Should Carty forego his salary until AA is back on track?

Status
Not open for further replies.

MileHighGuy

Member
Oct 14, 2002
61
0
I think he should forego his salary until AA is back in the black. At the very least, he deserves to have his salary (all of it including bonuses, stocks, etc.) cut in half. What do you think is fair? Remember, he's been laying off people at AA left and right.
 

WingNaPrayer

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
1,742
0
EYW
Visit site
[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/9/2002 11:09:08 AM MileHighGuy wrote:

I think he should forego his salary until AA is back in the black. At the very least, he deserves to have his salary (all of it including bonuses, stocks, etc.) cut in half. What do you think is fair? Remember, he's been laying off people at AA left and right.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Regardless.....ya gotta pay him something. Perhaps he could survive on a Flight Attendant's salary? How about a rampers? Oh...better yet, offer him an agent's pay, gawd knows they work harder than HE does!

Nobody works for free. However, a 50-75% paycut at the executive level doesn't sound unreasonable....for the time being.
 

Buck

Veteran
Contributor
Aug 20, 2002
7,317
1,576
www.fairtax.org
How about raising ticket prices and setting a flight schedule around it? How can any company prevent bankruptcy if they do not at least pay their costs? Those of you, who claim to be union men and women and then advocate pay cuts, are just company non-union individuals who most likely never understood what unionism really means. Never, never voluntary you gains away. It especially surprises me that those of you whom claim allegiance to the Democratic Party would take such a position. No wonder the Evil Republicans gained the majority. Employees registered as Democrats and then voting for the Republicans, because the “PARTYâ€￾ does not share their interests. Ever here of the term “Labor Friendly Republicansâ€￾? , TWU representatives have used it.
 

planemech669

Member
Aug 20, 2002
74
0
GSW/LAW
www.linkedin.com
The only problem there Buck is that there are too many choices for passengers. Most are just hopping on a plane to get to wherever quickly and back home again. They want to do that as cheaply as possible. Raise prices, lose passengers. Lose passengers, go out of business and watch your competetors mop up at their current prices, make money and expand. That is the simple economics of the airline industry. This a Last One Standing game with no holds barred.
 

FrugalFlyer

Senior
Aug 20, 2002
254
0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/10/2002 2:10:36 PM planemech669 wrote:

The only problem there Buck is that there are too many choices for passengers. Most are just hopping on a plane to get to wherever quickly and back home again. They want to do that as cheaply as possible. Raise prices, lose passengers. Lose passengers, go out of business and watch your competetors mop up at their current prices, make money and expand. That is the simple economics of the airline industry. This a "Last One Standing" game with no holds barred.
----------------
[/blockquote]


As far as cutting costs there is only so far that the company can go. Would a slight (say $10) increase in AA ticket prices all across the board work even if NW did not go along with the price increase? Would the lost passengers be so numerous as to bankrupt AA?
 

KCFlyer

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
10,631
1,322
www.usaviation.com
[BR][BR][BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 11/10/2002 4:35:04 PM FrugalFlyer wrote: [BR][BR]As far as cutting costs there is only so far that the company can go. Would a slight (say $10) increase in AA ticket prices all across the board work even if NW did not go along with the price increase? [BR][BR]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]Short answer - no. What AA should do is this: [BR][BR]1. Reduce the number of fares to no more than 5.[BR]2. Increase the lowest advance fare by enough to cover costs[BR]3. Decrease their unrestricted fares a lot (perhaps cut them in half)[BR]4. Get rid of change fees and penalties. If someone wants to stand by for an earlier flight, do like Southwest and tell them they have to upgrade to full fare.[BR][BR]If NWA wants to fire back with a super duper 21 day advance purchase where they fly you for less than it costs them....let them do it. Look, let's assume that someone wants to go from DFW-MSP. AA cuts their unrestricted fare in half and offers a 21 day advance fare that just covers their costs. A business needs to send someone to MSP. AA offers a fare of $750. NWA offers a fare of $1500. Any idea which airline would get the business? But beyond that....AA's fares were $250 round trip for a 21 day advance. That's making you money...You could go as low as $200. If NWA wants to fire away with a $150 advance purchase, heavily restricted fare, let them. The consumer will go with the better value...a little higher fare with no change penalty, and no drastic difference between advance and full fare tickets will get the business over a heavily restricted, slightly lower fare. The airlines that don't want to play along will only hurt themselves. That's catering to the leisure traveller. Read this closely - the leisure traveller cannot save the airlines. Only the business travellers can. [BR][BR]You guys have apparently ceded the wright Amendment states to Southwest, given that an unrestricted fare on AA from Dallsa to ABQ is $1,366 and on Southwest it's $307. The advance purchase fare on AA is $197.50. On Southwest the advance is $197.50. If I make a change, I've only got to pay the difference between 197.50 and $307. On American, I've got to pay a hundred dollars to change, and then I pay any fare difference. In these economic times, who the **** is going to book AA? [BR][BR]Airlines have got to understand that the days of raping the last minute traveller to subsidize super discounted, heavily restricted airfares are gone. Yet they are still using the same old revenue models from the good old days. Try something different to show the business flyer that you really do want his or her business. And you don't do that by tacking on nickle and dime fees (although a hundred bucks is a lot of nickles and dimes), and you don't do that by making the difference between advance purchase fares and full fares more than a thousand dollars. You do that by offering them value for their travel dollar. Merely raising prices $10 accross the board will run off a lot of the customers that you currently have. [BR][BR]If Crandall were still in charge, I have no doubt that he would do exactly that - offer the business customer value. He'd rake in the business while all the other airlines tripped all over themselves to match the money losing fares offered by a Northwest counterattack. The winner would be AA.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.