WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #286
I believe a train operator took out about 80 lives in Spain not too long ago.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So are they going after the construction company, who contracted to build the collapsed building? Or the individuals who designed, or worked on, the failed building? ------- Believe me when I tell you that if there is any discrepancies involving the F.A.A., AA will not hesitate to throw an AMT to the wolves if they feel it would get them off the hook! ------ What I'm saying is the company routinely delegates liability to the individual AMT, and that should be should be taken into account during negotiations for compensation!Yep. Another 38 died in Canada in the oil train derailment because the engineer apparently forgot to set all the hand brakes and the brake pressure bled off releasing the brakes (same reason wheels get chocked on airplanes and ground equipment...).
And at least six people died today in Sao Paolo in a building collapse.
Agree, and the numbers prove that AA did not need the concessions from labor at all. $200 million in just one month is pretty good, imagine what it could have been if AA had a workforce that approached their job every day like workers at WN.AA might have 6 year contracts in the bag but if labor continues to see pay well below their peers while the company racks up very strong profits, the wheels will fall off the bus very quickly.
The biggest change in AA's costs was for labor. Revenue went up nicely for this month but they didn't have to go into BK to do that.
Agree, and the numbers prove that AA did not need the concessions from labor at all. $200 million in just one month is pretty good, imagine what it could have been if AA had a workforce that approached their job every day like workers at WN.
AA is taking on enormous debt in order to reduce operational costs in the short term while other carriers including AA, B6, DL, and WN among others are also adding lower CASM aircraft but doing so without taking on near as much debt. UA is also taking on huge amounts of debt for fleet renewal and will be parking older aircraft very aggressively as well. DL has already said they expect to pay for their 100 fleet order of 739ERs without increasing their debt levels; the M90s are being bought used for cash while the 717s are on leases that DL is expected to buy out when they can. AA can’t possibly say their balance sheet won’t be hit by their fleet renewal – and neither can UA.
As much as it kills you to admit it, AA is investing tens of billions of dollars in fleet renewal and will get very little real operational cost advantage relative to its peers.
The New AA should move the corporate HQ to PHX, and move the Miami operation to SJU and South Carolina for going against AA. Miami is important, but it can be turned into a focus city rather then a hub.
"Move the Miami operation to SJU"? You got to be kidding! Have you ever been to the SJU Airport? ------- I have!The New AA should move the corporate HQ to PHX, and move the Miami operation to SJU and South Carolina for going against AA. Miami is important, but it can be turned into a focus city rather then a hub.
Agree, and the numbers prove that AA did not need the concessions from labor at all. $200 million in just one month is pretty good, imagine what it could have been if AA had a workforce that approached their job every day like workers at WN.
I never said what you would like to think I did.
I have no problems with AA ordering airplanes - it is a standard part of the business, at least for any airline that wants to stay in business and not shrink since airplanes do have life limits.
DL has now ordered 10 - TEN - new widebody aircraft for delivery over the next five years and 130 - ONE HUNDRED THIRTY - new narrowbody aircraft.
AA's order book is MULTIPLES larger than DL's. UA's is not as large as AA's but both are still far in excess of either's ability to generate free cash, which means their debt levels will grow.
The reason why AA isn't getting operational advantages is because its peers are ordering ENOUGH - but not necessarily more - aircraft to keep AA from obtaining an advantage - but aren't taking on the levels of debt with the size of the orders that AA has. And it also doesn't change that DL is taking on almost as many USED narrowbody aircraft that have very similar cost performance yet with a whole lot less debt - the M90s have been bought with cash.
I have said that the SIZE of AA's aircraft orders and the debt and obligations that AA will take on are highly problematic given the cyclical nature of the business and the fact that AA's balance sheet will be stressed coming out of BK, including because they have pension obligations.
Facts, not opinion.