Time to get new leadership at the top

[damajagua]

When is is the BOD wake and fire our useless
leadership. It's time to bring in a new leadership
that is interested in competing and growing again.
Arpey is by far the worse CEO in AMR history. Time
to go!!!!

 

[FrequentFlierCA]

That's it: fire them all!

They're so worthless, right? Kept AA out of bankruptcy, returned it to profitability after several challenging years and built international alliances to increase revenue and market share.

Fire them all!

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

That's it: fire them all!

They're so worthless, right? Kept AA out of bankruptcy, returned it to profitability after several challenging years and built international alliances to increase revenue and market share.

Fire them all!

While they're not totally worthless, one key mistake they may have made is not filing bankruptcy which now appears to be or could start to adversely affect AA (not just labor costs but employee relations - i.e. Eastern). Ofcourse the AA-BA-IB plus AA-JAL alliances make sense, but it is kind of early to judge how good they will be relative to UA-LH and DL/NW- AF/KL. IMHO the AA-BA-IB is something that should have been in place years ago. Obviously there was the LHR/EU-US open skies agreements to be worked out, but clearly AA-BA dropped the ball with respect to lobbying to get ATI. Given that * alliance and sky team were granted ATI years ago the person(s) responsible for the delay in getting full ATI for 1-world should have been fired & replaced.

 

[eolesen]

ATI for AA & BA would have been useless if they couldn't coordinate between their home markets... they already had extensive codesharing. The only thing ATI would have allowed is coordinated pricing and scheduling in markets they both serve.

 

[paul1]

When is is the BOD wake and fire our useless
leadership. It's time to bring in a new leadership
that is interested in competing and growing again.
Arpey is by far the worse CEO in AMR history. Time
to go!!!!

I think you are wrong. We could do far worse than Arpey. I think the problem is that upper mangement heads are so high up in the clouds they don't see the problems that we face everday. Just trying to make ends meat etc..............

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

ATI for AA & BA would have been useless if they couldn't coordinate between their home markets... they already had extensive codesharing. The only thing ATI would have allowed is coordinated pricing and scheduling in markets they both serve.

I'll have to disagree about ATI not being important. If it wasn't they would not have tried 3 times to get approval, and be just content with no code-sharing between US & UK. Not getting the deal done until this year put 1-world way behing * alliance & sky team. A clear failure, IMHO. Actually I'll even venture to say that in EU Finnair and Iberia are airlines with hubs too far north and too far south for good connections and Malev is a dog with flees of an airline. Again AA management could/should have done something, to either get better EU airlines into 1-world, or more EU airlines to join, not just allow them to be scooped up by * and skyteam.

I know you'll come back with something like the price (# of slots to give up) was too high and that USA-LHR is not the same as USA-AMS or USA-CDG or USA-FRA. Maybe, but they should have got a deal with the US and EU regulatory authorities done. Not having the ability to fully co-ordinate pricing & schedules with BA while all of your competitors have ATI with their EU partners is a failure.

 

[Hopeful]

That's it: fire them all!

They're so worthless, right? Kept AA out of bankruptcy, returned it to profitability after several challenging years and built international alliances to increase revenue and market share.

Fire them all!

I guess employees sacrificing billion$$$$ had nothing to do with keeping the company out of bankruptcy!

 

[eolesen]

I'll have to disagree about ATI not being important. If it wasn't they would not have tried 3 times to get approval, and be just content with no code-sharing between US & UK. Not getting the deal done until this year put 1-world way behing * alliance & sky team. A clear failure, IMHO. Actually I'll even venture to say that in EU Finnair and Iberia are airlines with hubs too far north and too far south for good connections and Malev is a dog with flees of an airline. Again AA management could/should have done something, to either get better EU airlines into 1-world, or more EU airlines to join, not just allow them to be scooped up by * and skyteam.

I know you'll come back with something like the price (# of slots to give up) was too high and that USA-LHR is not the same as USA-AMS or USA-CDG or USA-FRA. Maybe, but they should have got a deal with the US and EU regulatory authorities done. Not having the ability to fully co-ordinate pricing & schedules with BA while all of your competitors have ATI with their EU partners is a failure.

First of all, ATI without open skies has never been successfully negotiated between two airlines and two or more governments that I'm aware of. Ever. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it's a prerequisite that there be at least the illusion of opportunity for competition and equal access if you're going to allow the two largest entities to coordinate their pricing and schedules.

IIRC, the first two applications would have seen between half to all of AA's slot holdings at LHR wiped out. This time? Four, with conditions that allow those slots to come back to AA and BA if DL finds out they weren't worth pursuing. AA paid good money for the TWA franchise, so handing it over to Virgin, Delta, etc. would have made no sense without the full benefits.

Second, it was pretty clear there was no way the US regulators were going to allow ATI to go thru without open skies, and the UK had no interest in doing that without the US easing up on foreign ownership restrictions. Had AA lobbied for ATI and it came at the cost of foreign ownership caps, I'm sure that you'd be villifying Carty or Arpey for allowing a foreign takeover. The only way the UK gave up on open skies was because the EU essentially decided that the UK couldn't hold out anymore as an EU member state.

I'm sure AA could have looked for other parners, but that too would have come at a cost. BA, QF, and CX are tightly aligned on many, many levels. Abandoning BA would have meant abandoning those carriers as well. Would that have been worth it, too?

There's lots of bad decisions made by management over the years, but this isn't one of those. Holding out got them everything they expected in 1997 and more.

 

[Frank Szabo]

I guess employees sacrificing billion$$$$ had nothing to do with keeping the company out of bankruptcy!

The only thing the company and its union actually did was pitch an effective pack of lies to the workers.

Mr Hopeful, logic, especially from 'lowlifes' such as us, is wasted on the elite. Unless we can add a Piled High and Deep (Phd) or similar title (implying vast intelligence) after our names you, I, and all others collectively comprising the 'rabble' are no more than trash to be dealt with in the most expeditious manner.

 

[frontline]

I guess employees sacrificing billion$$$$ had nothing to do with keeping the company out of bankruptcy!

Of course it did, as you know. Without us they couldn't have pulled off avoiding bk. But I think the point is that it was a multi party effort. They needed us, we needed them, and we all benefited from not going down the bankruptcy road. At least we benefitted until all our main competitors took that road and tore up their contracts and pensions to get an unfair advantage over us. :angry:

 

[Bob Owens]

Of course it did, as you know. Without us they couldn't have pulled off avoiding bk. But I think the point is that it was a multi party effort. They needed us, we needed them, and we all benefited from not going down the bankruptcy road. At least we benefitted until all our main competitors took that road and tore up their contracts and pensions to get an unfair advantage over us. :angry:

I dont think we benifitted by making concessions nor can anyone prove that AA would have filed if we hadnt. I cant tell you how many times I've heard AA threaten to lay off hundreds without laying off anyone.

 

[737823]

I dont think we benifitted by making concessions nor can anyone prove that AA would have filed if we hadnt. I cant tell you how many times I've heard AA threaten to lay off hundreds without laying off anyone.

Again, we'll never know for sure but I recall many employees being worried about AA's survival throughout 2002-2004 and were willing to make concessions to help the company stave off bankruptcy. Say what you want now, but at the end of the day AA employees have fared better than any other employment group in the airline industry. The restructuring agreement was not an act of benevolence from the union employees-it was just as much if not more in your interest for the company to remain solvent. Face it, had AA gone under Arpey, Horton, etc would be able to take their marketable management degrees and experience and use them at another company in another industry (and likely collect significant severance/golden parachute from a bankruptcy protected fund). Labor on the other hand would be SOL since this was a time (and continues to be a time) of large scale contraction in the airline industry. I'll remind you that the combined UA+CO payroll is smaller than stand alone UA in 2000.

Josh

 

[Mr Red]

Again, we'll never know for sure but I recall many employees being worried about AA's survival throughout 2002-2004 and were willing to make concessions to help the company stave off bankruptcy. Say what you want now, but at the end of the day AA employees have fared better than any other employment group in the airline industry. The restructuring agreement was not an act of benevolence from the union employees-it was just as much if not more in your interest for the company to remain solvent. Face it, had AA gone under Arpey, Horton, etc would be able to take their marketable management degrees and experience and use them at another company in another industry (and likely collect significant severance/golden parachute from a bankruptcy protected fund). Labor on the other hand would be SOL since this was a time (and continues to be a time) of large scale contraction in the airline industry. I'll remind you that the combined UA+CO payroll is smaller than stand alone UA in 2000.

Josh

Duh- airlines are expanding,and corporate welfare provided by employees is OVER !

 

[Bob Owens]

Again, we'll never know for sure but I recall many employees being worried about AA's survival throughout 2002-2004 and were willing to make concessions to help the company stave off bankruptcy. Say what you want now, but at the end of the day AA employees have fared better than any other employment group in the airline industry. The restructuring agreement was not an act of benevolence from the union employees-it was just as much if not more in your interest for the company to remain solvent. Face it, had AA gone under Arpey, Horton, etc would be able to take their marketable management degrees and experience and use them at another company in another industry (and likely collect significant severance/golden parachute from a bankruptcy protected fund). Labor on the other hand would be SOL since this was a time (and continues to be a time) of large scale contraction in the airline industry. I'll remind you that the combined UA+CO payroll is smaller than stand alone UA in 2000.

Josh

I dont know why I bother, at least Eoleson and FWAAA make better arguements but you are just so wrong. They must cringe when they see your name knowing that you make their side look bad.

Despite all the threats from the company and the unimpacted union leaders the vote passed by a narrow margin, and there were serious problems with the vote such as the fact that AAA omitted sending 3000 ballotts to mostly senior Crew Chiefs, who would be more likely to vote NO. They also set up a rigged system where if you had someones pin you could change their vote, all you needed to get everyones PIN was one pin number and the seniority list. The International would have both.

When we gave the concessions we cut so deep that those who went BK had to go back again and ask for more so they could compete with us. I say that we should have called their bluff even if it really meant BK because that would likely have drawn most of what was left of the industry into BK as well and then the problem would have been considered systemic, not isolated examples of bad management. What was given up to that point was less than what we gave up.

Labor was abused the way we were because our leaders were weak six figure earning slobs who didnt have the intestinal fortitude to do the right thing and shut down the whole system. There was no way we should have allowed the courts to walk away with our hard earned wage and benifits so the oil companies could double their profits and airline executives could collect bonuses. If they could legally impound our labor for private use then they could legally impound fuel for private use as well. The courts only went after labor. I suspect that ULLICO and many of our so called leaders were too busy watching their portfolios instead of fighting for the rights of workers. We should have called for a political strike the day the Judge imposed concessions on USAIR in 2002 and had every airline union worker walk off the job. Since the act would be in opposition, or protesting the confiscation of our labor by the government for private use it would not be an economic act but a political act and thus be a form of protected speech. The courts knew that the unions were weak and screwing us would not have any negative effects on their personal portfolios so they took full advantage f that weakness, if the courts were facing a showdown I'm certain the outcome would have been different.

I think we have had as much contraction as we are going to see, still the fact is the supply of workers with the skillsets required is shrinking faster than anyone imagined, so even if the industry is still contracting as you claim, despite all the evidence indicating thats it expanding, there's still a shortage which gives us more leverage.

 

[FrequentFlierCA]

I dont think we benifitted by making concessions nor can anyone prove that AA would have filed if we hadnt. I cant tell you how many times I've heard AA threaten to lay off hundreds without laying off anyone.

AA's lawyers were on the courthouse steps. Literally. You can choose to disbelieve that if you wish, but it's the reality. Their crafting of the deal and your concessions saved AMR from bankruptcy.