AMR Stock is up, up, up!

[Bob Owens]

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.

So now the word is "defer".


Sorry sir, I did not steal your wallet I "deferred" it.

Defered until when? The fact is no matter how you spin it a week that we earned in 2002, to take in 2003, was lost.

And as far "the Union" the union was accepting $3.1 million a year and not disclosing that fact anywhere for the members to see. Looks like a bribe to me.

Perhaps that extra week was to pay the TWU their $3.1 million?

 

[eolesen]

Ah, back to your $3.1M tin-foil hat conspiracy theory again. I should have known that when yuo went back to what happened in 2003 that you had nothing relevant left to say regarding the actual topic. This just proves it.

 

[TWU informer]

Ah, back to your $3.1M tin-foil hat conspiracy theory again. I should have known that when yuo went back to what happened in 2003 that you had nothing relevant left to say regarding the actual topic. This just proves it.

I would gladly listen to your explanation regarding the $3.1 Million in Union Buy Offs.

Unfortunately, if you offered an explanation, I missed it.

You do not seem to offer any relevant rebuttal to Bob's claims. Instead, you try to dispell the claims by simply calling them a tin-foil hat conspiracy.

Until proven otherwise, I believe Bob is correct on this one. And you are simply using, off-topic and name calling to prevent further debate on the matter.

My one week was not deferred. It was stolen "without further ratification" by James C. Little, the management man turned union sellout and International President. The man with the bought and paid degrees from mail-in diploma colleges.


de•ferred

Pronunciation: (di-fûrd'), [key]
—adj.
1. postponed or delayed.
2. suspended or withheld for or until a certain time or event: a deferred payment; deferred taxes.
3. classified as temporarily exempt from induction into military service.


Are you (FM) the famous management defender of all things, now claiming that my loss of that one week vacation from 2003 was temporary? Well, thats great news! When can I expect to get to actually take that deferred paid time off with my family? I seem to have misplaced my guidelines that state when that suspension of 2003 vacation time is to be lifted.

 

[eolesen]

You're an adult of legal age, sir. Go read your contract. If you are unable to do so, then call your shop steward or union hall and someone to to fully explain the application of Article 8 Attachment 2 in a format you can understand.

 

[TWU informer]

You're an adult of legal age, sir. Go read your contract. If you are unable to do so, then call your shop steward or union hall and someone to to fully explain the application of Article 8 Attachment 2 in a format you can understand.

I am not having a problem reading or understanding the Article 8 Attachment 2.

I have a problem with the use of the word defer when the actual result is really ELIMINATED.

Of course, there are many grey areas and mis-use of the english language in this contract. Purposely done of course by AA Management and Legal. Another example of worthless TWU leadership allowing and accepting the dictation of terms, instead of paying to have the language written by Lawyers paid for by Membership Dues.

To save dues money the union stooges let the company stooges dicate the language.

You surely do not take issue with the fact that we lost that week and it was not a temporary loss. Is was indeed vacation earned in 2002 and STOLEN not DEFERRED in 2003.

DIRECT QUOTE FROM ARTICLE 8.2

THE NET EFFECT IS THAT WE REDUCE THE TOTAL WEEKS OVER THE TWO (2) YEARS BY TWO (2) WEEKS

That is not hard to understand at all, but it damn sure ins't "DEFERRED" either!

Unless of course your a Bill Clinton fan and still wonder what the definition of "IS" "IS". h34r:

 

[Ken MacTiernan]

"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."

Excuse me, but did you receive the twu "kool aid" orally or rectally? It seems to me as if you perhaps were given a double dose at the same time. (When you burp does it have an after taste?)

lost = deferred?

You truly are an idiot. No name calling here. I am using factual evidence that you yourself provided.

The twu "deferred" my vacation? When do I get it back? 2008? 2009? Ever?

My union negotiated what for me? You mean my union ACCEPTED for me, right?

Using your logic:

lost = deferred THEN former moderAAtor = simpleton

Excuse me while I choose my "deferred" week of vacation on the "deferred" vacation bid sheet.

 

[eolesen]

Fact: TWU agreed to reduce the max number of vacation weeks from seven to six(Article 8).


Fact: TWU agreed that 2003 accrual would be reduced by two weeks, and future year accruals would be reduced by one week (Article 8 Attachment 2's language, not mine)



Fact: TWU allowed one week of VC earned in 2002 to be DEFERRED FOR USE IN 2004 instead of 2003 (Article 8 Attachment 2's language, not mine)


Fact: Facts sometimes suck. This is one of those times.


Opinion: Ken, Dave, and Bob are living in the past, refuse to face reality, and aren't truly happy unless they have something to 8itch about.


Fact: None of this is even remotely relevent to the topic, which was AMR's stock price.

 

[Bob Owens]

Well it started off here;

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.

Then it went here;

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 contract that was voted on did not say that we lose 2 weeks of our vacation, it said we lose a week. In order to make it retro they threw that language together so they could take one from the year prior.

Getting back to the point, they took away what we already "owned" once before, who says that with the stroke of Jim Littles pen they could not do the same with the options?

 

[TWU informer]

Fact: None of this is even remotely relevent to the topic, which was AMR's stock price.

That's BS.

Fact: If not for the industry leading without further ratification concessions that included the stolen vacation, AMR Stock would not be what it is today.

Therefore I find it very relevant. You just don't like negative truth on your positive spin threads.

Fact: Concessions and the re-structuring agreement are not to be considered the "past" we cause we still live it everyday.

Fact: Management defenders on this bulletin are paid patsies, being over paid to monitor and post on this bulletin board.

Fact: Plane Business, Eric, and that bulletin board being allowed through AA proxy controls were nothing more than another AA management ploy designed for a specified outcome that failed miserably.

Fact: Those who forget the past always repeat the same mistakes over and over.

 

[Boomer]

TWU "represented" employees in the Maint. & Related Class and Craft actually LOST a week of vacation that they had not only earned in a prior year, but, had also bid.

In the case where a less than five year employee had already used both of his accrued weeks, that employee was forced to average back future vacation accruals to "settle his debt" to AA.

Some hack spouting crap about what we lived through and were forced to explain to others as they went through the wringer is a lot like Japanese claiming the Rape of Nanking was just a misunderstanding.

 

[FWAAA]

Fact: Plane Business, ****, and that bulletin board being allowed through AA proxy controls were nothing more than another AA management ploy designed for a specified outcome that failed miserably.

PlaneBusiness was long gone by the early 2003 concessions. By then, we were already on the second incarnation of USAviation.

You truly are an idiot. No name calling here. I am using factual evidence that you yourself provided.

lost = deferred THEN former moderAAtor = simpleton

Your arguments may in fact be correct but when you resort to name-calling, you've lost the argument. At least that's how I was raised.

 

[TWU informer]

FWAAA and Former ModerAAtor are the same person.

 

[scot]

FWAAA and Former ModerAAtor are the same person.

Fact? Yeah, thought so.
Can we get back on topic now and post something about AA's stock? Thanks.
And before anyone asks, no moderator works for AA or is a member of management, but thanks for playing.

 

[Nor'Easta]

In just 9 days since I posted this topic, it has gone up! It seems that it will continue on this track, until the payouts are given on 4/17/06.

AMR Corporation (AMR)AMR quote Real-time quotes

After Hours: 28.85 -0.03 / -0.10% Vol. 82,400
28.88 +1.14 +4.11%

High 29.00
Low 27.64
Volume 5.303 Mil
Detailed Quote
StockScouter Rating 6

Stock AlertsAnalyst Ratings
AMR Intraday ChartNYSE Exchange

5d 1m 3m 1y 3y 5y 10y

Data Source: CSI 03/23/06 02:29 AM ET
Quotes delayed 20 minutes

 

[FWAAA]

FWAAA and Former ModerAAtor are the same person.

Nope. Sorry to disappoint - yet another conspiracy theory without any factual basis.

Stock is down so far this morning to $27.65, a 4.33% decline on the day.