CallawayGolf
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2009
- Messages
- 1,920
- Reaction score
- 1,961
"GI
All you TEMPE pom-pom wavers please weigh in.....Please - Please explain to the rest of us the logic of why this level of compensation is remotely acceptable. Is it merit based or performance based? - what are the benchmarks? WHO appointed WHO to the BOD and are they the same individuals voting on the executive compensation packages? When we miss our cash on hand targets we simple offer more stock and continue to dilute stock price. That's a plan? :blink:
Please do us all a favor and save the obligatory quips like: "if you don't like it, then why don't you quit"- that has become so TEMPE, Do yourself and all the rest of us a favor and educate yourself or read a book or something. I am just looking for some honest dialogue on justifying paying these kind of salaries and what THE COMPANY is actually getting in return. You know the "shareholders" (that weren't appointed to the BOD) and employees.
Happy Thanksgiving,
GI"
The data you are using is flawed (skewed) to make your point. The report shows 2008 executive "compensation" which includeds salary, bonuses paid for 2007 performance, and stock options which were granted in prior years and only hold value if 1) LCC stock price performs according to the terms of the grant, and 2) if the executive actually excercises the right to use them. The data does not show actual take home pay which is subtantially different from the SEC filings.
Since 2007 was the most profitable year in the airline's history, it makes sense that the executives received the bonuses that the BOD set to incintivize them to provide strong financial returns. Onthe other hand, the airline lost big money in 2008 and no bonuses were paid in 2009 to executives for financial performance. Bonuses were paid based on operational performance (Isom's brilliance) because the BOD obviously felt that running a reliable airline was just as important to the long-term health and survivability of the company as the financial metrics are.
Stock options represent the largest component of the compensation referenced in the article and is completely misunderstood by most, or so it seems. A stock grant is worthless unless it is vested and excersided, yet the SEC requires them to be reported as compensation even if they are never exchanged for tangible income. BODs use stock options as a way to avoid paying direct compensation to executives because they 1) offer an at-risk incentive for the executive to align his goals with that of the shareholders - increased stock price, 2) the compensation does not drain on the company's financial performance since it realy comes at the expense of the shareholders, and 3) it provides a mechanism to prevent executives from jumping from company to company just because a higher salary is offered (harder to walk away when you have unvested options that have future value). At any rate it's the stockholder's value that they are transfering to the executuve so it really has no bearing on what the company can afford to pay employees from operating perfomance. It's their money and they can do with it as they see fit - right?
Finally, this is just another baseless class warfare attack that gains you nothing except the pleasure of complaining. If you want to make executive compensation you should follow that career path. Of course if all US Airways executives agreed to forego all compensation because the company is losing money and give it to the deserving 32k employees, it would hardly make a blip on your paycheck (Doug's $550,000 / 32,000 employees / 12 months = $1.43 😱 ). Is $1.43/mo really worth getting up in arms about Doug's salary?
All you TEMPE pom-pom wavers please weigh in.....Please - Please explain to the rest of us the logic of why this level of compensation is remotely acceptable. Is it merit based or performance based? - what are the benchmarks? WHO appointed WHO to the BOD and are they the same individuals voting on the executive compensation packages? When we miss our cash on hand targets we simple offer more stock and continue to dilute stock price. That's a plan? :blink:
Please do us all a favor and save the obligatory quips like: "if you don't like it, then why don't you quit"- that has become so TEMPE, Do yourself and all the rest of us a favor and educate yourself or read a book or something. I am just looking for some honest dialogue on justifying paying these kind of salaries and what THE COMPANY is actually getting in return. You know the "shareholders" (that weren't appointed to the BOD) and employees.
Happy Thanksgiving,
GI"
The data you are using is flawed (skewed) to make your point. The report shows 2008 executive "compensation" which includeds salary, bonuses paid for 2007 performance, and stock options which were granted in prior years and only hold value if 1) LCC stock price performs according to the terms of the grant, and 2) if the executive actually excercises the right to use them. The data does not show actual take home pay which is subtantially different from the SEC filings.
Since 2007 was the most profitable year in the airline's history, it makes sense that the executives received the bonuses that the BOD set to incintivize them to provide strong financial returns. Onthe other hand, the airline lost big money in 2008 and no bonuses were paid in 2009 to executives for financial performance. Bonuses were paid based on operational performance (Isom's brilliance) because the BOD obviously felt that running a reliable airline was just as important to the long-term health and survivability of the company as the financial metrics are.
Stock options represent the largest component of the compensation referenced in the article and is completely misunderstood by most, or so it seems. A stock grant is worthless unless it is vested and excersided, yet the SEC requires them to be reported as compensation even if they are never exchanged for tangible income. BODs use stock options as a way to avoid paying direct compensation to executives because they 1) offer an at-risk incentive for the executive to align his goals with that of the shareholders - increased stock price, 2) the compensation does not drain on the company's financial performance since it realy comes at the expense of the shareholders, and 3) it provides a mechanism to prevent executives from jumping from company to company just because a higher salary is offered (harder to walk away when you have unvested options that have future value). At any rate it's the stockholder's value that they are transfering to the executuve so it really has no bearing on what the company can afford to pay employees from operating perfomance. It's their money and they can do with it as they see fit - right?
Finally, this is just another baseless class warfare attack that gains you nothing except the pleasure of complaining. If you want to make executive compensation you should follow that career path. Of course if all US Airways executives agreed to forego all compensation because the company is losing money and give it to the deserving 32k employees, it would hardly make a blip on your paycheck (Doug's $550,000 / 32,000 employees / 12 months = $1.43 😱 ). Is $1.43/mo really worth getting up in arms about Doug's salary?
