97.9% of AMRs stock is institutionally owned.
What does that mean?
Institutional ownership is the percent of a company's shares owned by banks, mutual funds, pension funds, insurance companies, and other institutions that usually trade in very large lots.
This supports what I've been saying all along.
If we would have said no to concessions in 2003 would the owners of AMR stock, who are either one and the same as the creditors or closely aligned with them, have liquidated the company?
Doubtful, because even if the carrier "loses" money its operations generate over $3 for every $1 spent on tickets-that came from an old ATA website posting.
Right now they are in the best postion they could be. The airlines are generating commerce and later on when they become profitable, as we are locked into long term concessions, they can make money on the stock.
Alfred Kahn the architect of deregulation was pretty blunt in his motives for deregulation. Besides lower fares he claimed that although the industry was seeing phenominal growth in efficiency and productivity through technology that pilots and machinists were eating up all the gains through increased wages and benifits.
However deregulation did not have the immediate effects that they had hoped for.
Wages did not decline as much as they wanted.
While wages did decline the shortage of labor in the 90s resulted in workers being able to partially retore the wages they lost in the 80s. This was due to the fact that the airlines became much bigger than they were before and the wage was not that competative with other industries any more. These two factors made the airlines more vulnerable than ever before to strikes. The additional burden of security clearances made things even better for airline workers.
While the powers at be wanted to break the backs of labor they did not want major disruptions along the lines of Frank Lorenzo. Disruptions are expensive. They also tend to foster more disruptions. Once people see people striking they are more prone to step up and fight themselves. When you look at history they often describe "waves of labor unrest". Strikes reveal the fact that when we stand together that even the most powerful still need us to show up for work.
Remember that its not just the fact that people are not spending money on airline tickets, when there are strikes they are not spending money on hotels, car rentals, admission tickets, resturaunts, clothes, souveniers etc. And the bank and other institutions that own the airlines see the effects of an airline shutdown at their other concerns also.
9-11 provided them with the perfect chance to make a major move against labor in the airline industry. The very public cuts taken by these workers help other employers hold down wages by using the airline worker as an example "Hey, I'm only asking for small cuts, look at what the airline workers had to give up".
9-11 allowed the airlines to , as in the words of NWAs CEO "Reset wages". In fact if you look at the graph of mechanics wages vs inflation on the thread of that name you can see that the downward trajectory of our real pay has been put right back on course. If you took a ruler and laid it across the period from 2001 to 2003 we are on the exact same rate of decline all the way to 2008, unless inflation picks up, then our rate of decline will be even steeper.
This downward trajectory will be stopped by only two things, wages bottoming out to the point that nobody will show up or until the workers get together and do the only thing that the people in control fear-strike. Shut down the entire industry and let the Institutions that own the airlines see all the commerce that our labor helps generate cease.
If we wanted to work for the lowest acceptable wage then we would not have labor unions. If thats all they can get for us then the dues we pay are wasted money.
We have unions to give us leverage, and regardless of what our sellout leaders say, if we act in unity we still have leverage. I have seen people who claim that labor unions can do things when things are good but they cant do much when things are bad. Thats bull. In fact its the opposite. When things are good employers tend to treat their employeees better without a union, its when things go bad that you need a union. In fact, historically, most labor unrest came during depressions, when it would appear that workers would be even more disadvantaged.
Delta Airlines is a non-union company. During the good times they enjoyed higher pay and better benifits than their union counterparts, however during the bad times the company simply took what they wanted. They could do that.
A AA they have a company union so they had to go through the charade of a vote, then the company took what they wanted.
However at NWA where they have unions the company has tried to take back but they couldnt.
At SWA where they have unions they actually got increases.
USAIR and UAL have used the BK court as a means around the unions. Still the unions could have fought back but with AA and DAL not in BK and getting better concessions than they were getting in BK fighting back was defineately more risky. The disruption of sacrificing two airlines for resetting wages across the entire industry might be acceptable.
So here you can clearly see the difference between having a union and not having a union. Even if the other carriers are able to gain concessioons in the future the fact is that these unionized workers will have earned more than their non, or company union counterparts. You have to remember that we are not immortal. We have a limited number of working years and its not really how many years you work that matter but how much you made when you were working. The secret is "work less and charge more". The pilots have had this concept down pat for 50 years.
We have been hoodwinked. By the company, the banks that own them, you know, the ones who say if you dont have $2 billion in cash we will liquidate you, and by the self serving leadership of the useless union we have.
* Years ago I remember Bob Crandal bragging that AA had a $500 million dollar War chest and could defeat a strike with it.
In 2003 the company had over $1 billion and it claimed it was broke. They used that to get concessions from us. Little even claimed that the company might go straight into liquidation if we did not give in to the concessions.
In 2004 the company and its lapdogs in the International were claiming that if we didnt have $2 billion in cash that the company would be broke. Thats $25000 per employee, in cash.
No doubt that come the next round of concessions if AA has $3 billion in cash, the banks, that own the company and provide the credit to the company will claim they need $5 billion or they will force the company into BK by calling in their loans. And, no doubt that you will have Jim Little and Bobby Gless out there saying "we have to make tough choices" as they collect their six figure salaries and use our dues money to fund their pension.
What does that mean?
Institutional ownership is the percent of a company's shares owned by banks, mutual funds, pension funds, insurance companies, and other institutions that usually trade in very large lots.
This supports what I've been saying all along.
If we would have said no to concessions in 2003 would the owners of AMR stock, who are either one and the same as the creditors or closely aligned with them, have liquidated the company?
Doubtful, because even if the carrier "loses" money its operations generate over $3 for every $1 spent on tickets-that came from an old ATA website posting.
Right now they are in the best postion they could be. The airlines are generating commerce and later on when they become profitable, as we are locked into long term concessions, they can make money on the stock.
Alfred Kahn the architect of deregulation was pretty blunt in his motives for deregulation. Besides lower fares he claimed that although the industry was seeing phenominal growth in efficiency and productivity through technology that pilots and machinists were eating up all the gains through increased wages and benifits.
However deregulation did not have the immediate effects that they had hoped for.
Wages did not decline as much as they wanted.
While wages did decline the shortage of labor in the 90s resulted in workers being able to partially retore the wages they lost in the 80s. This was due to the fact that the airlines became much bigger than they were before and the wage was not that competative with other industries any more. These two factors made the airlines more vulnerable than ever before to strikes. The additional burden of security clearances made things even better for airline workers.
While the powers at be wanted to break the backs of labor they did not want major disruptions along the lines of Frank Lorenzo. Disruptions are expensive. They also tend to foster more disruptions. Once people see people striking they are more prone to step up and fight themselves. When you look at history they often describe "waves of labor unrest". Strikes reveal the fact that when we stand together that even the most powerful still need us to show up for work.
Remember that its not just the fact that people are not spending money on airline tickets, when there are strikes they are not spending money on hotels, car rentals, admission tickets, resturaunts, clothes, souveniers etc. And the bank and other institutions that own the airlines see the effects of an airline shutdown at their other concerns also.
9-11 provided them with the perfect chance to make a major move against labor in the airline industry. The very public cuts taken by these workers help other employers hold down wages by using the airline worker as an example "Hey, I'm only asking for small cuts, look at what the airline workers had to give up".
9-11 allowed the airlines to , as in the words of NWAs CEO "Reset wages". In fact if you look at the graph of mechanics wages vs inflation on the thread of that name you can see that the downward trajectory of our real pay has been put right back on course. If you took a ruler and laid it across the period from 2001 to 2003 we are on the exact same rate of decline all the way to 2008, unless inflation picks up, then our rate of decline will be even steeper.
This downward trajectory will be stopped by only two things, wages bottoming out to the point that nobody will show up or until the workers get together and do the only thing that the people in control fear-strike. Shut down the entire industry and let the Institutions that own the airlines see all the commerce that our labor helps generate cease.
If we wanted to work for the lowest acceptable wage then we would not have labor unions. If thats all they can get for us then the dues we pay are wasted money.
We have unions to give us leverage, and regardless of what our sellout leaders say, if we act in unity we still have leverage. I have seen people who claim that labor unions can do things when things are good but they cant do much when things are bad. Thats bull. In fact its the opposite. When things are good employers tend to treat their employeees better without a union, its when things go bad that you need a union. In fact, historically, most labor unrest came during depressions, when it would appear that workers would be even more disadvantaged.
Delta Airlines is a non-union company. During the good times they enjoyed higher pay and better benifits than their union counterparts, however during the bad times the company simply took what they wanted. They could do that.
A AA they have a company union so they had to go through the charade of a vote, then the company took what they wanted.
However at NWA where they have unions the company has tried to take back but they couldnt.
At SWA where they have unions they actually got increases.
USAIR and UAL have used the BK court as a means around the unions. Still the unions could have fought back but with AA and DAL not in BK and getting better concessions than they were getting in BK fighting back was defineately more risky. The disruption of sacrificing two airlines for resetting wages across the entire industry might be acceptable.
So here you can clearly see the difference between having a union and not having a union. Even if the other carriers are able to gain concessioons in the future the fact is that these unionized workers will have earned more than their non, or company union counterparts. You have to remember that we are not immortal. We have a limited number of working years and its not really how many years you work that matter but how much you made when you were working. The secret is "work less and charge more". The pilots have had this concept down pat for 50 years.
We have been hoodwinked. By the company, the banks that own them, you know, the ones who say if you dont have $2 billion in cash we will liquidate you, and by the self serving leadership of the useless union we have.
* Years ago I remember Bob Crandal bragging that AA had a $500 million dollar War chest and could defeat a strike with it.
In 2003 the company had over $1 billion and it claimed it was broke. They used that to get concessions from us. Little even claimed that the company might go straight into liquidation if we did not give in to the concessions.
In 2004 the company and its lapdogs in the International were claiming that if we didnt have $2 billion in cash that the company would be broke. Thats $25000 per employee, in cash.
No doubt that come the next round of concessions if AA has $3 billion in cash, the banks, that own the company and provide the credit to the company will claim they need $5 billion or they will force the company into BK by calling in their loans. And, no doubt that you will have Jim Little and Bobby Gless out there saying "we have to make tough choices" as they collect their six figure salaries and use our dues money to fund their pension.
