ENRON MATH

AAONO

Member
Apr 18, 2003
51
0
----------------
On 4/23/2003 5:23:21 PM FWAAA wrote:

Ok, so pony up double concessions if you''re so outraged.

The "loss" is not the real problem right now. The loss includes lots of non-cash expenses (like depreciation/amortization). Let''s focus on the real pressing issue, Negative Cash Flow.

Negative cash flow is today''s real crisis, and a rough calculation of negative cash flow for Q1 was about $550 million. Since the first quarter is usually the worst, the cash burn in the next three quarters might not be so bad, so that it would equal (without the concessions) about $1.8 billion for the whole year.

I can see you being mad if the loss were only 1/2 that which was claimed, but why you''re so mad thinking it was twice that which was claimed is truly unbelievable.

----------------​
Like I said....Enron math. Why then didn''t Carty tell us we were losing 10 mil. a day, perhaps I would have voted Yes........NOT
 

FWAAA

Veteran
Jan 5, 2003
10,251
3,900
Ok, so pony up double concessions if you''re so outraged.

The "loss" is not the real problem right now. The loss includes lots of non-cash expenses (like depreciation/amortization). Let''s focus on the real pressing issue, Negative Cash Flow.

Negative cash flow is today''s real crisis, and a rough calculation of negative cash flow for Q1 was about $550 million. Since the first quarter is usually the worst, the cash burn in the next three quarters might not be so bad, so that it would equal (without the concessions) about $1.8 billion for the whole year.

I can see you being mad if the loss were only 1/2 that which was claimed, but why you''re so mad thinking it was twice that which was claimed is truly unbelievable.
 
OP
A

AAONO

Member
Apr 18, 2003
51
0
Won''t pony up a dime......Voted No! Keep the pay the same, shrink the airline. Lay off however many it takes!

See you in the unemployment line.
 
OP
A

AAONO

Member
Apr 18, 2003
51
0
Carty says we are losing 5 mil a day. 90 days in a quarter...450 mil???

No, In AA math that equals 1.04 bil.

Perhaps AA used the same formulas as Enron, but now that Uncle Don has to sign off on the numbers, AA has no choice but to ''fess up to the TRUE losses. Perhaps Uncle Don should restart his campaign saying we are losing 10 million a day, We need the employees to work for free...you know, Shared Sacrifice

Resign NOW Uncle Don!
 
OP
A

AAONO

Member
Apr 18, 2003
51
0
----------------
On 4/23/2003 5:56:56 PM AAObserver wrote:


----------------
On 4/23/2003 5:27:19 PM AAONO wrote:

Won''t pony up a dime......Voted No! Keep the pay the same, shrink the airline. Lay off however many it takes!

See you in the unemployment line.

----------------​

So you think the airline will survive if the unions don''t "pony up a dime" after losing $1 billion in three months, yet you accuse management of "Enron Math"?

I''m glad you''re an FA or whatever it is you do instead of being in the accounting department.

----------------​
The company would get their savings by having fewer employees, The unions didn''t want to just cut the # of heads to reach the "goal". They wanted to cut pay instead. Do you now un-der-stand???? I say shrink the airline, not my pay, if it reaches my job and I get cut so be it.
 

AAObserver

Member
Apr 18, 2003
89
0
You''re probably right, less headcount would be good for the airline. Unfortunately I doubt the unions would let it happen.
 

AAObserver

Member
Apr 18, 2003
89
0
----------------
On 4/23/2003 5:27:19 PM AAONO wrote:

Won''t pony up a dime......Voted No! Keep the pay the same, shrink the airline. Lay off however many it takes!

See you in the unemployment line.

----------------​

So you think the airline will survive if the unions don''t "pony up a dime" after losing $1 billion in three months, yet you accuse management of "Enron Math"?

I''m glad you''re an FA or whatever it is you do instead of being in the accounting department.
 
OP
A

AAONO

Member
Apr 18, 2003
51
0
----------------
On 4/23/2003 6:11:20 PM Buck wrote:

Why should the unions have a say on the headcount?

----------------​
The company said they needed "X" amount of savings from each union, the union then had a "say" in how that number was reached. They did it however at the expense of all union workers ,by gutting the contracts, so that the union itself had the least impact to their interest by way of union dues.
 

AAObserver

Member
Apr 18, 2003
89
0
AAONO,

I've heard the theory brought up quite a bit about the unions wanting to keep headcount because of dues.

What do these dues go to? Are the unions profit centers?

I would think that the Union leaders would give more thought to their members keeping the highest pay, but your post brings up an interesting point as well as a potential conflict of interest with Union leaders.
 

RV4

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
1,885
80
www.usaviation.com
----------------
On 4/23/2003 8:50:37 PM AAObserver wrote:


First, the question wasn't addressed to you.

Second, you are a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black.


----------------​
Thank you for proving my point.

It appears to me you involve yourself in every discussion, especially those that you are not invited into. Good for the gander, good for the Goose.
 

RV4

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
1,885
80
www.usaviation.com
----------------
On 4/23/2003 8:41:16 PM AAObserver wrote:

AAONO,

I''ve heard the theory brought up quite a bit about the unions wanting to keep headcount because of dues.

What do these dues go to? Are the unions profit centers?

I would think that the Union leaders would give more thought to their members keeping the highest pay, but your post brings up an interesting point as well as a conflict of interest with Union leaders.

----------------​
That''s none of your business.

Fan those flames, be the problem, blame everyone else.
 

AAObserver

Member
Apr 18, 2003
89
0
----------------
On 4/23/2003 8:42:34 PM RV4 wrote:


That''s none of your business.

Fan those flames, be the problem, blame everyone else.

----------------​

First, the question wasn''t addressed to you.

Second, you are a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black.
 

Buck

Veteran
Contributor
Aug 20, 2002
7,322
1,576
www.fairtax.org
----------------
On 4/23/2003 9:31:22 PM AAObserver wrote:

Believe what you want Stew. It''s no skin off my back either way.

----------------​
Exactly. No skin off of your back. This is my living!