Quote Of The Day

[Oneflyer]

BTW, if AMR is back on track, hows come we still cannot invest in company stock via our 401k plan? AMR removed this option when the employee could take a risk and profit the most. To date, the option has still not be re-instated.

AMR does not control whether or not you can invest in AMR stock in your 401k. The trustee of the 401k plan does. I believe it is JP Morgan.

I would also guess that the general riskyness of the airline industry and past company meltdowns like Enron where many had most or all of there 401k in company stock are the reason for the stock restriction.

Arpey was conspiring with the unions to create record profits on the backs of labor and the rich oil man stole his profits. Union leaders were not paid under the table, but instead, profited from buying stock at record lows, and selling at a healthy profit.

So there is no possible scenary that might have lead union leaders to look at the situation and say that salary reductions were better solution than allowing AMR to declare bankruptcy?

What you clearly either don't understand or refuse to admit, is that the unions had no choice. They had no power. Either they accepted pay cuts, have pay cuts forced upon them by a bankruptcy judge, or strike. Striking a nearly bankrupt airline would have lead to liquidation, so everyone would have lost their jobs. So which was the better solution?

 

[TWU informer]

So AMR is still the equivilent of ENRON? I think you're right! Some cooking of the books appears to be what was taking place.

And AMR was close to liquidation?

Yeah, whatever!

Those claims are close to your claim that the airline industry is operating in a free market enterprise.

You and I will obviously always disagree.

I remain skeptical about everything any TWU Officer, or AMR Management Person tells me. I have 20+ plus years of history that I base this position on.

You on the other hand, appear to believe everything they tell you, and promote fear as if it is the next best thing to Baseball and Apple Pie.

A lie was even told about the current state of the F100 Synergy third party maintenance contract just last week. These aircraft were suppose to be in the hangars in Mid-June. To date NOT ONE has arrived. Do you know why?

A TWU Official claimed that Carmine Romano and Dennis Burchette went to the media bragging before the F100 contract was signed, and then Synergy demanded re-negotiating of the contract from a superior position since the media blitz had taken place before signing.

The very next day, AA Communications claimed the issue was difficulty obtaining ferry permits.

LIES, LIES, and more LIES.

Bottom line, Tulsa VP blew smoke up everyone backside and the F100 is NOT on the property.

Line VP Danny Martinez was in Tulsa last week and discovered the Tulsa VP has been manipluating Dock Schedules. Tulsa claims 3 day Light C Check Maintenance is on time and leaving docks on schedule. When is fact, the Aircraft is simply leaving the scheduled dock and being moved to a "drop in dock" for completion. Tulsa base management has been doing this for years now, and someone finally clued into the big lie.

Tulsa brags about on schedule light C Checks, and also brags about drop-in dock performance, yet they are both working the same aircraft in Con-Artist fashion and schedule is NOT being met.

Next will soon see if there is any accountability for such dishonest activity.

Would you believe and follow leaders who pull such manuevers? Or would you learn to be skeptical and not trust much of anything they have to say?

TWU Officials and AA Mangement rank right up with Politicians in crediblity and honesty. Yet you defend them on a regular basis.

 

[Oneflyer]

So AMR is still the equivilent of ENRON? I think you're right! Some cooking of the books appears to be what was taking place.

And AMR was close to liquidation?

Do you read?

I never made either of these claims. My point was the which union represented you made no difference. Whether it was the TWU, IAM, Teamsters, AMFA, or whoever, the outcome would have been the same or worse.

I have never defended any AA maintenance executive or the TWU leadership. Quite frankly I know enough people around AA to know what is the truth and what is exageration.

Perhaps you should try reading my posts some times.

 

[TWU informer]

Do you read?

I never made either of these claims.

I have never defended any AA maintenance executive or the TWU leadership. Quite frankly I know enough people around AA to know what is the truth and what is exageration.

Perhaps you should try reading my posts some times.

[post="288094"][/post]​

I am Rolling on the Floor Laughing now!

 

[Ken MacTiernan]

Next will soon see if there is any accountability for such dishonest activity.


Under burchette's leadership? LOL

Hey, remember, "FULL REVOTE"? LOL

 

[eolesen]

1) Enron forced a lot of companies to think twice about having employee 401K funds invested in company stock. Personally, I'd like to be able to do it, but I certainly understand the liability and percieved conflict of interest even if you have a third party like JP Morgan acting as the trustee. That said, I'm sure a few of the portfolios offered still have AMR as part of the overall mix.

2) Bob, you're correct that there's contractual language which permits outsourcing. But it's still contractual, which means that there are artificial limits on how much it can be done. Admittedly, it's a bit muddier in the M&R contract, but it's a little more black in white under the FSC contract. There's nothing particularly significant about 2555 departures being the point at which ramp has to be insourced. I'll guess that there are some locations where we might have enough demand to add an eight flight during peak months, but we don't simply because it would exceed the cap and require insourcing.

3) Oneflyer, I agree that its better to have work done in-house when the economies of scale support it. But I think you'll agree it's better to have lattitude in determining what those thresholds are on a case by case basis, as opposed to being locked into a predefined threshold in a contract. But it's not always better to insource.

 

[Bob Owens]

Former ModerAAtor,Aug 14 2005, 03:05 AM]
1) Enron forced a lot of companies to think twice about having employee 401K funds invested in company stock. Personally, I'd like to be able to do it, but I certainly understand the liability and percieved conflict of interest even if you have a third party like JP Morgan acting as the trustee. That said, I'm sure a few of the portfolios offered still have AMR as part of the overall mix.

Thats bull. Enron employees did not have a choice. Why cant AA employees choose to use their 401K monies towards AA stock? Maybe the company is afraid that the employees could end up owning too much stock, stock that they could dump whenever they wanted. Just when the ESPP was looking good they yanked that too.

2) Bob, you're correct that there's contractual language which permits outsourcing. But it's still contractual, which means that there are artificial limits on how much it can be done. Admittedly, it's a bit muddier in the M&R contract, but it's a little more black in white under the FSC contract. There's nothing particularly significant about 2555 departures being the point at which ramp has to be insourced. I'll guess that there are some locations where we might have enough demand to add an eight flight during peak months, but we don't simply because it would exceed the cap and require insourcing.

Thats a crock too because;
a) in maintenance the company has not officially reached the "artificial limits"
B) the TWU is unable to monitor how much the company contracts out, they rely on members sending in whatever info they come across
c) the TWU does not enforce the 2555 rule as demonstrated in the Charlotte grievance.

 

[Oneflyer]

Thats bull. Enron employees did not have a choice.

Yes they did. In fact Enron employees, were net buyers of company stock just before it declared bankruptcy. Hense, when employees had a chance to get out, they bought more.

Why cant AA employees choose to use their 401K monies towards AA stock? Maybe the company is afraid that the employees could end up owning too much stock, stock that they could dump whenever they wanted. Just when the ESPP was looking good they yanked that too.

This is so incredibly ridicoulous. It truely shows your lack of understanding.

 

[Bob Owens]

Yes they did. In fact Enron employees, were net buyers of company stock just before it declared bankruptcy. Hense, when employees had a chance to get out, they bought more.
This is so incredibly ridicoulous. It truely shows your lack of understanding.

[post="288209"][/post]​

How about an explaination as to why the ESPP was terminated?

 

[Oneflyer]

How about an explaination as to why the ESPP was terminated?

Probably the same reason, risk. If you have an ESPP that you're letting your employees buy a bunch of stock in and then you declare banruptcy, you've not only created a lot of unhappy employees but a liability to the trustee. They can't just turn it on and off.

Besides if I remember correctly the ESPP wasn't a great deal and in the end it would have been about the same for me to just purchase the stock on my own.

 

[Bob Owens]

Probably the same reason, risk. If you have an ESPP that you're letting your employees buy a bunch of stock in and then you declare banruptcy, you've not only created a lot of unhappy employees but a liability to the trustee. They can't just turn it on and off.

Besides if I remember correctly the ESPP wasn't a great deal and in the end it would have been about the same for me to just purchase the stock on my own.

[post="288218"][/post]​

The ESPP was an easy convient way for employees to buy stock. I used to put $5/week towards it but then when I started getting a share a week they cancelled the program. The liability issue is bull because its not like AA is underreporting liabilities or losses, if anything they have been painting an overly pessimistic picture for several years so anyone purchasing it knew the risks. At Enron they did the opposite, they misinformed their employees and encouraged them to buy stock when they knew there were serious problems that they were hiding.

 

[Wretched Wrench]

Yes they did. In fact Enron employees, were net buyers of company stock just before it declared bankruptcy. Hense, when employees had a chance to get out, they bought more.

Not quite. Enron employees were not given timely opportunities to get out. There were all manner of restrictions and delays to get out.

However, management not only had advance information, but there were no restrictions on their ability to get out of company stock. At the same time, we could only get out or change our own 401K investments once a quarter, and even then, only during a particular window.

 

[eolesen]

ESPP was terminated because it became cheaper to get shares thru eTrade and other online brokers, so fewer and fewer employees were participating in it.

 

[Oneflyer]

Not quite. Enron employees were not given timely opportunities to get out. There were all manner of restrictions and delays to get out.

You are mistaken. Refer to the book "Conspiracy of Fools : A True Story" by Kurt Eichenwald for clarification.

 

[Oneflyer]

At the same time, we could only get out or change our own 401K investments once a quarter, and even then, only during a particular window.

What time frame are you refering to? Since JP Morgan took over the plan in the beginning of '03 or late '02, daily changes have been allowed with penalties only if you make more than 3?? changes per month.