given the nature of the airline industry, if you are in the top 75% of seniority or more of an airline, you are going to retain a job regardless of what happens
So, if your goal is simply to keep a job, then you can stop worrying about the business aspects of the business not long into your career at an airline.
But AA IS a business - a for-profit business that competes with other for-profit businesses.
There would be no need to discuss anything the business aspects of the airline industry if the goal was to not ruffle the feathers of the majority of the airline employees.
but airline employees have financial interest in the success of their employers and employees aren't the only stakeholders in a company.
customers, stockholders, and others have a financial interest in the success of airlines as well.
beyond finance and business interests, this board also touches on labor, operational, and service issues; why is it so difficult that if you don't want to talk about a specific topic that you just don't open it?
I, for one, find the endless "my union is better than your union" threads which constitute a big chunk of this forum actually quite laughable and I venture to them only long enough to harvest a good quote and then move on.
but it is the steady diet for some here to participate in those types of threads.
AA is a fixture of US aviation - a historical centerpiece that is emblematic of both what is good and bad.
the question is why it is so hard for some people to accept any criticism - valid and corroborated.
within minutes of my initial post on this thread, FWAAA, who is a pretty intelligent and educated person, jumped onto finding the one flaw I wrote in my post and focused like a laser on highlighting it.
there is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with challenging the factual basis of what is said, including finding errors.
but in the process FWAAA glossed over a number of significant issues that the article raised, both good and bad.
and then commavia came along and defensively started trying to compare debt levels between AA and other airlines.
in fact, there are a number of analyses that have compared the debt levels among the US airlines and consistently noted that AAL is at the very high end of the US industry.
this article specifically noted that AAL's debt levels are very high and made comparisons to AA's competitors.
again, any one of you can say "who cares... none of this stuff affects me" and you are likely right.
but there are people who continue to post articles and make comparisons of how well AA does relative based on one financial or industry metric or another - so it apparently does matter.
I want AA to survive and successfully restructure and I have repeatedly said that.
I also recognize that after 10 years of a long and dragged out restructuring, there is an immense desire among AA people to find success again.
my posts of late have only been to highlight that AA has done a great job with its merger so far, but that there were a number of factors that set AA/US up to look good, specifically US' actions that were counter to AA's own standalone success.
Now, many here want to proclaim success without realizing there are still enormous tasks ahead of AA that are necessary to fully integrate the airline and to be able to say tat AA/US is in the same league as DL and UA and WN who are much further along in completing their mergers.
again, best of luck to everyone at AA.
may the merger continue to deliver what you expected from it.
but if you want to make claims about how well AA is doing, don't be surprised if someone reminds you that AA is still far from being in the same long-term position as the other airlines that have gone before in the megamerger process and note the specific, business reasons why.
and if you can keep your job without reading or worrying about any of it, great for you.
