AMR reports 2009 loss of $1.4 billion, excluding special items
- Thread starter FWAAA
- Start date
MERV
Advanced
Its not ugly compare to last years 2.1B lost. Airlines except for WN have lost money for past few years. Just wait for DLs and the rest that will be ugly. If you see the realty of airlines they compete to lose money not to make a profit. You see it every day with fares that are so cheap that you don't know how airlines survive so long. So if the airlines survive this long they should give the airlines employees livable wage!!
Good idea!!
jimntx
Veteran
Ya think?
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #9
Companies like AMR stay in business despite losing double digit billions by borrowing more and more money, hoping that the loans tide them over until the good times return.
Sadly, I'm not confident that the "good times" (ala 1996-1999) will ever return. In 1998 and 1999, AMR paid an average of $0.55/gal for jet fuel. Bob Owens and I could run a profitable airline with fuel that cheap.
It was quite a decade. Started off with the bursting of the tech bubble, quickly followed by a mild recession, an acquistion of TWA's assets, quickly followed by the September 11 attacks, followed by several years of depressed revenue which coincided with the beginning of record-high spikes in oil prices, and ended with what our President has repeatedly said is the worst recession since the Great Depression. My hats off to any airline that made a net income for the decade (like WN).
Impressive results over at CO. Ignoring special items, CO reported a quarterly net of $4 million compared to AA's quarterly loss of $415 million.
Sadly, I'm not confident that the "good times" (ala 1996-1999) will ever return. In 1998 and 1999, AMR paid an average of $0.55/gal for jet fuel. Bob Owens and I could run a profitable airline with fuel that cheap.
It was quite a decade. Started off with the bursting of the tech bubble, quickly followed by a mild recession, an acquistion of TWA's assets, quickly followed by the September 11 attacks, followed by several years of depressed revenue which coincided with the beginning of record-high spikes in oil prices, and ended with what our President has repeatedly said is the worst recession since the Great Depression. My hats off to any airline that made a net income for the decade (like WN).
Rogallo said:
Impressive results over at CO. Ignoring special items, CO reported a quarterly net of $4 million compared to AA's quarterly loss of $415 million.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,940
- 9,371
Let AA get to CO's cost structure, and you might see a different story. And no, it's not just labor's fault.
AA's fleet accounts for a lot of the difference between AMR and CAL. MD80's suck down a lot more gas than 73NG's. CO's retired all but three of their 733's, leaving 752's as the oldest type in their fleet. I'm guessing about $100M of the AMR 4Q loss was based on fuel inefficiency.
AMR brought in $5B in revenue, CAL brought in $3.2B (64%)
AMR bought $1.4B in fuel, whereas CAL only bought $800M (57%)
CAL's spending less than AMR on MMR (maintenance, materials & repairs) because of a combination of a newer fleet and outsourcing overhaul. But they paid more for aircraft leases.
AMR spent $1.7B between MMR & aircraft, CAL spent $1.4B (82%)
AA's fleet accounts for a lot of the difference between AMR and CAL. MD80's suck down a lot more gas than 73NG's. CO's retired all but three of their 733's, leaving 752's as the oldest type in their fleet. I'm guessing about $100M of the AMR 4Q loss was based on fuel inefficiency.
AMR brought in $5B in revenue, CAL brought in $3.2B (64%)
AMR bought $1.4B in fuel, whereas CAL only bought $800M (57%)
CAL's spending less than AMR on MMR (maintenance, materials & repairs) because of a combination of a newer fleet and outsourcing overhaul. But they paid more for aircraft leases.
AMR spent $1.7B between MMR & aircraft, CAL spent $1.4B (82%)
jimntx
Veteran
E, that's all fine, well, and good. But, it does not address the issue of why does AMR still have a much higher cost structure than CO. CO didn't do all of their fleet updating pre-9/11. Yet, AMR decided that the smart thing to do would be to cancel all the new a/c orders. I know. I know. We have once again started taking delivery on 73s but, we are behind the curve now, and we don't have the cash reserves we had to help pay for new a/c. And, CO still serves meals in coach (last I heard)--that "outrageous" cost that AMR dumped years ago along with the extra f/a onboard to help with that service.
And, I'm glad that you are admitting that labor costs aren't the only reason--though unlike some of the other union members, I am perfectly willing to admit that labor costs are one of the factors. CO flight attendants do not make as much as we do at any level of seniority. However, the company has also poisoned the water with the labor groups by stalling on negotiations up until now in the belief that an environment of labor strife and animosity is cheaper than giving up the concessionary contracts.
Also, I don't think for one minute that the company has kept maintenance in-house just for patriotic reasons. If they could have justified a big enough savings by outsourcing, they would have found a way to do it.
I heard this morning that AMR Fedexed information about the flight attendant travel separation package to all the furloughees (most of whom are former TW). They aren't costing the company anything, other than they can't hire new f/as as long as there are furloughees. And, they have admitted to a continuing overage of f/as; so, they wouldn't be hiring anyway. Why are they so anxious to get rid of furloughees?
I'm beginning to think that things are even worse than the numbers indicate. At what point does the AMR Board of Directors begin to exercise their fiduciary responsibility to the stockholders and hold Arpey and company responsible for the company's poor performance? Unless they know that BK is in our near-time future and there won't be any stockholders to worry about.
And, I'm glad that you are admitting that labor costs aren't the only reason--though unlike some of the other union members, I am perfectly willing to admit that labor costs are one of the factors. CO flight attendants do not make as much as we do at any level of seniority. However, the company has also poisoned the water with the labor groups by stalling on negotiations up until now in the belief that an environment of labor strife and animosity is cheaper than giving up the concessionary contracts.
Also, I don't think for one minute that the company has kept maintenance in-house just for patriotic reasons. If they could have justified a big enough savings by outsourcing, they would have found a way to do it.
I heard this morning that AMR Fedexed information about the flight attendant travel separation package to all the furloughees (most of whom are former TW). They aren't costing the company anything, other than they can't hire new f/as as long as there are furloughees. And, they have admitted to a continuing overage of f/as; so, they wouldn't be hiring anyway. Why are they so anxious to get rid of furloughees?
I'm beginning to think that things are even worse than the numbers indicate. At what point does the AMR Board of Directors begin to exercise their fiduciary responsibility to the stockholders and hold Arpey and company responsible for the company's poor performance? Unless they know that BK is in our near-time future and there won't be any stockholders to worry about.
Hopeful
Veteran
- Dec 21, 2002
- 5,998
- 347
I hate to say it....I think you will begin to see the push towards more outsourcing as this year progresses. If we had a smart union with foresight, they would negotiate a deal grandfathering those currently on payroll, and make the changes they want with new hires. They should restore us to pre concession wages and bring us up to industry standard.
Since the company cites pension costs and in-house maintenance as a major disadvantage, they should open their minds to taking care of those already on payroll.
I know it sounds selfish selling out future employees, but if they choose the pay new hires sub standard wages, then no one will take those jobs.
jimntx
Veteran
Thanks for information that does not address anything. The CO f/as still make less than AA flight attendants--from starting salary to top of scale.
- Banned
- #15
A topped out FA at CO makes $55 an hour base pay not counting premiums.
CO IAM FA CBA
They also have their CO pension, the IAM Pension and dont prefund medical like you all do.
I participated on their Negotiating Committee before.
CO IAM FA CBA
They also have their CO pension, the IAM Pension and dont prefund medical like you all do.
I participated on their Negotiating Committee before.
