Numerous times you have posted that many business travelers have no choice but to travel. Glad to see you've finally come to the realization that the industry you chose, air travel, is mostly discretionary activity.
Find me one example of where I said that anybody has to travel. I've said that if they travel they have limited choices. If they travel to certain places they have to pay whatever the airline chooses to charge. They always have the option to stay home but most people want to travel and if they want to go long distances, or across the pond then they pretty much have to fly.
See, this is an example of the fabrication I mentioned. You're implying that the losses are due to the labor negotiations. Implicit in the above is an assertion that AA would be making money if not for the negotiations.
Who is replying to what they think was written instead of what was written now? Where did I say that they would be making a profit if not for negotations? I said "they
would burn the money at this point before reporting a profit".
Implying is not fabrication, nor did I say that the losses are due to negotiations, the losses are due to fixed expenses and expenditures that the company chooses to make. They could be making payments ahead of time, like maybe they will pay the entire $500 million to the pension this quarter instead of spreading it out over a few quarters, maybe they will buy some fuel hedges, prepay some loans, stock up on parts, there are all sorts of ways that companies can manipulate their numbers to show losses, the Feds only get concerned when they do the opposite. Being too honest and conservative with your liabilities and debts is not frowned upon. But really, do you think that with the flexibility that the company has with their finances that they would be posting profits? If it was you would you post profits at this point?
This website (along with many others) permits posting under usernames that are not actual names. That you and a handful of others have chosen to post under names that might be yours (or might not) doesn't make me "hypocritical."
Sure it does, you start off every post under a fictional fabricated name because you want to hide your identity, thats your right. Nowhere in the rules does it say you cant be a hypocrite so citing the rules of the website doesnt free you from the charge.But when you call others out for proof and facts while hiding behind an alias its hypocritical, at least IMHO.
Completely agree with you. That's why I've been operating under an assumption that a work stoppage would precipitate a near-immediate Ch 11 filing to stem the cash outflow once the revenue stops. I understand that you and thousands of others hold out the unrealistic hope that a work stoppage would suddenly cause Arpey & Co. to see the light and agree to sizable percentage increases in your hourly pay and vast improvements in your work rules. I see AA ordering dozens of 747-8s before I see that happening.
Well I'm willing to take that chance because I dont have much to lose.
So where is Arpey "steering the revenue?" Which "someplace" holds AA's "safely reported profits?"
I'm not an accountant but we can see that AMR is bringing in a lot more money than they used to, paying us a lot less than they used to and they are reporting bigger losses than they used to. The money is going somewhere.Granted fuel eats up a lot of that additional revenue but not all of it(diverts profits to oil companies, primarily owned by banks and other large financial institutions).
I think the banks are also taking a bigger chunk through interest charges and fees. It was reported that just to file for a loan restructing can cost millions of dollars. Then there's the $1000 toilet seats(diverts profits to companies outside the airlines, probably primarily owned by banks and other large financial institutions) and the 30% jack up in landing fees (funnels money to the bondholders of the airports-primarily banks and other large financial institutions). The purchase of new aircraft, which means more debt, which means more revenue funneled to the banks or other large financial institutions through interest payments. Theres a reason why 78% of AMR is owned by Institutional Investors, I dont think they are in it to lose money.
To make it even simpler, if I owned enough stock to control an airline that generated $20 billion/year in revenue and I was able to steer some of that revenue into my bank through Loans, contracts with other vendors I own, airports that I own, hotels that I own, oil companies that I own then if it the airline showed a loss most years, but that kept labor costs in check, then it could be worth it. Obviously the less that labor got the more I could get. So maybe I wont make money on my shares (but if I can thats even better) but the revenue generated by the business activity of the airline makes my other ventures profitable. If the airline stopped operating they wouldnt burn the fuel, pay the rents and fees, buy the parts etc. Its worth it to keep the airline unprofitable as long as they arec paying everything else, but if I let them show profits then labor, and the airlines require a lot of labor, labor with specialized skills that are not easily replaced, will demand more. If they get it I wont be able to make as much because wages and profits are inverse.The airlines wouldnt be able to pay the outrageous landing fees, theb outrageous price for parts, the million dollar fees to apply for restructring a loan etc.Thats what I think has been going on in this industry for years, can I prove it, no. Just as you and most economists cant prove most economic theories because of the complexity of it all.But how is it than a private industry can lose money more years than it earns for over 30 years and still exist? Why would large financial institutions desire to own and control such an industry?
