AMR Stock is up, up, up!

[eolesen]

The options are part of the contract

The issuance of the options were part of the contract.

They're already issued, and now are legally yours as long as you are an employee. If you change workgroups, jobs, religion or gender, the number of options issued to you from 2003 won't change.

As FWAAA said, the only way to cancel them is to cancel all of the common stock. There's a greater chance of NHBB coming out of retirement to become our next CFO than there is for the stock to be cancelled anytime soon.

 

[Bob Owens]

The issuance of the options were part of the contract.

They're already issued, and now are legally yours as long as you are an employee. If you change workgroups, jobs, religion or gender, the number of options issued to you from 2003 won't change.

As FWAAA said, the only way to cancel them is to cancel all of the common stock. There's a greater chance of NHBB coming out of retirement to become our next CFO than there is for the stock to be cancelled anytime soon.

My vacation was legally mine too, so was my sick time, those things would not have changed either.

They even took a week of vacation away that I had already earned.

 

[FWAAA]

My vacation was legally mine too, so was my sick time, those things would not have changed either.

They even took a week of vacation away that I had already earned.

Sorry, Mr Owens, but that's not quite accurate; you agreed (or your union agreed on your behalf) to give those back. "They" (whoever they is) didn't take them away.

Please spare me the explanation that you didn't get to vote on it - we know all about it.

The new poster, 1VF-1 2NV, posted a ridiculous commment that AMR might cancel the employees' stock options. What's really sad is that someone as bright as you jumped aboard the BS train so quickly.

The stock options are actually yours. If you think the TWU could cancel them, do you also believe that the TWU could give away your car and home as well?

 

[Bob Owens]

The stock options are actually yours. If you think the TWU could cancel them, do you also believe that the TWU could give away your car and home as well?

They nearly have.

 

[eolesen]

My vacation was legally mine too, so was my sick time, those things would not have changed either.

They even took a week of vacation away that I had already earned.

Not even remotely true, Bob.

Go read your contract -- the vacation week you claim that was taken away to you in 2003 was deferred for use in 2004.

Had you left the company in 2003, you would have been paid out for all remaining vacation time, including whatever was deferred to 2004.

Likewise, accrued sick time up to the maximum allowed to be banked was not taken away from you or anyone. All that changed was the rate at which you could use those hours.

 

[The Dissident]

Not even remotely true, Bob.

Go read your contract -- the vacation week you claim that was taken away to you in 2003 was deferred for use in 2004.

Thats a load of crap because the company confiscated a week of vacation from 2004 since I had already taken all of my vacation from 2003 leaving me with 1 week and I have not recieved it back yet!!!!!

 

[eolesen]

Thats a load of crap because the company confiscated a week of vacation from 2004 since I had already taken all of my vacation from 2003 leaving me with 1 week and I have not recieved it back yet!!!!!

You didn't lose anything. If you were paid for it in 2003, then it wasn't available to carry forward to 2004 and was handled just as though you borrowed PVD's this year against next year's accrual.

As much as it sucks to see future accrual go in the toilet, the fact is that you were still paid for what you accrued under the pre-2003 contract.

Again, go read your contract. It's under Article 8, attachment 8.2. Don't have a printed copy? Go to Jetnet like I did:

The basic principal of the transition application is that each employee with vacation remaining in 2003 will roll one (1) week of 2002’s accrued vacation to use in 2004 thus reducing 2003 accrual by two (2) weeks. The application in effect combines vacation weeks from 2003 and 2004 which are then divided between the two years depending on whether or not the employee has already used some or all of his current vacation. The net effect is that we reduce the total weeks over the two (2) years by two (2) weeks. The attached diagram on the attached page illustrates this application. It provides an example at each point from seven (7) weeks through two (2) weeks.

 

[Bob Owens]

You didn't lose anything. If you were paid for it in 2003, then it wasn't available to carry forward to 2004 and was handled just as though you borrowed PVD's this year against next year's accrual.

As much as it sucks to see future accrual go in the toilet, the fact is that you were still paid for what you accrued under the pre-2003 contract.

Again, go read your contract. It's under Article 8, attachment 8.2. Don't have a printed copy? Go to Jetnet like I did.

Doubletalk.

If you "handle" my week that I used from one year, that was a regular week and now charge it as PVD what happened to the original week?

The fact is that when the week was bid, it was bid as a week earned, which it was, then the company took the week and charged it as if we should not have used it and subtracted it from our next years VC.

The fact is we lost a week that we already earned, call it deferred, pvd or whatever you like its still a week we lost that was earned the prior year.

If you had only earned two weeks vacation in 2002 and used it in 2003 you had no vacation in 2004.

Read the contract carefully

The basic principal of the transition application is that each employee with vacation remaining in 2003 will roll one (1) week of 2002’s accrued vacation to use in 2004 thus reducing 2003 accrual by two (2) weeks. The application in effect combines vacation weeks from 2003 and 2004 which are then divided between the two years depending on whether or not the employee has already used some or all of his current vacation. The net effect is that we reduce the total weeks over the two (2) years by two (2) weeks. (In other words vacation earned in 2002 and 2003 will be cut by two weeks, one week earned in 2002 and one week earned in 2003)

They did this to screw us out of an extra week. The contract only had us give up one week a year from April of 2003. It did not say that we lose two weeks the first year and one from then on, so they installed this BS language to screw us out of an extra week, and make it a retro-concession.It even says the week accrued in 2002.The scumbag spinmasters didnt fool anyone with this, except you.

So the fact is that was a week we already had, just like the stock we already have(and lose if we dont excercise it before a certain date), and it was taken away.

Here we go, early openers in 2006!

The basic principal of the transition application is that each employee with stock options remaining in 2006 will have its excercise expiration date rolled back to 2005. The application in effect combines the options from 2003 and 2004 which are then divided between the two years depending on whether or not the employee has already excercised some or all of his current options. The net effect is that we reduce the term through which the options could be excercised to 2005. Those options not excercised by the applicable date of this application will experience the net effect of applied options expiration.

 

[scorpian]

Thats some confusing B.S. to read but was easy to understand when it occurred. We lost a week of vacation that was earned from a previous year, just like if the company would have went into our bank accounts and withdrew the equivalent of 17% of our earnings from the previous year instead of taking it out of our present pay. If vacation accruel was put into an account that was out of company hands and in our control it would not have happened.

 

[Bob Owens]

Thats some confusing B.S. to read but was easy to understand when it occurred. We lost a week of vacation that was earned from a previous year, just like if the company would have went into our bank accounts and withdrew the equivalent of 17% of our earnings from the previous year instead of taking it out of our present pay. If vacation accruel was put into an account that was out of company hands and in our control it would not have happened.

Dont you like how FM spins this? We didnt "lose" a week "it wasn't available" any more!!!!!

Vacation used in 2003 was earned in 2002. If you quit the company on Jan 1 2003 you would be paid for all the vacation you earned up to that point. However if you quit on Jan 1 2004 you would have two weeks deducted from the vacation you earned in 2003. Thats to make up for the 2002 earned vacation that you used. The contract stipulates that we lose one week a year, the language you refer to, despite all the BS language stipulates that we start losing vacation earned a year prior to the concessionary deal.
Using FMs logic if you pick somebodys pocket and take their wallet you didnt steal their wallet, their wallet was simply no longer "available"!!!!

Then they wonder why nobody trusts management.

 

[Hopeful]

Wow, FM! I can't wait to hear your take on the PLI presentation.

Bottom line is, we lost the vacation week with a host of other concesions that we will most likely never see again. If we do, each item will have to be renegotiated all over again. What was earned over decades of collective bargaining will have to be fought for all over again.

 

[eolesen]

Hey, I'm not the one with the dumb-a$$ theory that stock options could be taken away from employees.

The fact remains that nobody "lost" any of the vacation they acrued prior to 2003. Your union chose to defer a week of it instead of taking bigger paycuts. That's not spin. I'm just quoting your contract. You might not like it, but for better or worse, your union negotiated those terms and conditions for you.

Going back to the original topic, what's ironic is that cancellation of unredeemed stock options is exactly what many of you have been demanding.

The only difference is that you want them taken away from management employees.

All options expire after 10 years. That's a SEC requirement if I recall.

 

[Hopeful]

Hey, I'm not the one with the dumb-a$$ theory that stock options could be taken away from employees.

The fact remains that nobody "lost" any of the vacation they acrued prior to 2003. Your union chose to defer a week of it instead of taking bigger paycuts. That's not spin. I'm just quoting your contract. You might not like it, but for better or worse, your union negotiated those terms and conditions for you.

Going back to the original topic, what's ironic is that cancellation of unredeemed stock options is exactly what many of you have been demanding.

The only difference is that you want them taken away from management employees.

All options expire after 10 years. That's a SEC requirement if I recall.

FM, I don't really have a problem with management perks.
As a perk, upper management is entitled to stock options.
The problem with the recently discussed stock bonus plan is that it is based solely on the stock's performance. NOT the company's performance. AA is still $21 billion in debt and not what anyone would say, profitable.
What would drive these chosen recipients to build and run a better American Airlines if their only concern is driving the stock price up? AND WE ALL KNOW THAT STOCKS CAN NEVER BE MANIPULATED! RIGHT???????????????????????

All this in the midst of the PLI which stresses how AMR has to change the way it does business.

Last year, the pilot group helped AA save about $80 million in fuel costs. Then in January, AA announces the top 1000 managers will receive this stock performance payout which just about equals the fuel savings.

I can't tell you how many times I have heard that unions are the problem in this country because they ensure a good wage for everyone, no matter how bad or good a worker is. Each worker should be rewarded on his or her own merits.

But here we have managers recieivng a bonus linked to stock price. Where is their merit increase?

 

[MiAAmi]

I can't tell you how many times I have heard that unions are the problem in this country because they ensure a good wage for everyone, no matter how bad or good a worker is. Each worker should be rewarded on his or her own merits.

But here we have managers recieivng a bonus linked to stock price. Where is their merit increase?

If the managers did their job and followed the correct procedures in documenting problem employees then they wouldn't be able to blame the union for protecting problem employees and union members could stop having their union dues used to protect obvious problem children. Remember its the company that hires these people not the union. So my point is accountablity has to come from the top.

 

[scorpian]

Hey, I'm not the one with the dumb-a$$ theory that stock options could be taken away from employees.

The fact remains that nobody "lost" any of the vacation they acrued prior to 2003. Your union chose to defer a week of it instead of taking bigger paycuts. That's not spin. I'm just quoting your contract. You might not like it, but for better or worse, your union negotiated those terms and conditions for you.

Going back to the original topic, what's ironic is that cancellation of unredeemed stock options is exactly what many of you have been demanding.

The only difference is that you want them taken away from management employees.

All options expire after 10 years. That's a SEC requirement if I recall.

If we defered it then at what future date does it become useable?

The grievances filed by the pilots and flight attendants (and then had the twu's name added to it so they could save face) are not filed so any options can be taken away but are a buisness decision made by the working backbone of this company to stop frivolous spending in the face of an on going cost saving campaign to make this company profitable. Units are not options they are wasteful money bleeds that are based on fictional merit.

These grievances are cost cutting measures no different than the pilots agreeing to fly more hours or mechanics creating more efficient ways of doing maintenance.