Pilots on exec payout!

[Bob Owens]

What leads you to believe this? Yes, there are more MBAs, but their aren't anymore MBAs graduating from good schools. This difference is huge, I know and have interviewed many.

When the economy was down in '02 and '03 MBAs weren't getting anywhere near what they had been getting in 98-01. Many couldn't find jobs, as the economy improved salaries went up greatly, because more companies came into hiring market.

It is perfect example of supply and demand. Stable supply, demand increases or decrease and salaries increase or decrease with that demand.

Good schools? Oh, now its not just two factors anymore? Are you saying that only "good schools" can turn out competant MBAs? What makes it a good school, one that the person who does the hiring comes from?

Lets not forget that Bush came from a "good school".

Your supply and demand theory still doesnt apply to us. You are citing the rise and fall of starting pay for MBAs but in theory supply and demand should affect the whole labor supply right? Thats what you are saying to us, if they can hire another A&P at $10/hr then we should only get $10/hr.

While starting pay may have declined for MBAs, those at the top who were working certainly did not generally see paycuts. Supply and demand should have put those people at risk of being replaced by a much cheaper kid out of school according to your supply and demand theory right?

According to you supply and demand should affect established workers as well as those seeking work.
Basically you are saying that all other workers pay, regardless of experience and expertise, should be determined by new hire rates, but MBA pay should not.

Clearly supply and demand is only one factor in determining pay, however according to you it should be the only factor for everyone except established MBAs. Established A&Ps, pilots etc should all have their pay levels set at whatever a new hire agrees to, if they dont like it, leave, but only one at a time, no concerted action allowed because then it might affect the operation of the company and not allow them to maximize the benifit of a controlled supply and demand scenario.

The fact is that if starting rates were the market rates then most of us would not have taken the job. Starting pay would be much higher. When we start at low rates its with the expectation that our pay will increase to the rates that those who have been established have, not that we expect their rates to come down to ours. Starting rates can not be used as market rates because this expectation allows the starting rate to be artificially low.If Aviation High School went and told their students they can expect to earn $9.30 an hour how many kids would show up the next day?

The fact is that supply and demand favors increases. If 10,000 mechanics or 10,000 pilots walked off the job tomorrow AA could not replace them. The fact is there is no supply of workers out there ready and waiting to replace us. There may be some individuals but not the mass group that AA would need to operate.

If the entire CEO workforce of one walked out tomorrow the company would not miss a beat. So which workgroup is artificially overpaid and which is artificially underpaid?

Our wages are kept artificially low due to government regulations and interference.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Call it whatever you want, but that doesn't change the fact that most employees have sold some or all of their shares and are not reaping any 8X gain as Arpey claimed.

Even in low cost Tulsa, going from $80-$90k per year with overtime and Holiday pay, mayabe even more for IdeAAS in Action Program benefits, to below $65k per year caused financial strain on even the Tulsa crowd and many sold the stock as they made adjustments in living style to the new lower rates of pay, not to mention the annual shaft on out-of-pocket medical increases.

I never claimed Arpey worked as a Consultant, I was referencing the fact that he has hired CONSULTING firms to run the Airline. Overland Resource Group, Boston Consulting Group, to name a few. Anyone can sit in overpaid leather seat and plush golden office, and hire the consultants to run the airline. Even I can do that.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

TWU informer,

PLEASE..PLEASE..PLEASE, DO NOT even mention the TULSA crowd !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They are the VERY A$$ HOLES, that allowed Arpey/Garton to be cashing in PUP BUCKS, as we speak !!!!!!!!

How some people can EVEN look at themselves in the mirror each morning, is Totally BEYOND me. h34r:

EVEN Arpey & company have to take a back seat, to the "TULSA CROWD, and the *UCKING twu. :down:

NH/BB's

 

[Oneflyer]

Good schools? Oh, now its not just two factors anymore? Are you saying that only "good schools" can turn out competant MBAs? What makes it a good school, one that the person who does the hiring comes from?

You can get MBA a rankings from lots of sources, in general, the same schools are ranked near the top. So "good schools" are pretty well established by independent sources. The fact that you don't understand or realize their is a difference doesn't mean there isn't one.

Your supply and demand theory still doesnt apply to us. You are citing the rise and fall of starting pay for MBAs but in theory supply and demand should affect the whole labor supply right? Thats what you are saying to us, if they can hire another A&P at $10/hr then we should only get $10/hr.

Not true, skill and experience add to the wage one can reasonable expect. The MBA example was correcting your false assumption.

While starting pay may have declined for MBAs, those at the top who were working certainly did not generally see paycuts. Supply and demand should have put those people at risk of being replaced by a much cheaper kid out of school according to your supply and demand theory right?

Actually, top worker did receive pay cuts and many lost their jobs. After 2001, many hedge funds closed up shop and the bigger ivestment firms saw their profits decline, high end executive saw their bonuses which are tied to profits decline.

Again, the argument about replacing an experienced executive with a kid of of school fails to take into account experience level.

According to you supply and demand should affect established workers as well as those seeking work.
Basically you are saying that all other workers pay, regardless of experience and expertise, should be determined by new hire rates, but MBA pay should not.

Nope, this isn't what I said and you're trying to argue against this point earlier in your statement.

Clearly supply and demand is only one factor in determining pay, however according to you it should be the only factor for everyone except established MBAs. Established A&Ps, pilots etc should all have their pay levels set at whatever a new hire agrees to, if they dont like it, leave, but only one at a time, no concerted action allowed because then it might affect the operation of the company and not allow them to maximize the benifit of a controlled supply and demand scenario.

Not really, because even if they only leave one at a time, if enough leave then the company has to continue to higher new employees, which becomes more expensive, it quickly becomes cheaper to raise current pay rates than to continue to hire and train new employees or wose yet the company has to raise rates just to attract someone qualified.

The group effort (The Strike) doesn't work, because most people live pay check to pay check and if their on strike, they don't get paid. The company can hold off much longer than the striking worker. The company KNOWS that the workers still need them, were as a person that leaves for a new job no longer needs the company.

The fact is that supply and demand favors increases. If 10,000 mechanics or 10,000 pilots walked off the job tomorrow AA could not replace them. If the entire CEO workforce of one walked out tomorrow the company would not miss a beat. So which workgroup is artificially overpaid? Our wages are kept artificially low due to government regulations and interference.

You're comparing a work group to one person. Its like saying if all of HDQ got up and left vs. 1 mechanic leavning. If all the level 5s and above left tomorrow the airline would be in just as much trouble as if all the pilots or mechanics left. Its an illconceived argument.

 

[ILS2MINIMUMS]

It isn't just the PUP bucks we should be watching...

Here are the latest stock grants, awarded 1/17 from the SEC Form 4 on their website


Arpey 164,000 now owns 730,790
Garton 94,100 now owns 413,340
Horton 77,600 now owns 249,000
Kennedy 67,000 now owns 238,685
Reding 67,000 now owns 185,125

These latest will vest in 2008.

 

[Oneflyer]

It isn't just the PUP bucks we should be watching...

Here are the latest stock grants, awarded 1/17 from the SEC Form 4 on their website
Arpey 164,000 now owns 730,790
Garton 94,100 now owns 413,340
Horton 77,600 now owns 249,000
Kennedy 67,000 now owns 238,685
Reding 67,000 now owns 185,125

These latest will vest in 2008.

These are the PUP awards.

 

[Bob Owens]

You can get MBA a rankings from lots of sources, in general, the same schools are ranked near the top. So "good schools" are pretty well established by independent sources. The fact that you don't understand or realize their is a difference doesn't mean there isn't one.

So you are claiming that alma mater isnt a factor? Come on now, everyone knows thats its more who you know than what you know. A perfect example of that is the President of the United States, George Bush. Are you denying that it was connections instead of merit that got him into office in the first place? Do you think its much different in the corporate world?

Actually, top worker did receive pay cuts and many lost their jobs. After 2001, many hedge funds closed up shop and the bigger ivestment firms saw their profits decline, high end executive saw their bonuses which are tied to profits decline.

Bonuses are additions to wages. How many, that kept their jobs, saw their salary cut?

Again, the argument about replacing an experienced executive with a kid of of school fails to take into account experience level.

Exactly, but you are the one who claims that experienced people should accept what they are paid because the starting wage is much lower. You are the one who claims that the only way we can our wages increase is if we leave at a greater rate than they can hire.

Nope, this isn't what I said and you're trying to argue against this point earlier in your statement.

the only way your salary is going to increase substantially is for people to quit and move into other careers

Or we can tell the court to go pound salt and strike.

Not really, because even if they only leave one at a time, if enough leave then the company has to continue to higher new employees, which becomes more expensive, it quickly becomes cheaper to raise current pay rates than to continue to hire and train new employees or wose yet the company has to raise rates just to attract someone qualified.

But once again you are taking the position that pay should only be determined at the lowest rate that they can get someone to take the job. Clearly companies could find someone to manage companies for less. You are taking the position that workers should not be able to exercise any leverage and get their rates higher.

The group effort (The Strike) doesn't work, because most people live pay check to pay check and if their on strike, they don't get paid. The company can hold off much longer than the striking worker.

Well it does work. UPS workers are already preparing themselves for their coming strike, they won last time and they will win again, unless company man Hoffa blows it. How long do you think AA could hold off? The fact is when it comes to airlines you are wrong, the company can not hold out. I know, NWA, well NWA is much smaller and they scrapped the bottom of the barrel. They got mechanics that they would not hire otherwise and some who were displaced and could not find work. But NWA, because of their smaller size and 18 months of scraping together just enough to keep 80% of their operation running even admitted that it could not sustain a strike by another work group. The fact that the other unions on the property chose to assist NWA instead of supporting another union also hwas a factor. Over 75% of NWAs former mechanics have chosen to completely sever ties with NWA, they left the market and there simply arent any more out there. It still remains to be seen if when all is said and done NWA is still around. It took the Titanic a while to sink. A strike by mechanics now, at a much larger carrier like AA would have a much different outcome.

The company KNOWS that the workers still need them, were as a person that leaves for a new job no longer needs the company.

And the company still needs its workers. Thats the point.

You're comparing a work group to one person. Its like saying if all of HDQ got up and left vs. 1 mechanic leavning.

No. Its what cost center or group covers what function. Certain functions can be suspended for a period of time without any impact to operations, others can not. The CEO function can cease to be operating for the entire weekend and the operation continues however if any one of the pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, stores, fleet service, pax service etc groups dont show up the operation stops.

If all the level 5s and above left tomorrow the airline would be in just as much trouble as if all the pilots or mechanics left. Its an illconceived argument.

They do it every weekend and the operation continues.

 

[Ken MacTiernan]

oneflyer,

"I don't have a lot of sympathy for someone that constantly complains about their salary, but then refuses to leave their job for a higher paying one. I logical person would think their just complaining and that if things were so bad, they would leave!

If life is so bad, go get a new f-ing job, stop bitching about it. I got tired of not getting raises at AA and did just that, do I miss the industry, sure, but I don't miss my paycheck."

It seems as if my lack of sympathy for cowards such as yourself only confirms that you are indeed selfish. You claim to have left your old job when the pay did not meet your expectations. What job was that?

I call you a coward because from behind your shield of an alias you attack those who are willing to fight for and protect a highly skilled craft & profession. Why should I get a "new f-ing job" when the one I have that provides YOU with a safe, airworthy aircraft is one worth fighting for? I invested a lot of time and money in becoming who I am and what I do. I will NOT throw that away becasue some cowardly simpleton would prefer to go to another job where other people more than likely fought for before you arrived.

If you left AA as you claim why do you visit these boards with only cowardly remarks? Oh, I got it. You were a low level management goof. That makes sense.

I'm glad your cowardly, selfish personality is no longer employed at AA. It's a shame, you could have had a bright future in the twu international.

 

[eolesen]

Bob, your argument about Bush and where he got his degree is downright laughable. Being effective in business and politics are exact opposites, and his track record with turning businesses around is fairly decent.

I invested a lot of time and money in becoming who I am and what I do.

So you think you're unique in that regard? I invested a lot of time and money as well, Ken, but found that taking pride in my work didn't add a whole lot to my checking account balance.

Call it selfish if it makes you feel better about your decision to stay put, but quite frankly, when you complain about how your employer doesn't have the same level of respect for your skills as you do, yet show up day after day, you're only devaluing yourself.

Criticizing those who do find the courage to make a career change is simply denial on your part.

 

[Oneflyer]

Ken, you should pick up an old classic, Don Quixote. The main character is you.

Hey, I admire some one like you that is willing to allow the American public to fly for cheap. Personally, I value my family over the American public and if another company is going to pay me more than at AA, I'm more than happy to leave, but you keep fighting the good fight.

 

[Oneflyer]

So you are claiming that alma mater isnt a factor? Come on now, everyone knows thats its more who you know than what you know. A perfect example of that is the President of the United States, George Bush. Are you denying that it was connections instead of merit that got him into office in the first place? Do you think its much different in the corporate world?

Bob, you claiming to have knowledge of MBA hiring practices is the equivalent of me saying that that all mechanic wear overalls and have buck teeth, because I've seen the movie Fletch.

 

[Bear96]

Ken,

You keep saying MBA's make so much money.

I am curious, how much do you think the new MBA who graduated with mediocre grades from a second- or third-tier B-school and who is now working at the neighborhood H&R Block is making?

If you think people like that are making so much money why on Earth don't you go out and get your MBA? I mean, you're guaranteed to be an instand millionaire just by virtue of having an MBA, right? Think of how much you could give to the mechanics' unions with that much money -- you could fund their entire strike fund so the good fight can be fought!

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob, you claiming to have knowledge of MBA hiring practices is the equivalent of me saying that that all mechanic wear overalls and have buck teeth, because I've seen the movie Fletch.

So you are claiming that "who you know" has no bearing on who gets the job?

 

[Oneflyer]

So you are claiming that "who you know" has no bearing on who gets the job?

I'm say you have no F-ing clue of what you're talking about.



To answer your question, in 99% of cases, no, it has nothing to do with it.

See Bob, those greedy finance types tend to be far more interested in making money for themselves than surrounding themselve with their friend's kids.

In fact, if you have so much experience with interviewing for jobs on Wall Street then perhaps you should inform us of your personal experience.

 

[Bob Owens]

I'm say you have no F-ing clue of what you're talking about.
To answer your question, in 99% of cases, no, it has nothing to do with it.

See Bob, those greedy finance types tend to be far more interested in making money for themselves than surrounding themselve with their friend's kids.

In fact, if you have so much experience with interviewing for jobs on Wall Street then perhaps you should inform us of your personal experience.

I must be getting to you. Hey I'm just a grease monkey so my typos and grammar errors should be expected but we would expect much more from an MBA such as yourself. "I'm say" "F-ing", "themselve" .

I still say who you know gets you in, fraternities and alma maters are hooks, whether or not you stay depends on how you perform, lets just say I've seen it. As far as divulging more personal information I feel that I've been more forthcoming than you by a longshot Mr Oneflyer (is that German?) and following your example I decline to divulge more.

 

[Oneflyer]

I still say who you know gets you in, fraternities and alma maters are hooks, whether or not you stay depends on how you perform

I see, its just a big conpiracy by those darn Harvard and Stanford folks. If they would just give those Blinn JC guys a chance they would rule Wall Street.