Well said flygal4500. There is a lot TWA employee bashing. As if they had anything to do with the purchase! Just more displaced anger and hate. Since TWA employees are now AA employees they are just encouraging more internal strife! How helpful is that to the recovery of AA? Maybe the "Baumert Report" should be relabeled hate mail.
Connected1
Senior
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 332
- Reaction score
- 0
[blockquote]
----------------
By the way, there exists another so-called cost premium that, for some reason, has been ignored by Mr. Carty. It's the CEO cost premium. While compensation summaries for 2002 have not been released, in 2001 Carty's total compensation package amounted to $7.1 million, while Southwest CEO James Parker's package totaled $4 million (both figures include base salary, stock option awards, bonuses, long term incentive payouts and other compensation). That means AMR has a 77.5% CEO cost premium. In order to align that cost with his stated 30% cost premium goal, Mr. Carty needs to take a $1.9 million pay cut. Maybe he'll get around to it when gets around to doing some honest self-analysis.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Union propaganda is sometimes more embarrassing than it is boring. If this character truly is a flight attendant, I think I see why they don't see any pressing need to negotiate - math is hard. Don't worry, Baumert, I have done the calculation for you this time:
Southwest Airlines - 2001
-------------------------
CEO Compensation = $4,000,000
Avaliable Seat Miles = 65,399,000,000
CEO Cost per ASM = 0.0000006 cts
American Airlines - 2001
------------------------
CEO Compensation = $7,100,000
Available Seat Miles = 184,319,000,000
CEO Cost per ASM = 0.0000004 cts
AA's CEO Unit Cost Deficit to Southwest - 2001 = 33%
That means that Parker is the one that needs to take a pay cut to the tune of $1.3 million in order to level the playing field. Shall we compare workgroup productivity between the two carriers next, or have we had enough truth for one day?
----------------
By the way, there exists another so-called cost premium that, for some reason, has been ignored by Mr. Carty. It's the CEO cost premium. While compensation summaries for 2002 have not been released, in 2001 Carty's total compensation package amounted to $7.1 million, while Southwest CEO James Parker's package totaled $4 million (both figures include base salary, stock option awards, bonuses, long term incentive payouts and other compensation). That means AMR has a 77.5% CEO cost premium. In order to align that cost with his stated 30% cost premium goal, Mr. Carty needs to take a $1.9 million pay cut. Maybe he'll get around to it when gets around to doing some honest self-analysis.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Union propaganda is sometimes more embarrassing than it is boring. If this character truly is a flight attendant, I think I see why they don't see any pressing need to negotiate - math is hard. Don't worry, Baumert, I have done the calculation for you this time:
Southwest Airlines - 2001
-------------------------
CEO Compensation = $4,000,000
Avaliable Seat Miles = 65,399,000,000
CEO Cost per ASM = 0.0000006 cts
American Airlines - 2001
------------------------
CEO Compensation = $7,100,000
Available Seat Miles = 184,319,000,000
CEO Cost per ASM = 0.0000004 cts
AA's CEO Unit Cost Deficit to Southwest - 2001 = 33%
That means that Parker is the one that needs to take a pay cut to the tune of $1.3 million in order to level the playing field. Shall we compare workgroup productivity between the two carriers next, or have we had enough truth for one day?
WingNaPrayer
Veteran
So, are we talking actual seat miles in use...or are we allowing for the fact that AA counts all those seats collecting dust in the desert....just like they did when they lined up for their chunk of the post 9/11 bailout money...that was paid based on....available seat miles?
Remember, AA has a LOT of tin sitting in the desert... Southwest on the other hand....has very little, if any at all.
Remember, AA has a LOT of tin sitting in the desert... Southwest on the other hand....has very little, if any at all.
will fix for food
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 664
- Reaction score
- 50
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/22/2003 2:05:48 PM WingNaPrayer wrote:
So, are we talking actual seat miles in use...or are we allowing for the fact that AA counts all those seats collecting dust in the desert....just like they did when they lined up for their chunk of the post 9/11 bailout money...that was paid based on....available seat miles?
Remember, AA has a LOT of tin sitting in the desert... Southwest on the other hand....has very little, if any at all.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I thought the definition of an ASM was one seat moved one mile. If what you say is correct, how many (stationary) ASM's did A/A claim?
----------------
On 2/22/2003 2:05:48 PM WingNaPrayer wrote:
So, are we talking actual seat miles in use...or are we allowing for the fact that AA counts all those seats collecting dust in the desert....just like they did when they lined up for their chunk of the post 9/11 bailout money...that was paid based on....available seat miles?
Remember, AA has a LOT of tin sitting in the desert... Southwest on the other hand....has very little, if any at all.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I thought the definition of an ASM was one seat moved one mile. If what you say is correct, how many (stationary) ASM's did A/A claim?
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/22/2003 11:33:24 AM Connected1 wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
Union propaganda is sometimes more embarrassing than it is boring. If this character truly is a flight attendant, I think I see why they don't see any pressing need to negotiate - math is hard. Don't worry, Baumert, I have done the calculation for you this time:
Southwest Airlines - 2001
-------------------------
CEO Compensation = $4,000,000
Avaliable Seat Miles = 65,399,000,000
CEO Cost per ASM = 0.0000006 cts
American Airlines - 2001
------------------------
CEO Compensation = $7,100,000
Available Seat Miles = 184,319,000,000
CEO Cost per ASM = 0.0000004 cts
AA's CEO Unit Cost Deficit to Southwest - 2001 = 33%
That means that Parker is the one that needs to take a pay cut to the tune of $1.3 million in order to level the playing field. Shall we compare workgroup productivity between the two carriers next, or have we had enough truth for one day?
----------------
[/blockquote]
ASM's to value a CEO's pay. Good thing for D.C. its not on the companies performance. SWA made money and AA lost only a few billion.
----------------
On 2/22/2003 11:33:24 AM Connected1 wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
Union propaganda is sometimes more embarrassing than it is boring. If this character truly is a flight attendant, I think I see why they don't see any pressing need to negotiate - math is hard. Don't worry, Baumert, I have done the calculation for you this time:
Southwest Airlines - 2001
-------------------------
CEO Compensation = $4,000,000
Avaliable Seat Miles = 65,399,000,000
CEO Cost per ASM = 0.0000006 cts
American Airlines - 2001
------------------------
CEO Compensation = $7,100,000
Available Seat Miles = 184,319,000,000
CEO Cost per ASM = 0.0000004 cts
AA's CEO Unit Cost Deficit to Southwest - 2001 = 33%
That means that Parker is the one that needs to take a pay cut to the tune of $1.3 million in order to level the playing field. Shall we compare workgroup productivity between the two carriers next, or have we had enough truth for one day?
----------------
[/blockquote]
ASM's to value a CEO's pay. Good thing for D.C. its not on the companies performance. SWA made money and AA lost only a few billion.
B
bagsmasher
Guest
"That means that Parker is the one that needs to take a pay cut to the tune of $1.3 million in order to level the playing field. Shall we compare workgroup productivity between the two carriers next, or have we had enough truth for one day?"
This is a very warped viewpoint. Southwest is valued more than ANY airline in the world. You can now lump ALL other U.S. airlines together, and they don't even come close to the value Wall Street puts upon Southwest. Who cares how many ASM's you have if you will soon will be out of business?
This is a very warped viewpoint. Southwest is valued more than ANY airline in the world. You can now lump ALL other U.S. airlines together, and they don't even come close to the value Wall Street puts upon Southwest. Who cares how many ASM's you have if you will soon will be out of business?
WingNaPrayer
Veteran
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/22/2003 3
26 PM will fix for food wrote:
I thought the definition of an ASM was one seat moved one mile. If what you say is correct, how many (stationary) ASM's did A/A claim?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Take the number of miles AA aircraft traveled in any given quarter, and divide it by the number of seats the airline has available...and yes, that includes the seats sitting in the sand, they are still technically "available." Every 727, every MD11, every DC10, every 747, every 767, on and on ad-nauseum. The parked seats are used to purposely throw the numbers off. It makes trying to fool unions, and "yes sir" slanted employees much easier.
Why do you think AA has so much tin sitting in the sand when smaller countries would gladly buy and refurbish? It's all about skewing the numbers, because if you think AA is saving those 727s for a rainy day......think again.
And now, prepare to be "debriefed" by the corporate spy....
----------------
On 2/22/2003 3
26 PM will fix for food wrote: I thought the definition of an ASM was one seat moved one mile. If what you say is correct, how many (stationary) ASM's did A/A claim?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Take the number of miles AA aircraft traveled in any given quarter, and divide it by the number of seats the airline has available...and yes, that includes the seats sitting in the sand, they are still technically "available." Every 727, every MD11, every DC10, every 747, every 767, on and on ad-nauseum. The parked seats are used to purposely throw the numbers off. It makes trying to fool unions, and "yes sir" slanted employees much easier.
Why do you think AA has so much tin sitting in the sand when smaller countries would gladly buy and refurbish? It's all about skewing the numbers, because if you think AA is saving those 727s for a rainy day......think again.
And now, prepare to be "debriefed" by the corporate spy....
will fix for food
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 664
- Reaction score
- 50
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/22/2003 6
09 PM WingNaPrayer wrote:
"Take the number of miles AA aircraft traveled in any given quarter, and divide it by the number of seats the airline has available...and yes, that includes the seats sitting in the sand, they are still technically "available." Every 727, every MD11, every DC10, every 747, every 767, on and on ad-nauseum. The parked seats are used to purposely throw the numbers off. It makes trying to fool unions, and "yes sir" slanted employees much easier."
Wow, pretty sneaky. Sounds like a clear case of fraud. Did you tell your Congressman? I bet he would love to blow the lid off that scandal. I mean AMR defrauded the government right?
Actually, if you think about it, wouldn/t that lower A/A's CASM by spreading the costs over an artificially high number of seats? It is the same theory of eliminating MRTC to lower CASM. In fact,wouldn/t the conspiracy theory be better served by artificially inflating the CASM instead of lowering it?
"Why do you think AA has so much tin sitting in the sand when smaller countries would gladly buy and refurbish? It's all about skewing the numbers, because if you think AA is saving those 727s for a rainy day......think again."
That explains why A/A has a fleet in the desert, but why are their planes from virtually every other US carrier and many, many, foreign carriers there? Are they all playing the same scam?
"And now, prepare to be "debriefed" by the corporate spy...."
Huh?
----------------
[/blockquote]
----------------
On 2/22/2003 6
09 PM WingNaPrayer wrote: "Take the number of miles AA aircraft traveled in any given quarter, and divide it by the number of seats the airline has available...and yes, that includes the seats sitting in the sand, they are still technically "available." Every 727, every MD11, every DC10, every 747, every 767, on and on ad-nauseum. The parked seats are used to purposely throw the numbers off. It makes trying to fool unions, and "yes sir" slanted employees much easier."
Wow, pretty sneaky. Sounds like a clear case of fraud. Did you tell your Congressman? I bet he would love to blow the lid off that scandal. I mean AMR defrauded the government right?
Actually, if you think about it, wouldn/t that lower A/A's CASM by spreading the costs over an artificially high number of seats? It is the same theory of eliminating MRTC to lower CASM. In fact,wouldn/t the conspiracy theory be better served by artificially inflating the CASM instead of lowering it?
"Why do you think AA has so much tin sitting in the sand when smaller countries would gladly buy and refurbish? It's all about skewing the numbers, because if you think AA is saving those 727s for a rainy day......think again."
That explains why A/A has a fleet in the desert, but why are their planes from virtually every other US carrier and many, many, foreign carriers there? Are they all playing the same scam?
"And now, prepare to be "debriefed" by the corporate spy...."
Huh?
----------------
[/blockquote]
----------------
[/blockquote]
That's correct there is no Baumert......I've done Google searches, as well as 3 other search engines and no Baumert report or analysis is shown. This post is a sham that is a reflection of Bagsmasher's alter ego. Apparently the result of a medical experiment gone horribly wrong.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Rommell,
I concure nothing Baumert. Bags, come clean will you.
[/blockquote]
That's correct there is no Baumert......I've done Google searches, as well as 3 other search engines and no Baumert report or analysis is shown. This post is a sham that is a reflection of Bagsmasher's alter ego. Apparently the result of a medical experiment gone horribly wrong.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Rommell,
I concure nothing Baumert. Bags, come clean will you.
will fix for food
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 664
- Reaction score
- 50
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/22/2003 2:05:48 PM WingNaPrayer wrote:
So, are we talking actual seat miles in use...or are we allowing for the fact that AA counts all those seats collecting dust in the desert....just like they did when they lined up for their chunk of the post 9/11 bailout money...that was paid based on....available seat miles?
Remember, AA has a LOT of tin sitting in the desert... Southwest on the other hand....has very little, if any at all.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I did a little research on the DOT website on how the air carrier payouts were determined. The payouts were indeed based on ASM's. The definition of ASM that they used to determine the payouts was the number of seats flown in scheduled service, which, I am guessing, would pretty much exclude anything sitting in the desert.
----------------
On 2/22/2003 2:05:48 PM WingNaPrayer wrote:
So, are we talking actual seat miles in use...or are we allowing for the fact that AA counts all those seats collecting dust in the desert....just like they did when they lined up for their chunk of the post 9/11 bailout money...that was paid based on....available seat miles?
Remember, AA has a LOT of tin sitting in the desert... Southwest on the other hand....has very little, if any at all.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I did a little research on the DOT website on how the air carrier payouts were determined. The payouts were indeed based on ASM's. The definition of ASM that they used to determine the payouts was the number of seats flown in scheduled service, which, I am guessing, would pretty much exclude anything sitting in the desert.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/23/2003 5:38:28 PM bagsmasher wrote:
I don't know who Baumert is either. All I know is he makes a lot of good points, and must value Warren Buffet's point of view, since he quote's them so often. I ran across some of his past report's on AMR at work, and will try to post them. I think I've read 3 or 4 of them so far.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Thanks Bags, looking forward to some reputable information during all this mess.
----------------
On 2/23/2003 5:38:28 PM bagsmasher wrote:
I don't know who Baumert is either. All I know is he makes a lot of good points, and must value Warren Buffet's point of view, since he quote's them so often. I ran across some of his past report's on AMR at work, and will try to post them. I think I've read 3 or 4 of them so far.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Thanks Bags, looking forward to some reputable information during all this mess.
B
bagsmasher
Guest
I don't know who Baumert is either. All I know is he makes a lot of good points, and must value Warren Buffet's point of view, since he quote's him so often. I ran across some of his past report's on AMR at work, and will try to post them. I think I've read 3 or 4 of them so far.
Forget Baumert...
What is interesting in this thread is the productivity comparison between airlines...one of the gauges was not mentioned....the ratio of employees to active aircraft.....take the total number of employees in the company divided by the number of active a/c in the fleet. This is a telling gauge of productivity and productivity is the name of the game. I dont have access to employee or fleet numbers but I figured other esteemed readers of this board may. Check out southwest...jetblue..continental or delta versus AA. The higher the number of employees per aircraft the poorer the productivity.
I do know that this was one of the statistics that TWA monitored in their attempt to cut costs in an effort to overcome the bloodletting that Icahn's KARABU ticket program inflicted on TWA.
What is interesting in this thread is the productivity comparison between airlines...one of the gauges was not mentioned....the ratio of employees to active aircraft.....take the total number of employees in the company divided by the number of active a/c in the fleet. This is a telling gauge of productivity and productivity is the name of the game. I dont have access to employee or fleet numbers but I figured other esteemed readers of this board may. Check out southwest...jetblue..continental or delta versus AA. The higher the number of employees per aircraft the poorer the productivity.
I do know that this was one of the statistics that TWA monitored in their attempt to cut costs in an effort to overcome the bloodletting that Icahn's KARABU ticket program inflicted on TWA.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/23/2003 11:35:15 PM desertfox wrote:
Forget Baumert...
What is interesting in this thread is the productivity comparison between airlines...one of the gauges was not mentioned....the ratio of employees to active aircraft.....take the total number of employees in the company divided by the number of active a/c in the fleet. This is a telling gauge of productivity and productivity is the name of the game. I dont have access to employee or fleet numbers but I figured other esteemed readers of this board may. Check out southwest...jetblue..continental or delta versus AA. The higher the number of employees per aircraft the poorer the productivity.
I do know that this was one of the statistics that TWA monitored in their attempt to cut costs in an effort to overcome the bloodletting that Icahn's KARABU ticket program inflicted on TWA.
----------------
[/blockquote]
For a valid comparison we are going to have to compare SWA to JetBlue and AA to similar sized international carriers. There seem to be analysts that think if you sell tickets and paste you decal on the tube, that makes an airline.
I personally think that GM should outsource their design, manufacturing and QA. Maybe they will get a better product, the question is, it that really feasible over the long term? Too much specialization, can be as damaging as too much vertical integration of a business.
SWA has a great business plan, and it works for them in their niche.
So who is going to do the international flying? SWA doesn't even make it to Puerto Rico, they would have to have dedicated overwater planes. This is sort of like WalMart sell only the three most popular sizes and to hell with them that want something special or different.
That sounds almost like the retail market in the communist countries, you will like what we have to offer."Sorry folks, Bismarck is just not a large enough market to be tied into the air route system."
Do all of these industry pundits live only in cities served by JetBlue or SWA? And are they only flying to other points served by these carriers?
----------------
On 2/23/2003 11:35:15 PM desertfox wrote:
Forget Baumert...
What is interesting in this thread is the productivity comparison between airlines...one of the gauges was not mentioned....the ratio of employees to active aircraft.....take the total number of employees in the company divided by the number of active a/c in the fleet. This is a telling gauge of productivity and productivity is the name of the game. I dont have access to employee or fleet numbers but I figured other esteemed readers of this board may. Check out southwest...jetblue..continental or delta versus AA. The higher the number of employees per aircraft the poorer the productivity.
I do know that this was one of the statistics that TWA monitored in their attempt to cut costs in an effort to overcome the bloodletting that Icahn's KARABU ticket program inflicted on TWA.
----------------
[/blockquote]
For a valid comparison we are going to have to compare SWA to JetBlue and AA to similar sized international carriers. There seem to be analysts that think if you sell tickets and paste you decal on the tube, that makes an airline.
I personally think that GM should outsource their design, manufacturing and QA. Maybe they will get a better product, the question is, it that really feasible over the long term? Too much specialization, can be as damaging as too much vertical integration of a business.
SWA has a great business plan, and it works for them in their niche.
So who is going to do the international flying? SWA doesn't even make it to Puerto Rico, they would have to have dedicated overwater planes. This is sort of like WalMart sell only the three most popular sizes and to hell with them that want something special or different.
That sounds almost like the retail market in the communist countries, you will like what we have to offer."Sorry folks, Bismarck is just not a large enough market to be tied into the air route system."
Do all of these industry pundits live only in cities served by JetBlue or SWA? And are they only flying to other points served by these carriers?
ASM's are FLOWN...and do not include a/c sitting in the desert. Wing has no clue what he' saying on this. The only debate that existed on the payout from the gov't was whether it should be domestic only or total (obviously WN, FL, B6, F9, HP supported domestic only while UA, AA, DL, CO, NW supported total)...
You can speak about planned ASM (which is based on scheduled...again nothing to do with airplanes in the desert or even maintenance). When a plane takes off with a broken seat, the miles that seat fly don't count toward the measurement...
You can speak about planned ASM (which is based on scheduled...again nothing to do with airplanes in the desert or even maintenance). When a plane takes off with a broken seat, the miles that seat fly don't count toward the measurement...
