What a coincidence! Stock down after payday!

[Oneflyer]

Then why sell ANY STOCK IN THE COMPANY THAT YOU RUN?Y

Oh yea,,,,DIVERSIFY, DIVERSIFY, DIVERSIFY!
In a Form 4 filed with the SEC Friday, Gerard J. Arpey reported he exercised the options Thursday for $8.88 apiece and then sold all 49,363 of them on the same day for $30.64 apiece. Arpey sold an additional 207,900 shares on the same day for $29.74 apiece.
$8.88 looks like single digits to me

That is my point. Why would he try to drive the stock down????

 

[Hopeful]

That is my point. Why would he try to drive the stock down????

So he and the rest of his cronies can get more stock at the lower price

 

[FWAAA]

Can you say "ENRON"

Yep. Some executives once committed some crimes. Unlike you, I don't see Enron as any evidence that AMR execs are committing crimes.

After all, a jet airliner crashes. Does that mean all jet airliners are gonna crash?

 

[FWAAA]

I SUPPOSE THERE ARE NO CORPORATE EXECUTIVES SERVING PRISON TIME THROUGHOUT THE US! THEY'RE ALL THERE FOR TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS! I GUESS WHEN CRANDALL CALLED BRANIFF'S PUTNAM ON THE PHONE TO GET HIM TO RAISE FARES WHICH CRANDALL WOULD MATCH, HE WAS MISUNDERSTOOD AND THE FACT THAT PUTNAM TAPED THE CALL WAS A RESULT OF HITTING THE WRONG BUTTON.
TALK ABOUT LIVING IN FANTASY LAND!

So Crandall commits an antitrust violation, and suddenly all AMR execs are forever potential criminals? Your logic skills are sadly lacking.

Did I imply that? And I never stated that AMR fudged any results. I said they, like any other corporation, can release and control information to financial community that can paint a rosy picture to drive the stock up when they need to....I.E.WHEN THE EXECUTIVES WANT TO EXCERCISE THEIR OPTIONS...

By the same token, they can release negative information when they need to, I.E CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE UNIONS!

So what type of info will AMR release (or not release) in order to influence the logic-challenged employees?

FWAAA seems to believe that corporations and their executives are ALL on the up and up and are above doing anything illegal or immoral.

I used ENRON as an example of feeding mis-information to investors. So please don't tell me AMR is incapable of the same practices.

as UAL TECH posted, "Creative Accounting" practices are not that unusual.

Nope, I don't believe that all corporate execs are above committing crimes. But unlike you, I don't take one or even several isolated examples of criminal activity and conclude without any evidence that AMR's execs are criminals. Like I posted earlier, one plane crashes. I don't then assume that all planes are crashing. Your version of logic seems to conclude that all planes are crashing.

It amazes me that you guys put Arpey and Co. on the same pedestal as Mother Teresa. ABSOLUTELY MIND BOGGLING.

Did you guys notice Arpey and Company selling some of their options? I guess they need they needed the money to pay bills!

Now that you mention it - you do know what big bills those guys paid last week, don't you? On April 17, I wrote a huge check to the IRS. Many other people in the USA did the same thing. I dunno (nor really care) whether these sales are part of a pre-planned systematic sale (I suspect they are) or whether they were special sales to raise cash to pay taxes last week.

Oh, tell me FWAAA and EOLESEN, since you guys are financial whizzes, tell me HOW Arpey needs to diversify his holdings and a low level mechanic like me just doesn't understand the business world as much as you two boy wonders.

Well, I've sold a huge chunk of my AMR over the past year to diversify. IMO, the big run-up has already happened. Wouldn't blame these guys if they were diversifying. But I'm guessing they were merely covering their tax bills. I could be mistaken.

Sad fact is - you see conspiracy theories where I just see ordinary corporate greed. Corporate greed that doesn't faze me anymore.

There was a time when a CEO and top executive dumped stock in his own company, it was a sign of no confidence and was frowned upon. They usually didn't cash out until they left the company.

Generally, you're right. If the top execs were selling most of their AMR, I'd agree with you. But if you think the recent option exercise and sales represent a large percentage of their holdings, you're mistaken. These guys still hold many multiples of what they just sold.

I hope you guys are able to get back what you gave up. I just hope the negotiating team doesn't include you or others like you who are so out of touch with reality. As posted before, some hired guns who aren't quite so emotionally invested would be money well spent.

 

[Hopeful]

I'm through arguing this topic with you. You defend Arpey and Co. like they're your children accused of some wrong doing at school.

Come contract time, this company IS GOING TO GIVE US NOTHING!. WHY? BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO.....THEY KNOW THE TWU IS A SPINELESS, WORTHLESS, UNION WHO WILL GIVE BACK MORE CONCESSIONS TO MAINTAIN UNION DUES...

So book mark this posting, and when the contract offers come around, it will be business as usual and insulting..

It's funny how you say I am out of touch with reality and how someone like me should not be on the negotiating team.

SO IT'S BETTER TO HAVE A NEGOTIATING TEAM LOOKING OUT FOR THE UNION LEADERSHIP AND COMPANY INTERESTS OVER THE MEMBERS?

You're the one living in LA LA LAND!

I would call their bluff, and dare them to shrink the company while demanding the return of everything we lost and more!
That way, the stock can tank and screw them all.

 

[FWAAA]

I'm through arguing this topic with you. You defend Arpey and Co. like they're your children accused of some wrong doing at school.

Nope. I'm plenty critical of management. I just don't suffer the same paycheck envy, that's all. Arpey and his gang of greedy thieves negotiated back in 2003 for their pound of flesh if they rode the recovery wave, and I don't get worked up over it. If that's "defending" management, I just disagree.

Come contract time, this company IS GOING TO GIVE US NOTHING!. WHY? BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO.....THEY KNOW THE TWU IS A SPINELESS, WORTHLESS, UNION WHO WILL GIVE BACK MORE CONCESSIONS TO MAINTAIN UNION DUES...

So book mark this posting, and when the contract offers come around, it will be business as usual and insulting..

I agree that the company won't give you anything, but I disagree that your worthless union is the one to blame. Problem is, far too many of you have come to work, day in and day out, for the last four years even though your pay was slashed. Sure, some have quit, but for most it's still their best gig. That or they lack the initiative to move on to all those higher-paying options open to them that everyone likes to talk about.

Best way to raise the pay would be if AA couldn't get enough of you to show up at the current pay rates. But so far, AA hasn't had any trouble getting things fixed for the price it's willing to pay.

It's funny how you say I am out of touch with reality and how someone like me should not be on the negotiating team.

SO IT'S BETTER TO HAVE A NEGOTIATING TEAM LOOKING OUT FOR THE UNION LEADERSHIP AND COMPANY INTERESTS OVER THE MEMBERS?

You're the one living in LA LA LAND!

You got me. I do live in Los Angeles.

I would call their bluff, and dare them to shrink the company while demanding the return of everything we lost and more!
That way, the stock can tank and screw them all.

THAT paragraph is exactly why I think you'd be better served if you left the negotiating to a less emotionally invested group. But hey, have it your way. According to Owens, it's worked out real well since 1983 or '84 or so.

You know, if oil had cost the same in 1Q2007 as it did in 1Q2001, AA could afford to restore the pay ($450 million per quarter) and would have posted a profit much larger than the $81 million. If oil comes down, I can see where AA will get the money to give back the concessions. But if oil stays where it is, I just don't see where the money comes from. Perhaps you can see where AA gets that money. I don't think that AA is gonna go back to borrowing the money to meet payroll like it did from Sept. 2001 thru April, 2003.

 

[eolesen]

SO IT'S BETTER TO HAVE A NEGOTIATING TEAM LOOKING OUT FOR THE UNION LEADERSHIP AND COMPANY INTERESTS OVER THE MEMBERS?

Personally, I'd rather have someone willing to tell me what's realistic and attainable, as opposed to someone afraid to tell the Emporer he has no clothes. By having members doing all of the negotiating, you've got people too afraid to come back to the membership and tell the truth. I'm sure that John Ward hears about how he sold out the APFA every time he works a trip. Same thing with John Darrah and APA. The fact is that I don't think any of the union presidents or negotiating committees could have done materially better back in 2003. The agreements may have had slightly different language (i.e. different areas cut, other areas untouched), but the total impact of the cuts would have probably wound up more or less the same.

You and a lot of others are so hell-bent on trying to hold Arpey and Jim Little accountable for what's gone wrong with your trade that sometimes, you can't see the forest thru the trees.

You want clearly want revenge, and in 20 years of studying labor relations and negotiating business contracts, I have yet to see anyone win from revenge-based negotiations.

If you wouldn't allow a co-worker to represent you in a personal injury lawsuit, a title dispute on your home, or a divorce with lots of assets at stake, then why are you so willing to allow a co-worker to go up against MBA's and the like when your future income is at stake???

 

[Oneflyer]

Personally, I'd rather have someone willing to tell me what's realistic and attainable, as opposed to someone afraid to tell the Emporer he has no clothes. By having members doing all of the negotiating, you've got people too afraid to come back to the membership and tell the truth. I'm sure that John Ward hears about how he sold out the APFA every time he works a trip. Same thing with John Darrah and APA. The fact is that I don't think any of the union presidents or negotiating committees could have done materially better back in 2003. The agreements may have had slightly different language (i.e. different areas cut, other areas untouched), but the total impact of the cuts would have probably wound up more or less the same.

You and a lot of others are so hell-bent on trying to hold Arpey and Jim Little accountable for what's gone wrong with your trade that sometimes, you can't see the forest thru the trees.

You want clearly want revenge, and in 20 years of studying labor relations and negotiating business contracts, I have yet to see anyone win from revenge-based negotiations.

If you wouldn't allow a co-worker to represent you in a personal injury lawsuit, a title dispute on your home, or a divorce with lots of assets at stake, then why are you so willing to allow a co-worker to go up against MBA's and the like when your future income is at stake???

More true words have never been spoken.

Most accurate post I have ever read on this board.

 

[FWAAA]

Personally, I'd rather have someone willing to tell me what's realistic and attainable, as opposed to someone afraid to tell the Emporer he has no clothes. By having members doing all of the negotiating, you've got people too afraid to come back to the membership and tell the truth. I'm sure that John Ward hears about how he sold out the APFA every time he works a trip. Same thing with John Darrah and APA. The fact is that I don't think any of the union presidents or negotiating committees could have done materially better back in 2003. The agreements may have had slightly different language (i.e. different areas cut, other areas untouched), but the total impact of the cuts would have probably wound up more or less the same.

In 2003, I applauded AA's decision to come out and say "we need $1.6 billion of wage savings from represented workers and it's not subject to negotiation" and to stand firm on that number. It approximated the cash burn (when added to the $200 million from management and agents) and was not subject to negotiation. I thought that management looked somewhat honest (for a change) by not playing the haggling game.

Problem is, many workers thought that their unions should have been able to bargain down the wage savings number to some smaller dollar value and that their failure to do so was proof that their union leaders were in bed with management. Turns out that AA meant what it said: The $1.6 billion was what it demanded and what it required to avoid filing a petition under Ch 11. Like buying a Saturn.

Might have been better for if AA had said "we need $2.3 billion of wage savings but we're willing to work with labor on that number" and then to have played "new car sales manager" with the unions and then, after protracted negotiations, announced a TA with, whaddayaknow? $1.6 billion of represented worker wage savings.

You and a lot of others are so hell-bent on trying to hold Arpey and Jim Little accountable for what's gone wrong with your trade that sometimes, you can't see the forest thru the trees.

You want clearly want revenge, and in 20 years of studying labor relations and negotiating business contracts, I have yet to see anyone win from revenge-based negotiations.

If you wouldn't allow a co-worker to represent you in a personal injury lawsuit, a title dispute on your home, or a divorce with lots of assets at stake, then why are you so willing to allow a co-worker to go up against MBA's and the like when your future income is at stake???

Excellent points.

 

[AMFAMAN]

Problem is, many workers thought that their unions should have been able to bargain down the wage savings number to some smaller dollar value and that their failure to do so was proof that their union leaders were in bed with management.

In the twu's case, it is a known fact that they are in bed with management. 😉

The failure to negotiate clauses such as snap-backs based on profitability is what bothers many. Without such clauses, we now have to negotiate back everything that was lost. :down:

 

[eolesen]

I agree there should have been more language regarding how to handle financial recovery (i.e. mandatory Sect. 6 early openers within 1 month of posting three consecutive profitable quarters or payment of bonuses to any workgroup).

However, specific to snap-backs, one of the stipulations made from the beginning of RPA negotiations was that AA was seeking permanent structural changes, and not band-aids like had been done with workgroups at other airlines.

As ugly as it was, it was probably a prudent move if for no other reason, it managed everyone's expectations on just how long the cuts would be in effect, i.e. thru the end of the contract. At other companies, I've seen people incorrectly assume that the pay cuts would only be for three or six months, just to get increasingly pissed off as they drag out for years.

Not everything needs to be renegotiated from scratch, though. Some sections of the contract were left more or less intact, but had pay rates zeroed out or given minimal values. For example, the union won't need to re-negotiate shift differential. The language is all still there. They simply need to negotiate new rates for each category. The same goes for sick time -- change or delete "half-pay" from the revised language, and you've pretty much got the old language back.

 

[Hopeful]

Personally, I'd rather have someone willing to tell me what's realistic and attainable, as opposed to someone afraid to tell the Emporer he has no clothes. By having members doing all of the negotiating, you've got people too afraid to come back to the membership and tell the truth. I'm sure that John Ward hears about how he sold out the APFA every time he works a trip. Same thing with John Darrah and APA. The fact is that I don't think any of the union presidents or negotiating committees could have done materially better back in 2003. The agreements may have had slightly different language (i.e. different areas cut, other areas untouched), but the total impact of the cuts would have probably wound up more or less the same.

You and a lot of others are so hell-bent on trying to hold Arpey and Jim Little accountable for what's gone wrong with your trade that sometimes, you can't see the forest thru the trees.

You want clearly want revenge, and in 20 years of studying labor relations and negotiating business contracts, I have yet to see anyone win from revenge-based negotiations.

If you wouldn't allow a co-worker to represent you in a personal injury lawsuit, a title dispute on your home, or a divorce with lots of assets at stake, then why are you so willing to allow a co-worker to go up against MBA's and the like when your future income is at stake???

First of all, the TWU, going back to Ed Koziatek, and now Little, NEVER got tough with the company. The gave AA whatever it wanted. So you may say, jobs were preserved, bankruptcy avoided, etc. But where do you draw the line?

Why not work for minimum wage and have 100% employment? Why not give the company a 20 year contract with NOTHING but a guaranteed job for life.

Think about the 2nd and last paragraph you wrote here. You say I'm hell bent on holding Arpey and Little accountable, but then lastly you say why would we allow co workers to negotiate. THATS THE PROBLEM, EOLESEN! Little is accountable for having my cowrkers negotiate on my behalf. WE HAVE NO SAY IN THE MATTER!
I would be more than willing to have my union dues increased to pay PROFESSIONALS to sit at the bargaining table facing company lawyers and MBA's. But then again, if we had a really tough union, you would revert back to the "GREEDY" and "UNREALISTIC" union.

THE TWU AND LITTLE BELIEVE THAT HAVE THE SMARTS TO NEGOTIATE AGAINST PROFESSIONALS! You answered your own concerns. The TWU is accountable by not hiring professionals!

I agree there should have been more language regarding how to handle financial recovery (i.e. mandatory Sect. 6 early openers within 1 month of posting three consecutive profitable quarters or payment of bonuses to any workgroup).

However, specific to snap-backs, one of the stipulations made from the beginning of RPA negotiations was that AA was seeking permanent structural changes, and not band-aids like had been done with workgroups at other airlines.

As ugly as it was, it was probably a prudent move if for no other reason, it managed everyone's expectations on just how long the cuts would be in effect, i.e. thru the end of the contract. At other companies, I've seen people incorrectly assume that the pay cuts would only be for three or six months, just to get increasingly pissed off as they drag out for years.

Not everything needs to be renegotiated from scratch, though. Some sections of the contract were left more or less intact, but had pay rates zeroed out or given minimal values. For example, the union won't need to re-negotiate shift differential. The language is all still there. They simply need to negotiate new rates for each category. The same goes for sick time -- change or delete "half-pay" from the revised language, and you've pretty much got the old language back.

Don't you realize that the concession took away 50 years of contractual gains? Don't you realize that everything that was lost has to be fought for again?

 

[Hopeful]

Nope. I'm plenty critical of management. I just don't suffer the same paycheck envy, that's all. Arpey and his gang of greedy thieves negotiated back in 2003 for their pound of flesh if they rode the recovery wave, and I don't get worked up over it. If that's "defending" management, I just disagree.
I agree that the company won't give you anything, but I disagree that your worthless union is the one to blame. Problem is, far too many of you have come to work, day in and day out, for the last four years even though your pay was slashed. Sure, some have quit, but for most it's still their best gig. That or they lack the initiative to move on to all those higher-paying options open to them that everyone likes to talk about.

Best way to raise the pay would be if AA couldn't get enough of you to show up at the current pay rates. But so far, AA hasn't had any trouble getting things fixed for the price it's willing to pay.
You got me. I do live in Los Angeles.
THAT paragraph is exactly why I think you'd be better served if you left the negotiating to a less emotionally invested group. But hey, have it your way. According to Owens, it's worked out real well since 1983 or '84 or so.

You know, if oil had cost the same in 1Q2007 as it did in 1Q2001, AA could afford to restore the pay ($450 million per quarter) and would have posted a profit much larger than the $81 million. If oil comes down, I can see where AA will get the money to give back the concessions. But if oil stays where it is, I just don't see where the money comes from. Perhaps you can see where AA gets that money. I don't think that AA is gonna go back to borrowing the money to meet payroll like it did from Sept. 2001 thru April, 2003.

Don't put words in my mouth..I have no paycheck envy concerning ANYONE. My concern is that Arpey and Co. are the ones sharing in the rewards. Like I have repeatedly said, there were no arguments here about CEO and executive compensation BEFORE concessions! Employees gave back billions get back barely $1000 year with their 1.5% raise while the top boys get back 5,6 and 7 figure payouts. And spare me the 35 million shares we got back divided between 80,000 people. The average 437 shares per employee are peanuts compares to what the ELITE got back. I could care less what an executive received PRIOR to concessions. Now the sharing of rewards are one sided.

And let's address your supply and demand argument.
After 9/11, when the airlines took a major hit, management of all airlines took advantage of the situation to FINALLY break the unions. Be it through bankruptcy or in the case of AA, the THEREAT of bankruptcy, the finished labor off. This is something that was started when Reagan fired the PATCO represented controllers and Lorenzo did his thing at Continental and Eastern. With literally thousands of airline workers on the street, the supply will dwarf the demand for years to come. Management was superb at screwing labor. The TWU chose to assist in the screwing. JOBS AT ANY COST!
So what you have is a demoralized workforce.

So Crandall commits an antitrust violation, and suddenly all AMR execs are forever potential criminals? Your logic skills are sadly lacking.

Again, putting words in my mouth. I never said ALL AMR execs are potential criminals. I just don't put anyone above the law. You think Arpey and his apostles would never and could never do anything illegal or immoral. I disagree.

As for my logic skills, too bad for you and the flying public because it is my logic based on 30 years of aircraft maintenance experience that I base my decisions and corrective actions to ensure an aircraft is airworthy.

 

[FWAAA]

Don't put words in my mouth..I have no paycheck envy concerning ANYONE. My concern is that Arpey and Co. are the ones sharing in the rewards. Like I have repeatedly said, there were no arguments here about CEO and executive compensation BEFORE concessions! Employees gave back billions get back barely $1000 year with their 1.5% raise while the top boys get back 5,6 and 7 figure payouts. And spare me the 35 million shares we got back divided between 80,000 people. The average 437 shares per employee are peanuts compares to what the ELITE got back. I could care less what an executive received PRIOR to concessions. Now the sharing of rewards are one sided.

Greedy management always makes lots more money than the working stiffs, in good times and bad. I know your 2003 stock options won't make you whole. They'll hardly buy a used car. I certainly didn't have any expectation that the 35 million options would make anyone whole. I know that management (and their support staff) also shared almost 3 million options between themselves in 2003. And I know that 874 (or whatever number) of the top-paid management just took home another huge pile of stock.

Stock that, incidentally, has become much less valuable since last week when they printed it for themselves. That alone should provide you some small satisfaction. 😛

I don't what to say about the "unequal sharing of the rewards." Par for the course at just about every company. Oh, sure, if you look far and wide, you'll find companies that have made their working stiffs rich thru stock options while not giving obscene amounts of stock to those at the top. But those are rare, indeed.

It's not the first time and certainly won't be the last that working stiffs sacrifice in exchange for the equivalent of a "jelly of the month" gift by their greedy bosses instead of a meaningful sharing of the bounty.

As I posted before, I wouldn't have invested the $120k that you and your co-workers did without assurances of more potential upside sharing than the 2003 options. And once it was obvious that my union wasn't negotiating it for me, I would have gone out and secured that upside on my own. I'd have bought a few thousand shares. True, you probably shouldn't have had to do that, but nobody else was looking out for you. Another $15k to $20k of AMR (even at the $5 price after the concessions were obviously a done deal) would have made you whole.

And let's address your supply and demand argument.
After 9/11, when the airlines took a major hit, management of all airlines took advantage of the situation to FINALLY break the unions. Be it through bankruptcy or in the case of AA, the THEREAT of bankruptcy, the finished labor off. This is something that was started when Reagan fired the PATCO represented controllers and Lorenzo did his thing at Continental and Eastern. With literally thousands of airline workers on the street, the supply will dwarf the demand for years to come. Management was superb at screwing labor. The TWU chose to assist in the screwing. JOBS AT ANY COST!

So what you have is a demoralized workforce.

About PATCO for a moment: I'm just a simpleton when it comes to labor relations, since I'm not AMR management nor currently a member of a union. When a union is covered by a law that says "thou shalt not strike," but chooses to strike anyway (rather than changing the law), the person in charge has two choices: punish the strikers for breaking the law or pretend the law doesn't exist and ignore the violation. I'm sorta in favor of following rules and changing them if one doesn't like them. Ignoring them just ain't right, IMO.

Pres. Reagan choose the former choice. That made some people very happy and made some people absolutely livid. He treated it (right or wrong) like a captain facing a mutiny or like a general facing widespread refusal to follow orders. In my view, it had nothing to do with "union-busting." It had everything to do with demanding that everyone follow the law.

Of course, you guys are covered by a pretty restrictive law, one that sets forth all kinds of hoops before you can lawfully strike. Been in existence (I'm assuming) since before you were born, let alone went to work for an airline. So those restrictions are part of your expectations. Like working nights and weekends and holidays and in inclement weather. Part of the job.

I'm fully aware that the supply of airline mechanics (and all other airline employees) exceeds the demand. At least it exceeds the demand for highly paid positions. Eagle and jetBlue and WN are always hiring. Eagle not because they're picky - but because their wage scale sucks. B6 and WN are constantly hiring in part because they're so picky. I'm sure they throw away lots of applications for each opening. And the airplane mechanics schools keep on taking tuition from guys excited that (as one school here in LA likes to advertise) pay for airline A&Ps "averages $58,000." As if that's like winning the lottery. So the schools keep churning out new ones every day.

But as much as the pay sucks, and as demoralizing as it is, nearly everybody keeps showing up for work. Unlike, say, nursing. For a long time now, there's been a shortage (real or perceived) shortage of nurses. RNs can get huge signing bonuses and pretty high pay for what was once a low-paid, almost exclusively-women dominated field. Fair portion of them are members of unions, but I don't credit that for their decent pay.

Engineering, Math, Science, Computer grads (and others) get roughly the same competitive bidding treatment including high starting pay, all generally without union representation. Business school and top law school grads are wooed these days with six figure starting salaries, signing bonuses and rather extravegant benefits. And none of them are represented.

Again, putting words in my mouth. I never said ALL AMR execs are potential criminals. I just don't put anyone above the law. You think Arpey and his apostles would never and could never do anything illegal or immoral. I disagree.

As for my logic skills, too bad for you and the flying public because it is my logic based on 30 years of aircraft maintenance experience that I base my decisions and corrective actions to ensure an aircraft is airworthy.

Well, you put words in my mouth when you claim that I'd defend management "like my children." When you scream "Enron" at my disbelief that AA's execs are cooking the books. When you remind us of Crandall's criminal past. It's like me insinuating that you're all sloppy mechanics or that pilots are dangerous if I name one or two prominent crashes that were ultimately pinned on mechanic or pilot error.

Yes, of course it's possible that Arpey is cooking the books. To drive down the value of his huge pile of ill-gotten stock. (hint: If the value of AMR were skyrocketing the day after he and the others got their PUP/PSP stock payout, I'd be more likely to agree with you).

Oil is up. Questionable industry stock analysts like Jamie Baker and Ray Neidl are downgrading airlines. Industry darlings WN and B6 are warning that revenue may be softening. So I see AMR (and all other airline stocks) plunging and it looks rational to me. AMR is still exposed to oil prices, and the two tend to move in opposite directions. WN doesn't move so much, but then again, it's rather insulated from oil price fluctuations. It hasn't gone up very far in several years either.

I apologize for defaming your logic skills. I think you have them, I think they're sound and I'm confident that you use them when you fix airplanes.

I just think you send them on holiday when discussing the management of your employer and the blind rage that results, especially when discussing the value of their stock that they negotiated if they could pull it off. In some ways, you gambled $120k that they'd pull it off. And they presided over (dunno if they did anything to help) a recovery. Cash is up, debt is down, pilot pensions remain intact. In short, they did what they said they'd do in 2003. And you'd have to be born yesterday to think they weren't gonna grab what their 2003 agreements said they'd have comin' to them if they pulled it off.

Yep, more altruistic management (like the geezer at DL) would have declined the PUP/PSP stock. Would have said "we did nothing to earn it." But they've never been very altruistic. Not in the old days, not now. Only time I saw it was between October, 2001 and early 2003 when they were borrowing big piles of money to pay the bills (including your payroll) in the vain hope that the industry quickly recovered to its 1999-2000 ways of high fares, cheap oil and billion dollar profits.

 

[eolesen]

To be fair, Arpey did forego his PUP last year. Unfortunately, nobody else had the balls to follow his lead.

What's damning in my book is that Gerard didn't show more leadership last year by telling his direct reports that they should "strongly consider" doing the same, and that he completely reversed course this year and accepted the payout.