AA on the rise

[AA80Driver]

----------------
On 5/7/2003 8:58:25 AM eolesen wrote:

If I''m reading the S-8 filed with the SEC correctly, the employee option grant price is $3.52, and 42.8M shares were set aside.

If so, then the employees already have a profit of $155M before commissions. Keep in mind it is only a paper profit until exercised...

----------------

 

[Oliver Stone''s Apprentice]

Excuse me, but my income and retirement depends on AMR just as much yours does.

Right now, I don''t care what is driving up the stock. The point is that it is up, and it makes the options worth something.

Now, the hard part will be making sure they remain up so that we''re not left holding an empty bag, like the folks at UAL are now with their ESOP shares.

 

[MADAMT]

I hate to burst all your bubbles, but figure out how much you are losing in the concessions. Not just the pay cut % but the whole thing. Then figure out what price the stock need to rise to in order to break even.

You are still losing its just a matter of making back an iota of what you are losing.

 

[WXGuesser]

----------------
On 5/8/2003 4:43:25 AM MADAMT wrote:


I hate to burst all your bubbles, but figure out how much you are losing in the concessions. Not just the pay cut % but the whole thing. Then figure out what price the stock need to rise to in order to break even.

You are still losing its just a matter of making back an iota of what you are losing.


----------------​

MADAMT:

And how much theoretical money would people have lost if they lost their jobs? A lot more. How much more theoretical money would people have lost in the cuts in BK (and without getting any stock back)?

All this money you have "lost" is purely theoretical! If the airline had continued to pay you the money you "lost", it would have gone out of business. Then ALL your theoretical income would have gone poof!

All this B.S. about "working for free" and "lost money" is the dumbest thing I have ever heard! NOTHING in life is guaranteed, and life isn''t fair!

Sheesh!

Now, the question I am wondering is: The company has determined how many shares of stock each employee is going to get based on the contract headcount. Do they recalculate the number if there aren''t that many employees left in that classification?

TANSTAAFL

 

[MADAMT]

----------------
On 5/8/2003 835 AM WXGuesser wrote:

----------------
On 5/8/2003 4:43:25 AM MADAMT wrote:



I hate to burst all your bubbles, but figure out how much you are losing in the concessions. Not just the pay cut % but the whole thing. Then figure out what price the stock need to rise to in order to break even.

You are still losing its just a matter of making back an iota of what you are losing.


----------------​

MADAMT:

And how much theoretical money would people have lost if they lost their jobs? A lot more. How much more theoretical money would people have lost in the cuts in BK (and without getting any stock back)?

All this money you have "lost" is purely theoretical! If the airline had continued to pay you the money you "lost", it would have gone out of business. Then ALL your theoretical income would have gone poof!

All this B.S. about "working for free" and "lost money" is the dumbest thing I have ever heard! NOTHING in life is guaranteed, and life isn''t fair!

Sheesh!

Now, the question I am wondering is: The company has determined how many shares of stock each employee is going to get based on the contract headcount. Do they recalculate the number if there aren''t that many employees left in that classification?

TANSTAAFL

----------------​

Theoretical money that I lost or would have lost. First of all Bk was for Chap. 11 not 7.
Secondly, the pay cut is not the problem we were going to have our pay cut in either senario, it the rest of the benefits that were cut, 1 week vacation, 5 holidays, the remaining 5 at 1.5 pay., loss of sick time accural, loss of 4 hours pay each day for the first two days I am ill. So don''t sit there and tell me that its just my imagination that I am losing income.

If I had lost my job in a lay off what do you I would just sit around and pout about it, I would work and continue to support my family, but to sit there and say if they continued to pay my my wages they would have gone Bankrupt . You are one of the lambs that believe everthing the company spouts.

 

[FWAAA]

In March I posted that 10,000 shares could be had for about $13,000 - $14,000.

Today those shares are worth $64,000.

Hope some of you folks (AA employees) bought some.

I did.

 

[BillLumbergh]

Arpey Says 1st Quarter Was Likely AMR''s ''Low Point''

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 5/8/2003 6:13:17 PM FWAAA wrote:

In March I posted that 10,000 shares could be had for about $13,000 - $14,000.

Today those shares are worth $64,000.

Hope some of you folks (AA employees) bought some.

I did.

----------------​

Now we know why you were pushing for concessions. Better sell them before the judge comes down with a decision on the mechanics lawsuit.

 

[WXGuesser]

----------------
On 5/8/2003 6:07:14 PM MADAMT wrote:

Theoretical money that I lost or would have lost. First of all Bk was for Chap. 11 not 7.
Secondly, the pay cut is not the problem we were going to have our pay cut in either senario, it the rest of the benefits that were cut, 1 week vacation, 5 holidays, the remaining 5 at 1.5 pay., loss of sick time accural, loss of 4 hours pay each day for the first two days I am ill. So don''t sit there and tell me that its just my imagination that I am losing income.

If I had lost my job in a lay off what do you I would just sit around and pout about it, I would work and continue to support my family, but to sit there and say if they continued to pay my my wages they would have gone Bankrupt . You are one of the lambs that believe everthing the company spouts.


----------------​

I''m not saying you haven''t lost money. I''m saying it could of been a whole lot worse than it was. Sick time is only income if you are sick. Vacation time is a loss, I agree. But you still get more vacation than most of the folks in the rest of the world. My supervisor has been in her (state) job ten years and only gets three weeks a year. Holidays are holidays; it''s not like the airline stops running. Does it suck that you aren''t getting paid more for missing those times with your family? Yes. So that is lost pay. How much $$$ is that?

I went right out and found another job, but it pays a whole lot less. I was out of work less than three weeks. Unlike a lot of people, I had a secondary skill set to draw on. I don''t believe everything the company spouts, but I do live in the real world. The company doesn''t exist just to provide you with a job. They exist to make money, and when they don''t make money, something needs to change. When labor related expenses are such a huge percentage of their budget, they need to look at trying to reduce those costs. In the rest of the world, companies do that by simply laying people off or cutting salaries. In the union world, that process is painful and involves a lot of animosity between management and labor. But in AA''s case the company simply had no other choice! What would you have had them do?

You don''t think that you would have lost the same benefits in Chapter 11? The reductions in costs to the company would have had to come from somewhere, and even if you eliminated the entire costs of management, it wouldn''t have come close to saving any of what you lost.

TANSTAAFL

 

[MADAMT]

Yes Vacation and sick time are only pay losses if you don''t get the ability to use them. Loss of 5 holidays a year is 3500 a year now also take into account that the remaining 5 holidays are at 1.5 pay thats another 1400 so just in holidays that cost me 4900 a year. Now I no longer receive a shift differential for working nights. So the pay cuts and rest are a substantial loss of wages more than I feel was necessary they went above and beyond.

As for BK the courts only inpose temporary reductions and then instruct both parties to sit down and talk. They have the ability to abrogate the contract in total only not bits and pieces. abd Then there are circumstances that must be weighed first. Judges have the in the past only instuted pay cuts as temporary. At UA he instituted a 14% and then the union Neg. a 13%. and no it was not cumulative.

 

[Cosmo]

----------------
On 5/9/2003 4:27:32 PM MADAMT wrote:

As for BK the courts only inpose temporary reductions and then instruct both parties to sit down and talk. They have the ability to abrogate the contract in total only not bits and pieces. abd Then there are circumstances that must be weighed first. Judges have the in the past only instuted pay cuts as temporary. At UA he instituted a 14% and then the union Neg. a 13%. and no it was not cumulative.
----------------​

Your implication is that the union negotiated a smaller pay cut than the bankruptcy judge imposed, and that''s just not true. In reality, a 13% pay cut was imposed by the judge on the UA mechanics'' union. But by the time that it was actually imposed, it needed to be collected over a shorter period of time than the pay cuts voluntarily accepted by the other UA workers, and thus it worked out to a 14% pay cut for the shorter time period. In addition, remember that the negotiated cuts included more than reduced pay, such as changes in work rules, vacation time and layoff protection, among other things. I just wanted to set the record straight.

 

[WXGuesser]

----------------
On 5/9/2003 4:27:32 PM MADAMT wrote:


Yes Vacation and sick time are only pay losses if you don''t get the ability to use them. Loss of 5 holidays a year is 3500 a year now also take into account that the remaining 5 holidays are at 1.5 pay thats another 1400 so just in holidays that cost me 4900 a year. Now I no longer receive a shift differential for working nights.  So the pay cuts and rest are a substantial loss of wages more than I feel was necessary they went above and beyond.

----------------​

MADAMT:

I do understand that is a substantial chunk of money. But if you are losing that much from holidays alone, you are still making a lot of money!!!

As far as shift differential, a lot of other people who do shift work for this airline don''t have it either. I personally disagree with that, and think that there should be a shift differential for everyone who works shift work. But at this time, it is not financially practical.

Hopefully in the future things will get better and employees'' pay scales and benefits will return.

TANSTAAFL

 

[WXGuesser]

----------------
On 5/9/2003 8:05:01 PM Cosmo wrote:
Your implication is that the union negotiated a smaller pay cut than the bankruptcy judge imposed, and that''s just not true. In reality, a 13% pay cut was imposed by the judge on the UA mechanics'' union. But by the time that it was actually imposed, it needed to be collected over a shorter period of time than the pay cuts voluntarily accepted by the other UA workers, and thus it worked out to a 14% pay cut for the shorter time period. In addition, remember that the negotiated cuts included more than reduced pay, such as changes in work rules, vacation time and layoff protection, among other things. I just wanted to set the record straight.

----------------​

And also throw in the increased farmout of UAL MTC and the resulting carnage of job losses for the UAL mechs.

TANSTAAFL