US vs Co Pay Cuts//top Guys

[mweiss]

Personally, I want the company to pay its executives as much as possible to get the best talent possible.

[post="248676"][/post]​

Personally, I don't. If the exec wants another $100K per year, that exec had better show that he or she has put at least another $200K per year in net profits (before the raise) into the company, money that a lesser person would not have generated. Otherwise, the exec is just a resource drain.

 

[usfliboi]

700 youre wrong. Top management did lose incentives and bonuses. Lakefields starting pay was already reduced. Talking about facts dude, your dead wrong. Lakefields pay started at lcc's wages. Amazing youre still here? GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT and stop letting your emotions rule you .

 

[usfliboi]

etons your poor boi.... I feel your pain and 700 this is an article and more of an opinion and sells papers. Post facts not an article that appears to back you non factual statements up.Lakefield started well well well below what wolf and dave did.

 

[700UW]

fliboi,

You are so wrong, Lakefield makes more then the CEO's of WN and B6, you have no idea of what you are talking about.

And management DID NOT give up incentives or bonuses, you could not be more far off base.

Neelemen and Kelly's salary are less then Lakefields, funny WN and B6 are making money while US is losing money.

Sells papers? Wrong again, it is from a TV News Station, not a newspaper, WCNC is the NBC Affiliate in Charlotte.

Under the latest cuts, the company's 10 most senior officers will receive a 10% pay cut and a 25% cut to retirement benefits. Vice presidents and managing directors will take a 7.5% pay cut, while other management employees face a 5% pay cut. The retirement plan is being cut for all management workers

USA Today Article

 

[PHL]

The profound difference being that Dave Neeleman is leading a company which is making money. And Dave Neeleman is not asking his employees to take pay cut after pay cut and still running at an operational loss.

JetBlue is a very young company with a young workforce and a young, standardized fleet. They started right out of the gate with workrules that make them productive at their relatively low pay(due to a young workforce).

If US could start all over and just keep the name, but throw out all the work rules and scrap the fleet, THEN start over with a new common fleet and enact a B6 or WN-like airline, hiring back all of the current employees at WN/B6 contracts, then you might have something to compare.

 

[700UW]

I am not talking about stock options, Neeleman has to cash in those options to make money.

In court the Company's expert witness even testified that Lakefield's salary is not inline with the LCCs and he is compensated more.

Lets see if you want to count stock, Dave Siegel raked in $8 million in his first year at US Airways.

David N. Siegel
President and CEO
US Airways Group

In 2003, David N. Siegel raked in $8,996,026 in total compensation including stock option grants from US Airways Group.

David Neeleman
CEO
JetBlue Airways Corp.

In 2002, David Neeleman raked in $327,279 in total compensation including stock option grants from JetBlue Airways Corp

In 2003 David Neeleman raked in $200,000 in salary and $95,000 in bonus money and in 2003 Mr Neeleman recived NO STOCK!

All this right out of Jetblue's Def14A.

Jetblue's DEF14A

Gee Bob, I guess you are wrong.

And sure give US employees WN's contracts, they are better then the current contracts at US and all the employees at US would get raises.

 

[jimntx]

Personally, I want the company to pay its executives as much as possible to get the best talent possible. Why? I want the company to earn as large as profit as possible so the company can grow, recall employees, and provide the highest profit sharing checks possible.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="248676"][/post]​

It is a fraudulent assumption of the first order to imply that higher compensation = better talent = higher profits. I present Enron, HealthSouth, Adelphi and so on and so forth, as examples of companies that paid their executives exhorbitant amounts of money.

On the obverse, by your argument, SWA and JB could not possibly be successful, well-managed companies. Kelleher and Neeleman were (and are) handsomely rewarded by their options BECAUSE their companies were (and are) successful. The companies were not successful because Kelleher and Neeleman were highly compensated.

 

[delldude]

Upper level executives are not paid the way we are. Salary is only ONE component of executive compensation.

To say that Bruce Lakefield makes more then Mr Neeleman at Jet Blue shows your ignorance. Bruce Lakefield has NO CHANCE of EVER reaching Neelemans earnings. WHY? Because Neeleman takes his compensation in stock and if he ever starts to cash in his options you'll get a handle on just how heavily compensted he is.

Same with most executives. Unless you actually see the entire contract that they signed it is impossible to know the true value of their compensation

Several IAM officials make nearly as much as Mr Neeleman does. More if we count the "expenses" that are reimbursed. So given the Moe, Larry & Curly performance of the IAM in recent negotiations should they not take a pay cut as well as Mr Lakefield?

[post="248728"][/post]​

how you say,duh...........??

 

[mweiss]

I am not talking about stock options, Neeleman has to cash in those options to make money.

He also has to cash his paycheck to make money. What's your point? There's a high degree of liquidity in either case.

Lets see if you want to count stock, Dave Siegel raked in $8 million in his first year at US Airways.

Hmmm...could you remind me again what the name of US's CEO is? I didn't think it was Dave Siegel. <_<

In 2003 David Neeleman raked in $200,000 in salary and $95,000 in bonus money and in 2003 Mr Neeleman recived NO STOCK!

Well, considering that the stock he already held doubled in value in the first ten months of 2003, he probably wasn't hurting from that. Does the option appreciation count as compensation or not? Depends on your perspective.

Gee Bob, I guess you are wrong.

Gee 700, I guess you are ignorant.

 

[700UW]

mwiess,

I guess you are ignorant, since Neeleman makes less then Siegel and/or Lakefield, maybe you should take the time to read the DEF14A.

Lakefield also made an additional $65,000 for attending BOD meetings.

And Siegel's compensation is a factor since Lakefied was not even CEO for a full year, and what about the $4.5 Million also paid out to Siegel last year, that should be factored in too.

 

[funguy2]

700UW: Do those Seigel figures include the $4.5mil departure bribe, or did those occur in 2004?

I think they occured in 2004, but look at the difference in culture...

The LCC's reward execs by using stock options which are tied to long-term success...

US Airways pays bonuses for executives to leave the company... Not to stay and make it prosper... I have a real difficulty with that concept.

 

[700UW]

No the Siegel departure money was paid in 2004, so it is not included in the 2003 figure.

 

[Bob Owens]

Personally, I want the company to pay its executives as much as possible to get the best talent possible. Why? I want the company to earn as large as profit as possible so the company can grow, recall employees, and provide the highest profit sharing checks possible.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="248676"][/post]​

So if you are saying that in order to keep talent you have to pay well then what is the message that management is saying when they cut employees pay? Arent they saying that they dont need your talent?

If the executives are worth so much and can do it by themselves why shouldnt any worker that had their pay cut decrease their effort by an amount equal to their paycut and let the executive earn what they are getting?

Your hypocrisy is sickening, how can you say that low paid employees should not only take pay cuts but also give extra effort while the top guys run off with millions?

I remember a few years back having a debate with Chip Munn about Dave Seigal. I said he was there for the quick buck, would sucker the concessions then bail out with millions leaving you in worse shape than when he came.

So, if you see Chip, ask him if "Dave was different"? Was he worth the millions that he took from USAIR, millions that came right out of your paycheck? What makes you think that any of these other guys are any different? Didnt Pan Am and EAL go through the same management changovers prior to liquidation? Didnt desperate lapdogs at those companies push for concessions while defending the outrageous pay packages that were given to those clowns?When you get someone who will work for nothing until he proves that he can really make USAIR survive then you might have someone worth putting your trust in, but all these other guys just come in and cash out.

 

[700UW]

Roach also represents over 100,000 members in transporation don't forget that fact.

 

[Bob Owens]

the DEF14A was for 2003, and lakefield's numbers are for '04 so once again the facts may not support either position. BUT the bottom line is that a great deal of executive compensation is "Under the radar" which is one of the reasons for the Sarbanes-Oxley Law being passed in the wake of Enron, etc.

Bottom line is if JB continues its success Lakefield, Siegel and Wolf COMBINED will not have the net worth of Neeleman no matter how many how many DEF14A's you produce. He's taking a little out now in order to cash in later.

I don't know it for a fact but why do you think BBB & BB left for Spirit? I'll bet you that their cash salaries are LESS than they were at US. But with the upside of growing a 36 plane airline into a force to be reckoned with and then taking it public and reaping the rewards is sooooo substantial that they took the risk.

Risk vs Reward is generally something that many who work in hourly positions just don't grasp. Bill Gates took the risk and created Microsoft should he not reap the lions share of the financial benefit? Same with Mr Neeleman, he took the risk and if his gamble proves correct he will be rich beyond anything Lakefield, Siegel, Wold, Schofield, & Colodny combined will ever be if they all live to be a hundred and that is also a difference you're forgetting. Mr Neeleman is the founder of Jet Blue, so like Gates. So in reality his compensation should NEVER be compared to other CEO's who are hired to run a company.

It's apples to oranges. Just like comparing Mr Roach's compensation is to the people he purports to represent. He gets a quarter million (50K MORE than Neeleman) and his people get the green weenie

[post="248771"][/post]​

So how much "risk" did Seigal take?


The fact is that airline workers are being told to reduce their pay in order to lessen the risk of job loss. But in reality the cuts have not lessened the risk, they have just put them in a more precarious position-higher debt,less savings, should the company fail.

How many USAIR employees will make $4.5 million over their entire career? How long was Seigal there? Was his brief tenure more productive than a lifetime of any USAIR worker?

Was the decision to cut their pay so that Seigal could walk away with $4.5 million a good one?

As one executive after another comes through, their demands for high up front pay and guarantees proves that none of them really have any faith in USAIRs future. That is why the employees are foolish to in effect invest their future into a company where those who are running it are not willing to do the same.