More Work

[eolesen]

Buck, did we have the money required to hedge fuel ?

[post="249706"][/post]​

I doubt Buck has the answer, which is no.

You need one of two things to hedge -- a good credit rating, and cash. AMR hasn't got a decent credit rating right now, and once the hedges are made, you lose the liquidity that the cash provides to meet operational needs.

DL had hedges going into 2004, and needed to sell them because they needed the operating cash. Dumb move in hindsight, but they needed the cash immediately. Sort of like having to cash out your 401K to pay your property taxes... It sucks, but if you have no other options, you have a choice of losing money and paying the penalties or losing your house...

 

[mweiss]

The Employees could do everything right yet the bosses could still screw it up.

[post="249723"][/post]​

The converse is equally true.

 

[Bagbelt]

There is one mistake mgt. keeps making worse- the never ending contract. At least with a three year deal some hope something would improve was just around the corner. I will never forget the 95 deal, 6% over 6 years. But hey, put your time in kid, you'll get there. Now I know "openers" are to be exchanged next year. But we will be lucky to break even by then, so I see little chance of anything happening. Which leaves us until 2010, assuming the usual 3 year extension isn't offered for a $1.50 hr, with the "intentionally left blank" pages to be filled later over discussions in Palm Springs. I know they say they could not get financing without a long term deal in writing, but it is disheartening to look at dates 6 or 7 years out and figuer it's going to get worse.

 

[AMFAMAN]

Now I know "openers" are to be exchanged next year.

[post="249734"][/post]​

The compAAny has already publicly stated in writing that any results/raises from the early openers will not take place until after the amendable date of the contract , which is in 2008.

 

[Bob Owens]

The converse is equally true.

[post="249730"][/post]​

Well, not really, if the workers screw up, that too is a reflection of poor management.

SWA is proof of that. SWA is as heavily unionized as any airline yet their productivity is higher than non-union Delta, granted there are other factors. So its not the workers, or the unions its the way that management runs a company.

For all intensive purposes any group of workers posessing the same skills should be considered to have the same productive ability, its up to management to optimize that. Workers have a lot at stake with a company since usually you can only sell your labor to one employer at a time and if you work full time then your financial well being is tied to that employer, if the workers are determined to screw things up then its because management has created conditions that foster such feelings.

 

[mweiss]

Well, not really, if the workers screw up, that too is a reflection of poor management.

[post="249746"][/post]​

Oh, OK. So if management screws up, it's management's fault, and if the employee screws up, it's management's fault, too. If that's true, then you're overpaid unless you work for minimum wage (and one could make a case for you being overpaid even then). After all, you're not responsible for anything, so you can't really be worth anything.

 

[Boomer]

mweiss,

We put Caarpy in the "box" in 2003.

We asked him about the lack of fuel hedges.

He said, "that he did not believe in them and that they cost AMR more than they were worth and that he had argued with Crandall over the same issue."

Sort of like the head of AMR Cargo refusing to respond to their failure to service the USPS contract in 2004: claiming that the USPS cancellation of mail to AA was nott a cancellation of the contract, "but an acknowledgement by AMR that the USPS has the right to control allocations of the volume of mail between individual carriers."

LUV is more than 75% hedged at a price we could use for profit.

AMR claimed some 6.8% of total revenue from USPS contracts: some $100 Million in revenue during a time in which we are loosing money and need to increase sales.

 

[mweiss]

[Carpy] said, "that he did not believe in [fuel hedges] and that they cost AMR more than they were worth and that he had argued with Crandall over the same issue."

As a rule, he's correct. The past few years have been an exception. In the same way, as a rule, slot machines cost more to play than you earn. Sometimes you come out ahead, though. Does it make you brilliant for getting three 7s?

 

[Boomer]

As a rule, he's correct. The past few years have been an exception. In the same way, as a rule, slot machines cost more to play than you earn. Sometimes you come out ahead, though. Does it make you brilliant for getting three 7s?

[post="249767"][/post]​

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The point being the CEO is providing leadership and vision for the organization.

Within the last three months, Caarpey had the ability to anchor fuel at less than $40 BBL. We do not know that it was done.

Since 12-04, AA has been under the same "death letter" from the USPS that they use on their Employees. We now know that nothing was done.

For the Employees, the "death letter" is good for two years; any violation of any AA rule will result in termination.

Will the head of AMR and Cargo/Freight be subject to the same terms that AA uses on their Employees because they failed to respond to the inquiries of a major customer?

 

[Buck]

How so?

[post="249727"][/post]​

No we did not have the money to hedge fuel, that is exactly the point. Why did we not have the money?

If labor has given the required concessions and the company still cannot make it work, what was the mitigating factor? I believe the company stated it was the cost of fuel.
So if the company had hedged, then a profit would have been acheived.

 

[Bob Owens]

Oh, OK. So if management screws up, it's management's fault, and if the employee screws up, it's management's fault, too. If that's true, then you're overpaid unless you work for minimum wage (and one could make a case for you being overpaid even then). After all, you're not responsible for anything, so you can't really be worth anything.

[post="249755"][/post]​

Thats rediculous and I'm surprised that someone who claims to be as sophisicated as yourself would resort to such childishness.

Employees are individually resonsible for the performance of their work but management is ultimately responsible for making sure of that. Otherwise why have them? If they dont perform their work as required then if management is doing their job they would fire them right?


Management has the right to hire and fire, therefore they are responsible for the performance of the employees. Just because management has these responsiblities it does not diminish the value of what the workers do. For instance I am responsible for the work I do. My resposiblity for the work that I do does not end with the end of my shift either. If management hires someone who can not perform whose fault is that? If management fails to provide the materials or conditions required for the workers to perform their tasks whose fault is that? If management creates an atmosphere that results in poor morale whose fault is that? Does management have a lot of responsiblity? Yes, but that is the job. If management is unable to maximize the output of thousands of employees you dont replace the employees you replace management.

 

[mweiss]

If labor has given the required concessions and the company still cannot make it work, what was the mitigating factor? I believe the company stated it was the cost of fuel.
So if the company had hedged, then a profit would have been acheived.

[post="249778"][/post]​

The circular logic there is truly funny. "If we had hedged, we would have had the money to hedge with." That's not how it works.

I'm not going to argue that all you need to do is give more concessions and everything will be fine. The fundamentals are broken, and need to be fixed. Concessions will do nothing more than buy time to fix them. If AA chooses to use them as a solution, then they will follow US down the same path. It's not pretty.

 

[Bob Owens]

The circular logic there is truly funny. "If we had hedged, we would have had the money to hedge with." That's not how it works.

I'm not going to argue that all you need to do is give more concessions and everything will be fine. The fundamentals are broken, and need to be fixed. Concessions will do nothing more than buy time to fix them. If AA chooses to use them as a solution, then they will follow US down the same path. It's not pretty.

[post="249837"][/post]​

And a systemwide strike would force them to fix it right away.

 

[mweiss]

Thats rediculous and I'm surprised that someone who claims to be a sophisicated as yourself would resort to such childishness.

Of course it's ridiculous. That's the point. You said that it's management's fault regardless of who screws up. How else would you expect someone to interpret that statement?

Employees are individually resonsible for the performance of their work but management is ultimately responsible for making sure of that. Otherwise why have them?

There are plenty of other things that managers do. Frankly, the worst kind of manager is the micromanager (the one who would know of every single thing a direct report does wrong).

If they dont perform their work as required then if management is doing their job they would fire them right?

If only it were that easy. Have you actually looked at your contract recently?

If management fails to provide the materials or conditions required for the workers to perform their tasks whose fault is that? If management creates an atmosphere that results in poor morale whose fault is that?

If an employee decides to simply not show up for work, whose fault is that? If a customer-facing employee decides to take frustrations out on the customer, whose fault is that? You claim to accept responsibility, but seem to be far too willing to point the finger.

If management is unable to maximize the output of thousands of employees you dont replace the employees you replace management.

[post="249814"][/post]​

Even if the employees were bad hires in the first place? :huh:

 

[Bob Owens]

mweiss,Feb 22 2005, 04:17 PM]
Of course it's ridiculous. That's the point. You said that it's management's fault regardless of who screws up. How else would you expect someone to interpret that statement?

Management is responsible for the performance of the company, and that includes the performance of the workers.

If only it were that easy. Have you actually looked at your contract recently?

Have you? "Just Cause" is the just that, if an employee does not perform the company can terminate.

If an employee decides to simply not show up for work, whose fault is that?

And the company has means to deal with that.

If a customer-facing employee decides to take frustrations out on the customer, whose fault is that?

The company has means to deal with that too.Why is the employee fustrated? If the employee is fustrated because management dumped an impossible workload on them while at the same time cutting their pay then the company is at fault.

You claim to accept responsibility, but seem to be far too willing to point the finger.

Only where it is warranted. The fact is that I produce, not manage.

Even if the employees were bad hires in the first place? :huh:

Who hired them?