Tommorow's the day

Hopeful

Veteran
Dec 21, 2002
5,998
347
American making rest of announced cuts
By TERRY MAXON [email protected]
American Airlines Inc. will implement the remainder of its capacity reductions Sunday as it cuts flights throughout its system, leaving the carrier about 8 percent smaller than a year ago.
With cuts made in September, American will have reduced its domestic system by about 12 percent and its entire system, including international flights, by about 8 percent.
American spokesman Tim Smith said Friday that the primary reason for American's capacity cuts has changed since they were announced last spring. But the need for them has not, he said.
"At the time we made that announcement, a lot of it was driven by rapidly rising fuel prices," he said. "But there were also elements of the beginnings of a slowing economy."
Now, "by all measurements, the softening economy has become soft," Mr. Smith said. "That also makes it look like a good decision, even as fuel prices have moderated."
Although the price of crude oil is less than half its July high above $147 a barrel, airlines are going forward with capacity reductions to boost fares and eliminate unprofitable flights.
In a report Friday, Barclays Capital airline analyst Gary Chase estimated that the nation's 10 largest carriers plus Frontier Airlines Inc. will fly 11.9 percent less capacity on domestic routes in December than a year earlier, and overall capacity will be down 8.5 percent.
Tom Horton, chief financial officer of American parent AMR Corp., told analysts on a conference call Oct. 15 that the airline now expects its capacity this quarter to be down 8.3 percent compared with the fourth quarter of 2007, including a 12.5 percent slash in domestic flying.
About half the American and American Eagle flight cuts in September and November are coming at a handful of major airports, including Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport; Chicago O'Hare; St. Louis; San Juan, Puerto Rico; Los Angeles; and New York LaGuardia.
Hardest hit has been the Puerto Rican hub, where the carrier has eliminated 51 of its 103 flights.
On a percentage basis, D/FW Airport has been affected less, with 19 American and 23 American Eagle flights being canceled in the two reductions – just over 5 percent of the 784 flights offered a year earlier.
 
WOW! If they keep this up AA might actually turn a large profit in 2009 and earn those management bonus awards. They could have taken this path prior to and into 2003 instead of screwing the employees to death to subsidize over capacity. Between the Government Corporate Welfare and rape of the Employee pay and benefits it will now become evident that over capacity was the real problem all along.
 
Ahh yes, tomorrow is the first of many more "Shrink to profitability" schedule changes.History has demonstrated how well that has worked out hasn't it? Supposedly there's going to be another hatchet job on the schedule in January,can't wait to see what they hack up this time.Maybe dump JFK-LAX? :rolleyes:

When I came to LGA in November of '02 we had 71 daily mainline departures here, now with this surrender mentality we've embraced,we're down to 48 as of 02 November.


AA may as well just retreat from the NY market too, we've waved the white flag everywhere else...
 
I guess AA could always take the position that saving jobs is more important than running a business that is profitable.

That has been the problem since 2003. The UNIONS decided to "save" the jobs and not cut capacity.

Please explain how the union agenda can be best business practice?

I don't go to work everyday to subsidize a job for someone with pay and benefit cuts.
I go to work for a paycheck and that was hammered to save jobs but through attrition the jobs have been eliminated also.

In a society of Capitalism supply vs demand controls profits and cost of services. This means yes that sometimes shrink to profitability is indeed the right path. Of course nobody expects the low seniority guy to see it this way. Explain your history point that says this will not work today?
 
I guess AA could always take the position that saving jobs is more important than running a business that is profitable.

That has been the problem since 2003. The UNIONS decided to "save" the jobs and not cut capacity.

Please explain how the union agenda can be best business practice?

I don't go to work everyday to subsidize a job for someone with pay and benefit cuts.
I go to work for a paycheck and that was hammered to save jobs but through attrition the jobs have been eliminated also.

In a society of Capitalism supply vs demand controls profits and cost of services. This means yes that sometimes shrink to profitability is indeed the right path. Of course nobody expects the low seniority guy to see it this way. Explain your history point that says this will not work today?

This could develop into another slogAAn! It would fit with the twu's presidential endorsement.
Maybe like: "We need to share the wealth brother" :up:
 
Get rid of the less senior folks, AFW and MCI.
Hell, they're just working to support their families.
They're expendable for my raise !
:down: :down: :down: :down:
 
Get rid of the less senior folks, AFW and MCI.
Hell, they're just working to support their families.
They're expendable for my raise !
:down: :down: :down: :down:


As opposed to what?

Work for less pay, have no benefits. everyone at will working for minimum wage and flying aircraft for $24 tickets?

Again, I do not work to subsidize your job. You want socialism? I think you're about to get a taste of that real soon. Don't come whining here when you have lost your freedom, but have your job working for cause instead of working for profit.
 
Ahh yes, tomorrow is the first of many more "Shrink to profitability" schedule changes.History has demonstrated how well that has worked out hasn't it? Supposedly there's going to be another hatchet job on the schedule in January,can't wait to see what they hack up this time.Maybe dump JFK-LAX? :rolleyes:

When I came to LGA in November of '02 we had 71 daily mainline departures here, now with this surrender mentality we've embraced,we're down to 48 as of 02 November.


AA may as well just retreat from the NY market too, we've waved the white flag everywhere else...


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dump JFK/LAX ??


LGA, surely 'That" was a "trick or treat" joke correct ???

Obviously, LGA/EWR are going to take sizeable hits, but I'd like to know what percentage of hits JFK has taken.

Realistically, LGA was primarily for LGA to hubs + BOS ??

Over the years, LGA would "try" new routes to see if they'd make $$$(LGA to TPA/MCI/YYZ/MCI/MCO/BNA.

Speaking of LGA/TPA, those 2 trips MUST be performing $$$ well, for them to still be running !!
 
As opposed to what?

Work for less pay, have no benefits. everyone at will working for minimum wage and flying aircraft for $24 tickets?

Again, I do not work to subsidize your job. You want socialism? I think you're about to get a taste of that real soon. Don't come whining here when you have lost your freedom, but have your job working for cause instead of working for profit.
Which seems to be the same opinion as the CompAAny and our worthless Union...
Keep giving the CompAAny pup payouts..As long as they get their payouts who carers about all the workers giving up millions in concessions right ?
:down:
Unelected Jimmy Little as president raking in money and benefits...who cares for the membership as long as he gets his money right ?..
:down:
Sound familiar ?



Nope not socialism...Unionism
Unlike the Communism Hitler concept of "me and mine" screw the little people
 
Which seems to be the same opinion as the CompAAny and our worthless Union...
Keep giving the CompAAny pup payouts..As long as they get their payouts who carers about all the workers giving up millions in concessions right ?
:down:
Unelected Jimmy Little as president raking in money and benefits...who cares for the membership as long as he gets his money right ?..
:down:
Sound familiar ?



Nope not socialism...Unionism
Unlike the Communism Hitler concept of "me and mine" screw the little people

I think that the idea that working for less saves jobs is flawed. If you went to the dentist and had one cavity would you have him put in two fillings he he offered to do it at a discount? Of course not, because you only need one filling. If you only need one worker to do the work you need done you're not going to pay two people, even if they agree to a paycut. In 2003 the company threatened either 25% or 2500 jobs, they took the 25% and nearly 4000 jobs. The paycuts didnt save any jobs. We all just worked for less and AA took that money to accelerate payments on debt and build up a $5Billion dollar war chest.
 
I think that the idea that working for less saves jobs is flawed. If you went to the dentist and had one cavity would you have him put in two fillings he he offered to do it at a discount? Of course not, because you only need one filling. If you only need one worker to do the work you need done you're not going to pay two people, even if they agree to a paycut. In 2003 the company threatened either 25% or 2500 jobs, they took the 25% and nearly 4000 jobs. The paycuts didnt save any jobs. We all just worked for less and AA took that money to accelerate payments on debt and build up a $5Billion dollar war chest.
We shouldn't have to take pay-cuts nor job cuts PERIOD !!

My point was (if the opportunity arose) that some would rather "get theirs" than save their co-workers job.

Quit blaming the lower senior folks for paycuts !!

Sometimes I see 15-20 year folks act like poor ole me's ...
All the while their lower senior counterparts are on RIF status or just returning from RIF's... only to hear they could hit the streets yet again and more stations will be closing.

The "As long as I get mine brother"...seems to be the theme I've been seeing lately.

Quite frankly it's pretty pathetic.

It should be.. "As long as we ALL get ours" !!

Am I the only one who thinks that a real Union is about everyone and not just a select few?
 
We shouldn't have to take pay-cuts nor job cuts PERIOD !!

My point was (if the opportunity arose) that some would rather "get theirs" than save their co-workers job.

Quit blaming the lower senior folks for paycuts !!

Sometimes I see 15-20 year folks act like poor ole me's ...
All the while their lower senior counterparts are on RIF status or just returning from RIF's... only to hear they could hit the streets yet again and more stations will be closing.

The "As long as I get mine brother"...seems to be the theme I've been seeing lately.

Quite frankly it's pretty pathetic.

It should be.. "As long as we ALL get ours" !!

Am I the only one who thinks that a real Union is about everyone and not just a select few?

Yes. You are the only one. It seems pretty clear.
 
We shouldn't have to take pay-cuts nor job cuts PERIOD !!

Well I agree with that but this is a very cyclical industry in a cyclical economy and there will always inevitably be periods where there are layoffs. The thing is the company and its union effectively use the threat of layoffs in order to get concessions, and then they layoff anyway, so what ends up is we get both, pay cuts then job cuts.

My point was (if the opportunity arose) that some would rather "get theirs" than save their co-workers job.

Some would, and I disagree with that mindest. Back in 2001 I sent Jim Little a proposal that if the company needed less workers we should try a form of Job sharing like they have in the contruction trades.Instead of taking hourly wage cuts we could give up time. For every 50 workers that give up one week of work along with the pay they could keep a worker on payroll. Little was unresponsive to that but the idea is that you preserve the wage because paycuts dont ever save jobs, only more work does, so you preserve the wage so when you do get called back, which is inevitable unless the company goes out of business, you have a good job to come back to.

Quit blaming the lower senior folks for paycuts !!


Nobodys blaming them.

Sometimes I see 15-20 year folks act like poor ole me's ...
All the while their lower senior counterparts are on RIF status or just returning from RIF's... only to hear they could hit the streets yet again and more stations will be closing.

Well as a 22 year folk I can see where you are coming from but I also have the advantage of seeing where you are headed. Like I said earlier the industry is cyclical, layoffs are inevitable and concessions dont prevent them, wouldnt you rather that during the good times you made enough so that you could put away something for the bad times and know that further down the road, which comes sooner than you think, that you wont be getting laid off anymore because there are enough guys under you? Wouldnt you rather have come back to a Job at $40/hour instead?


It should be.. "As long as we ALL get ours" !!

It should, but unfortunately its been "shared sacrifice" where we all lose.

Am I the only one who thinks that a real Union is about everyone and not just a select few?

It is supposed to be that way but the TWU has been so unsuccessful at promoting unionsim that its become an enviornment of every man for themselves.
 
Well as a 22 year folk I can see where you are coming from but I also have the advantage of seeing where you are headed. Like I said earlier the industry is cyclical, layoffs are inevitable and concessions dont prevent them, wouldnt you rather that during the good times you made enough so that you could put away something for the bad times and know that further down the road, which comes sooner than you think, that you wont be getting laid off anymore because there are enough guys under you? Wouldnt you rather have come back to a Job at $40/hour instead?
Your point was taken for the most part, Bob.
Fortunately, I was always taught not to live past my means.
So.. I do not own a bass boat nor a $40,000.00 gas guzzling truck.
Do you think these thousands RIF'd (or soon to be RIF'd) will ever see $40 much less their jobs back ?