Delta-AA

[FA Mikey]

Then let them. It is there own demise. There is no need for AA employees to take on U. AA will survive very well on its own.

 

[texflyer]

I agree with you, the executives deserve a bonus if they do something good, not getting a bonus for bonus's sake. AMR's executives received bonus's even though they lost billions of dollars over the years and sending AA into bankruptcy, all the while destroying employee relations and ruining AA's brand. Remember the employees GAVE AMR's executives concessions in 2003 and the executives GAVE themselves bonus's as they ran AMR into BK. I know bonus's are part of their contractual pay structure, but they need to change the nomenclature of bonus, that gives the implication they did something good.

Now if AMR made money year after year and we were the highest paid airline employees, then I don't think bonus's would be an issue. As a matter of fact, I think AMR should pay signing bonus's and have CONDITIONAL bonus's to SUCCESSFUL business executives. But as far as an ESOP goes, I want pay not stock from AMR, I certainly do not want to be an owner of AA if I don't have the power to do away with ineffective management or employees.

If I remember it correctly, the FA's at UAL voted against ESOP and IAM was told if we don't do ESOP we're doing away with kitchen, the vote passed then the kitchen was axed anyway. I believe the pilots union pushed for the ESOP and dragged the IAM down with them when UAL went into BK. THe unions should worry about pay, benefits, and working conditions not running an airline or maintaining head count to keep the dues coming in. A successful model is SWA they have high pay, with a small work force making money quarter after quarter, not a bloated work force with unions worried about head count. That is a case of AMR letting the unions run their business.

Thank you Bigjets for your answers. Interesting point of view, in particular you do not want unions messing around in management, but concentrate on wages and benefits.

 

[wings396]

Then let them. It is there own demise. There is no need for AA employees to take on U. AA will survive very well on its own.

Have another glass of that Koolaide Mikey, Horton loves you.....

 

[FWAAA]

No Mikey, they want to see overcapacity removed from the industry. If you would have been paying attention for the past few years, you would have known that is the main benefit of consolidation. Less seats, realistic ticket prices, a profitable industry, and job and wage stability for the employees.

AA already paid billions of dollars to remove capacity from the system (see TWA purchase in April, 2001). Let some other airline pay the freight to remove more capacity. AA's paid its dues.

Parker and Kirby are not selling their hoped-for merger with AA as a means to remove excess capacity; they're touting it as the only way for AA to grow to a large enough mass to successfully compete against UA and DL.

And now you're saying that a merger of US and AA involves shrinking? Capacity reduction? I don't think the AA creditors are going to be very excited to hear that. After all, AA is finally bringing its CASM in line with UA and DL and has publicly said that the key now is to grow in the large business markets like NYC, CHI, LAX, DFW and MIA. Growth, of course, will bring down AA's costs even further as the fixed expenses are spread among more capacity and as new, bottom-of-payscale pilots and FAs are hired off the street for the first time in nearly 12 years.

 

[bigjets]

Delta news, not Delta AA news......things don't seem to rosie at Delta especially for the
X-NWA employees based in MSP. It seems like Delta is cutting capacity without any merger or are they preparing for a merger? Rather work for Delta then USair.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120829/BIZ/208290352/Flight-job-cuts-Delta-hubs-worry-smaller-cities?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cs

 

[DCaf]

yep... we are in complete agreement.

Big surprise.

 

[DCaf]

A combo of US and AA gathers nothing. Both United and Delta merged with airlines fitting in to the missing part of there route system. For United it was Mexico, Central and South America and for Delta it was the NWA orient.

U offers AA nothing but size. Does AA need more size? U offers no south America or Orient. Again U offers nothing for AA. As we see the new airplanes come on line we will see more expansion and new and better service. Just looks at the new 3 class transcons.

I look at profit potential first, not for a cool route map. That comes later. Lots of areas where AA can grow.

 

[wings396]

AA already paid billions of dollars to remove capacity from the system (see TWA purchase in April, 2001). Let some other airline pay the freight to remove more capacity. AA's paid its dues.

Parker and Kirby are not selling their hoped-for merger with AA as a means to remove excess capacity; they're touting it as the only way for AA to grow to a large enough mass to successfully compete against UA and DL.

And now you're saying that a merger of US and AA involves shrinking? Capacity reduction? I don't think the AA creditors are going to be very excited to hear that. After all, AA is finally bringing its CASM in line with UA and DL and has publicly said that the key now is to grow in the large business markets like NYC, CHI, LAX, DFW and MIA. Growth, of course, will bring down AA's costs even further as the fixed expenses are spread among more capacity and as new, bottom-of-payscale pilots and FAs are hired off the street for the first time in nearly 12 years.

I suppose that I put that into the wrong context. Many airlines have gone back to focusing on their core areas instead of battling each other for the same markets. I believe that a merged AA could move into some new markets without flooding others. I suppose that too many airlines flooding the same markets is what we are trying to avoid.

 

[FWAAA]

I suppose that I put that into the wrong context. Many airlines have gone back to focusing on their core areas instead of battling each other for the same markets. I believe that a merged AA could move into some new markets without flooding others. I suppose that too many airlines flooding the same markets is what we are trying to avoid.

True, but ever since UA merged with CO and DL merged with NW, the "analysts" (some of whom did not predict AA's Ch 11 filing and told their clients that holding AA stock was an ok idea) have been saying that AA is in danger of becoming irrelevant because UA and DL are bigger in the big business cities like NYC, CHI and LAX. AA isn't intending to add capacity in those cities simply to drive down fares - it intends to add capacity in those markets so that it will be as attractive as UA or DL. With its new lower bankruptcy-induced CASM, it should be able to compete without losing its ass in those markets.

Throughout the 2000s, while AA, DL, UA, US and NW all reduced capacity, which airlines were growing? Of course the usual suspects like WN and B6. But another airline that grew a lot was CO. Having decimated its labor agreements twice in bankruptcy, CO was still a low cost airline until recently. CO grew the EWR hub and grew the IAH hub and took away business from AA.

Now, finally, the tables are turned, and AA is poised to be as low cost (or maybe even lower) than DL or UA, and thus should be able to add capacity and perhaps take back some of that business.

AA isn't going thru Ch 11 so that it can turn tail and run away from the big cities - it is reducing its costs so that it can take on UA and DL head-on. AA may fail to win in that competition, but that would be better than retreating from NYC like US did in its slot swap with DL. Forever retreating simply dooms an airline to eventually fail.

 

[xUT]

True, but ever since UA merged with CO and DL merged with NW, the "analysts" (some of whom did not predict AA's Ch 11 filing and told their clients that holding AA stock was an ok idea) have been saying that AA is in danger of becoming irrelevant because UA and DL are bigger in the big business cities like NYC, CHI and LAX. AA isn't intending to add capacity in those cities simply to drive down fares - it intends to add capacity in those markets so that it will be as attractive as UA or DL. With its new lower bankruptcy-induced CASM, it should be able to compete without losing its ass in those markets.

Throughout the 2000s, while AA, DL, UA, US and NW all reduced capacity, which airlines were growing? Of course the usual suspects like WN and B6. But another airline that grew a lot was CO. Having decimated its labor agreements twice in bankruptcy, CO was still a low cost airline until recently. CO grew the EWR hub and grew the IAH hub and took away business from AA.

Now, finally, the tables are turned, and AA is poised to be as low cost (or maybe even lower) than DL or UA, and thus should be able to add capacity and perhaps take back some of that business.

AA isn't going thru Ch 11 so that it can turn tail and run away from the big cities - it is reducing its costs so that it can take on UA and DL head-on. AA may fail to win in that competition, but that would be better than retreating from NYC like US did in its slot swap with DL. Forever retreating simply dooms an airline to eventually fail.

IRRC,
Not to mention that CO took concessions out of BK in 2004 (except the FA's).
B) xUT

 

[Bob Owens]

True, but ever since UA merged with CO and DL merged with NW, the "analysts" (some of whom did not predict AA's Ch 11 filing and told their clients that holding AA stock was an ok idea) have been saying that AA is in danger of becoming irrelevant because UA and DL are bigger in the big business cities like NYC, CHI and LAX. AA isn't intending to add capacity in those cities simply to drive down fares - it intends to add capacity in those markets so that it will be as attractive as UA or DL. With its new lower bankruptcy-induced CASM, it should be able to compete without losing its ass in those markets.

Throughout the 2000s, while AA, DL, UA, US and NW all reduced capacity, which airlines were growing? Of course the usual suspects like WN and B6. But another airline that grew a lot was CO. Having decimated its labor agreements twice in bankruptcy, CO was still a low cost airline until recently. CO grew the EWR hub and grew the IAH hub and took away business from AA.

Now, finally, the tables are turned, and AA is poised to be as low cost (or maybe even lower) than DL or UA, and thus should be able to add capacity and perhaps take back some of that business.

AA isn't going thru Ch 11 so that it can turn tail and run away from the big cities - it is reducing its costs so that it can take on UA and DL head-on. AA may fail to win in that competition, but that would be better than retreating from NYC like US did in its slot swap with DL. Forever retreating simply dooms an airline to eventually fail.

Well one flaw with the plan is that businessmen don't like delays and cancellations. They should read Gordon Bethunes book and take head on what he says about unhappy mechanics. New planes may help reliability but they don't stay new that long . As AA mechanics step out onto the ramp and look around the airport the biggest thing on their minds will be that they make around $20k less than pretty much everyone else and not " gee how fast can and fix this thing and get an on time departure". Sure AA may save $20k in wages but if a distracted pissed off mechanic doesn't focus and find and fix the problem fast enough and the flight gets cancelled they lose a lot more than $20k. Gordon wrote about this in his book. Three out of four line mechanics across AAs system are really pissed off, and they aren't going to put it behind them as long as they are making so much less than everyone else .

Forever forcing your mechanics to retreat also dooms an airline to fail, Gordon saw that as CAL was headed towards BK number three.

 

[whatajoke]

Bob you are so full of horse manure.
The mechanics on the line did not do anything the airline is doing better then its ever done.
Horton pissed in your wheaties and you just stood there and took it.

 

[wings396]

Delta news, not Delta AA news......things don't seem to rosie at Delta especially for the
X-NWA employees based in MSP. It seems like Delta is cutting capacity without any merger or are they preparing for a merger? Rather work for Delta then USair.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120829/BIZ/208290352/Flight-job-cuts-Delta-hubs-worry-smaller-cities?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cs

How could this be? Awaiting a full page defensive rebuttal from you know who.....

 

[Kev3188]

Delta news, not Delta AA news......things don't seem to rosie at Delta especially for the
X-NWA employees based in MSP.

Nothing to see here, move along...

(sarcasm, of course)

 

[Hopeful]

Three out of four line mechanics across AAs system are really pissed off, and they aren't going to put it behind them as long as they are making so much less than everyone else .

Forever forcing your mechanics to retreat also dooms an airline to fail, Gordon saw that as CAL was headed towards BK number three.

When you are back on the floor again thanks to the Baker Letter, you will see that it is business as usual. Mechanics may say they are pissed off, but in reality, SSDD!