWU jobs were eliminated. Average it out to $50k/yr and that alone is an extra $400,000,000, then you have to add all the FAs and Pilots jobs that were eliminated.
Part of the reason why those savings may not be realized could be because they keep hiring more and more management to watch over fewer and fewer workers and the huge bonuses given to management. They just announced they are looking for two more supervisors at JFK, however another mechanic quit yet they are not replacing him. Another cause could be because of all the OT they are calling. OT may inflate the posted salaries and wages but from where we are they increase the savings for the company because we are losing money on every hour worked at the lower rates.Its like comparing the amount spent on fuel and the amount spent per gallon of fuel.
I do not follow your logic on this one.
FWAA
The way I figure it the average wage expenses for the last 3 years was 1.629 billion lower.
Now consider the following.
This year the company made more than 3 billion dollars.
I am doing this from memory so here we go.
Principal reduction of over 2.3 maybe 2.7 billion dollars.
Additional 700-900 million added to the cash reserves.
Plus 200+ profit.
All this is Hard cash ,there are no accounting tricks here.
When you pay down principal you do it with real money.
Be sure to notice that I am not critisizing the decisions to pay down debt or increase cash reserves,
as I believe that these are sound bussiness decisions.
Nevertheles,irregardless of accounting rules that allow corporations to claim these type
of transactions on their books,AA could not have possibly paid dept down dept,
or"put money in the bank" unless they had the cash.
Im I wrong?
In addition the company managed to put about 3.5 billion awayin the previous
years(500 mill restricted)since we had about 1 billion just before the pay cuts.
I believe they borrowed an additional 1/2 billion or so.
The profit last year is far more meaningfull if you take into account the price of oil.
If the oil had stayed 10-15 dollars lower AA's income would have increased even more dramaticaly.
Your thoughts guys?
