Goodwill

[Rational Thought]

----------------
On 5/9/2003 5:33:29 PM Bob Owens wrote:
Tell me, when things get better will AA pay more tax when those intangible assetts increase in value?
----------------​

You don't pay taxes on assets (intangible or tangible), only on capital gains and taxable income. In addition, US tax law does not allow for a revaluation of assets (you can under some European tax regs). In the US, once the asset gets written down, it stays down. So, if the brand name increases in value, that value only gets taxed if the asset is sold.

 

[Rational Thought]

----------------
On 5/9/2003 5:57:14 PM Bob Owens wrote:
And when the mechanics go out and document every single little defect they see, they too will be acting in accordance with the law.

When pilots fly to rule, they too will be acting in accordance with the law. 

I dont want a pound of flesh, I want my money and benefits back. 

----------------​

Bob, the problem you face is not really one caused by anything other than the market. You can find the boogie man anywhere you want, but at the end of the day revenue has to exceed costs. You can pretend that rule doesn''t apply. Unfortunately for AA, it does. Want your pay and benefits back...work harder, faster and more productively. Allow AA to operate the same number of flights with less assets and less people. When the profits return, you can get your pay back. Lowering productivity only makes you a Luddite.

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 5/18/2003 9:49:56 AM Rational Thought wrote:


Bob, the problem you face is not really one caused by anything other than the market. You can find the boogie man anywhere you want, but at the end of the day revenue has to exceed costs. You can pretend that rule doesn''t apply. Unfortunately for AA, it does. Want your pay and benefits back...work harder, faster and more productively. Allow AA to operate the same number of flights with less assets and less people. When the profits return, you can get your pay back. Lowering productivity only makes you a Luddite.


----------------​

Why is it that within weeks of gaining concessions the airlines can all of a sudden raise fares? The airline controls revenues.

Your suggestion that if I work harder, faster and more productively I can expect more pay is a lie. It contradicts what you say about the market and past history. What determines our pay, productivity or the market? Over the last twenty years mechanics productivity has increased, allowing AA to operate more flights with less mechanics but pay has gone down. Instead of being rewarded workers have been punished.

 

[Checking it Out]

Bob,

I suppose you will turn down the incentives built into this new contract? your thinking is flawed!

Example; you advocate the withdrawl from the TWU while collecting income from them! Your credibility is out the door! If you had any morals you would resign!

This is why Unions are in trouble! You breed Half Truths and distrust!

TWU SOLIDARITY!

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 5/18/2003 11:35:14 AM Checking it Out wrote:


Bob,

I suppose you will turn down the incentives built into this new contract? your thinking is flawed!

You advocate giving up $20,000 per year for the chance to be able to get back pennies on the dollar if we jump through enough hoops? You say that my thinking is flawed? You must have swallowed too much of your wad.

Example; you advocate the withdrawl from the TWU while collecting income from them! Your credibility is out the door! If you had any morals you would resign!

I recieve an income from my local which is entirely funded by our members. They support my actions and statements and they can remove me if they so chose. They elected me to fight for them, not for the International. I would honor their petition to vacate should they present one. If I resign without them asking for it I would be letting them down, that would be immoral. Would you resign if the members asked you to?

Since you brought it up, tell me what you consider to be moral.
-Blind obedience to an organization that sells out its members?
-Promoting an "I got mine" ideology that says that members in high cost areas should suffer so you can live like a king and then have the nerve to talk about solidarity.
-With one breath saying " an injury to one is an injury to all" and the next saying "Majority rules, I got mine, you dont like it, move".

If my credibility is "out the door" as you would wish then why do you respond and work so hard to dispell it? Funny but we had a lot of Local 514 members call us thanking us after our ad in the Tulsa World. Apparently we appeared credible to them. Hell, too bad we can run in your elections, at least thats what a lot of those members said. How many similar calls did Local 514 get from NY?


This is why Unions are in trouble! You breed Half Truths and distrust!

Unions are in trouble because of idiots like you who do not know the difference between the truth, half truths and lies.

TWU SOLIDARITY!

The only time I''ve seen that is at Local 100. Local 514 is another story.





----------------​

 

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 5/18/2003 11:27:11 AM Bob Owens wrote:




Why is it that within weeks of gaining concessions the airlines can all of a sudden raise fares? The airline controls revenues.


----------------
​

BAsically because the security fee will not be assesed. Bottom line, the customer won''t notice an increase of any sort. Some fares do need to be increased. Not accross the board. In fact, high end fares need to come down.

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 5/18/2003 6:22:23 PM KCFlyer wrote:




BAsically because the security fee will not be assesed. Bottom line, the customer won't notice an increase of any sort. Some fares do need to be increased. Not accross the board. In fact, high end fares need to come down.



It is my understanding that the increase is above the curreent rate that includes the security fee. In other words while the fare may be up $10 the airlines are going to see an adittional $15.

Why do the high end fares need to come down?
​

 

[lownslow]

From all the stories I''ve read, the fare increase is $10 over the base fare seen now, and will go into effect June 1, the same day the $10 security charge disappears, so I believe KCFlyer is right - the customer will see no effective increase in the overall fare. However, I wouldn''t count on this actually improving the bottom line of the airlines. After all, they have received millions in payments to recoup security costs. If the gov''t is no longer collecting this charge, I would not expect further payments.

As for why the high end fares need to come down? Most corporations are no longer willing to pay $2000 for a roundtrip airfare JFK-DFW. This was the bread and butter for American in the "good" times, and the market has dried up. Strategically lowering airfares can actually increase business enough to make up for the lower average fare by attracting more customers. HP cut their top fares dramatically, and as a result their RASM actually increased.

 

[Checking it Out]

Bob,

You advocate the withdrawl from the TWU and justify your actions by twisting the facts!

You have failed to service the Membership in a fair and equitable manor!

The Majority ruled to bring back a Contract to the Membership for a vote and because of your incompitance at the Local you are attempting to deceive us in believing that the election was flawed! If you new how to service the Members you would insure that they had all the Information to Vote! I would not be surprised if you gave the wrong info to the International also!

Twist it as you will! but you Failed in your responsibility as an Officer of the TWU!

Keep on and Justify your actions, It ''s YOU that has the obligation to represent the Members by supporting the Majority! Not the Minority!

No Matter how you justify your actions, You are the one that has to live with yourself nowing you are collecting from the TWU and advocating withdrawl!



TWU SOLIDARITY!

 

[MADAMT]

----------------
On 5/18/2003 8:39:14 PM Checking it Out wrote:


Bob,

You advocate the withdrawl from the TWU and justify your actions by twisting the facts!

You have failed to service the Membership in a fair and equitable manor!

The Majority ruled to bring back a Contract to the Membership for a vote and because of your incompitance at the Local you are attempting to deceive us in believing that the election was flawed! If you new how to service the Members you would insure that they had all the Information to Vote! I would not be surprised if you gave the wrong info to the International also!

Twist it as you will! but you Failed in your responsibility as an Officer of the TWU!

Keep on and Justify your actions, It ''s YOU that has the obligation to represent the Members by supporting the Majority! Not the Minority!

No Matter how you justify your actions, You are the one that has to live with yourself nowing you are collecting from the TWU and advocating withdrawl!



TWU SOLIDARITY!




----------------​

To Checking it out

Bob Owens has not failed as a representative of his membership, its people like you who have failed in your responsibility as a union member.

When did I vote on this concession package? I was never granted the opportunity to do so. Yes we voted on the first one, but, not on this one. What about Littles comments that due to the events that have come to light he felt " that we were duped".

The membership in out local is completly informed and up to date unlike most other locals we are informed of all the facts and consquences of all of the possibilities.

You on the other hand have failed to follow what you were elected to do, if you are even elected to office. The membership was given the facts and they directed the local how to proceed, they were told of all the implications and again told the board how to proceed. This local is run democratically and not according to the twisted way you percieve democracy

 

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 5/18/2003 7:35:45 PM Bob Owens wrote:

It is my understanding that the increase is above the curreent rate that includes the security fee. In other words while the fare may be up $10 the airlines are going to see an adittional $15.

What I have heard is that the security fees will no longer be assessed, so the airline will be able assess and keep the increase without impacting the fare to the customer

Why do the high end fares need to come down?

To stimulate demand for your product. Southwest lowered their maximum one way fare to $199 and realized an increase in the average fare paid. Hard as it may seem to understand that lowering the fares could improve the revenue situation, IMHO, that''s what needs to happen. Restructuring fares would do more to increase revenue than any super saver vacation promo could ever do. I''ve been accused of demanding $99 coast to coast trips, but I haven''t taken a trip of even half that distance for anything less than $359. That was an advance fare and I do believe the airline made money on it. FWIW, SWA has quietly raised their one way fare to $299. You haven''t heard the public screaming about that.

You are right, the LOWEST fares need to be raised at least to a point where they cover costs. But the airlines, with their ludicrious fare structures are changing fares on an hourly basis...and consumers are on to the game. Why book a flight for $300 when the airline most likely will lower the fare to $150 within the next week or next hour? Or...why pay full fare when the airline owned pricelines and hotwires are out there fill of cheap assed seats at the last minute? The airlines need to dump Priceline and not inventory. All priceline does is improve the "market share" numbers by filling seats at a fare that isn''t making them any money. Anybody notice that you can''t get on a Southwest flight thru Priceline? You want to fly tomorrow on them, you pay full fare. There''s a damn good chance I could get an AA flight on Priceline between the same points for less than it costs them the fly it. ANybody notice that SWA''s average load factor is in the mid 60''s yet they are making money?

Contrary to what you and RV4 might believe, I''ve never said mechanics, pilots, rampers or FA''s are overpaid. I have questioned a hard line stance when the only other option is bankruptcy. We''ll have to agree to disagree on that. I agree with you that advance fares need to rise. The only way to do that is to simplify the fare structure, then stick to it...no Priceline sales for the sake of market share, no flights at less than cost. Somebody has to retrain the consumer. Even at AA''s current costs, a coast to coast round trip could be offered for $400. Imagine...a ticket sold that covers the cost. Instead, while the Southwest''s and Airtrans of the world are selling the flight at $400 (which at their cost structure is actually a profit), the other airlines are selling tickets for $250. It costs them $400 to fly it...the low fare competition is charging $400 , so the big boys feel they need to charge half that in order to capture the almighty market share. Why not match the low fare guys and at least cover your costs? It sure beats a loss. The flights I used in the example above are from JAX-LAX in mid June. Lowering high end fares will stimulate more "business" travel. MAybe the flights won''t go out full...they aren''t all full now anyways, so why not have some discrecionary dollars out there that are making you a profit? Those folks might by if the price was closer to $1,000 than $2,000. The problem is, anytime an airline tries to tinker with Value Pricing, another airline comes in with some giveaway price and rather than stick with Value Pricing, they abandon ship and start offering money losing fares. so they can operate fuller flights. Nevermind that they operate at a loss. I''ll never understand that.

----------------
​

 

[RV4]

----------------
On 5/18/2003 8:39:14 PM Checking it Out wrote:


Keep on and Justify your actions, It 's YOU that has the obligation to represent the Members by supporting the Majority! Not the Minority!

----------------
​

How does one identify the "majority" when a credible vote was never conducted?

It appeared to me the credible vote was avoided because the outcome wasn't desired. It had nothing to do with "majority".

I don't remember being polled about outsourcing vs. paycuts.

I don't remember being polled about opening the contract.

I don't remember being polled about using the American Arbitration Association for voting.

I don't remember being polled about not having full contract language prior to voting.

I don't remember ever being polled about giving dues money to a Democrat.

I don't remember a vote taken on the latest building of a union hall plans in Tulsa.

Is your idea of the majority dicatated by someone or something?

Or how exactly do you arrive at the "majority" under the TWU?

 

[Buck]

On 5/18/2003 11:35:14 AM Checking it Out wrote:


Bob,

I suppose you will turn down the incentives built into this new contract? your thinking is flawed!


CIO,

I would like to see your calculations that show that we will obtain the wages and benefits we gave up by the end of the contract.

 

[FWAAA]

kcflyer: I agree that WN saw a slight increase in their average fare paid for Q1 2003 over Q1 2002. Whether it was due to their lowering of last minute fares to $299 (or less) or whether it is due to their increasing emphasis on longer-haul flights remains to be seen. And WN''s Q1 2003 yield rose slightly over Q1 2002, up to 11.99 cents/mile from 11.69 cents/mile.

But things really aren''t so bleak at AA: In Q1 2003, AMR (including Eagle) saw its Passenger Yield fall from 13.21 cents/mile to 12.8 cents/mile. That number is far better than WN''s yield, and much, much higher than UAL''s yield, which fell dramatically.

I prefer not to dwell on Yield per ASM, as that number is too heavily influenced by legroom (like MRTC). Yield per pax mile tells me much more - it''s how much money each paying pax is willing to pay. And AA''s pax (and AE''s pax) are still willing to pay more per mile traveled than WN''s pax. A bunch more. And as the economy continues to recover, and with the war over, I expect that the AMR yield will once again begin to increase.

And AMR''s nice yield coincided with a huge dropoff in Asian and European bookings at AA (and, of course, UAL), which didn''t happen at WN.

Maybe AMR could increase overall revenue if the top prices were lowered. And AMR is experimenting with lower prices in some markets to better understand whether price elasticity exists at the top end.

Gordo the Liar at CO doesn''t think the last minute full fare pax is price sensititive - and neither do I. But you may be right.

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 5/18/2003 8:39:14 PM Checking it Out wrote:


Bob,

You advocate the withdrawl from the TWU and justify your actions by twisting the facts!

Well at least you admit that I use facts. Twisted? Would you care to elaborate?

You have failed to service the Membership in a fair and equitable manor!

Oh really? Well if my members feel that way they can remove me. Can we say the same about you? Would you care to elaborate on this claim also?

The Majority ruled to bring back a Contract to the Membership for a vote and because of your incompitance at the Local you are attempting to deceive us in believing that the election was flawed!

The election was flawed. Even Sonny Hall admitted it last week when Rick DeMarco and I went to his office and spoke to him. He said that they will never use that system again.
As far as Majority rules have you ever heard of the phrase "Tyranny of the Majority"? There is more to Democracy than simple majority rules, but that concept may be beyond your intellectual capacity. The rights and welfare of the minority must be protected in any democracy, if not then the minority is perfectly justified in trying to leave the organization. Is that what you want, line maint to leave overhaul? If you guys insist that we make the same money with full knowledge that it costs a lot more to live just about everywhere else in this country are you looking out for your union brothers welfare?
Just because Tulsa has the majority that does not automatically mean that we should support what Tulsa wants when Tulsa (as a whole) has never supported us.

If you new how to service the Members you would insure that they had all the Information to Vote!

I did my best, I even tried to give your members more information.
I get the feeling that you have been doing a lot of servicing on your knees.

I would not be surprised if you gave the wrong info to the International also!



Twist it as you will! but you Failed in your responsibility as an Officer of the TWU!

Thats your opinion. I could care less what you think. My coworkers and many of yours feel differently. I dont hide behind an alias, why do you?

Keep on and Justify your actions, It 's YOU that has the obligation to represent the Members by supporting the Majority! Not the Minority!

My obligation is to my coworkers you idiot. Tulsa is the majority, I am not obligated to further their interests at the expense of our interests simply because they are the majority.

No Matter how you justify your actions, You are the one that has to live with yourself nowing you are collecting from the TWU and advocating withdrawl!

And you have to live with yourself. You claim to be a union man but you just advocated throwing away all that was gained over the last 50 years. You claim to be a union man but you look with indifference on the struggles of your union brothers. You chime on and on about majority rules and forget about the rights of the minority. Dont the minority have rights too? Should Blacks and other minorites have just accepted majority rules and sat quietly at the back of the bus?



TWU SOLIDARITY!

Solidarity based upon what? Mutual benifit or majority rules?




----------------​

Oh, by the way we get questions and comments from Local 514 all the time. Gary Yingst appears to be glued to our site since the second things are posted he runs around saying' "Local 562 has it on their site already, Local 562 has it on their site already". Do you get anything from 562?