Your ATA numbers are fantasy. Don't know where you got them, when they were issued or whether you're correctly interpreting them.
It came out on an "ATA Smart Brief" a few weeks back. I believe the figure was specifically Domestic.
According to AA, consolidated capacity is down 10% yoy, and unit revenue (RASM) is down in the first quarter by a little more than 10% yoy. So you have about 90% of the ASMs each collecting only about 89.5% of the revenue from last year. Rounded, that's about 80% of last year's revenue. Read about it in the 8-K:
And? AA needs to lower their costs, we know that but labor isnt the problem. They cut back on wages, headcount and capacity yet their costs, from the operating statement that they showed the NMB and the unions, went up. Their non-fuel costs went up nearly $2billion, rents, "Other Costs" and "special charges"(they put it on the statement not me and I could care less how you look at it in accounting terms). Thats more than enough to provide all the workers at AA full restore, and more.
See that bolded portion? That's the rub: Prices have declined about 10.5% per ASM, in addition to the 10% capacity reduction. Don't know why you've ignored the numbers AA issued two weeks ago. Perhaps because they're reflective of reality instead of the fantasy that results in 2009 will mirror 2008.
So you are saying that I should base our contract on the projected results of one quarter? One of the worst quarters for the entire economy in the last 30 years? Come on FWAAA, you are just trying to set yourself up for a bonanza at our expense.
I've been gambling on airline stocks (and analyzing their numbers) far longer than the quarter century you've been a worker bee for the airlines. Revenue for this year's first quarter is going to come in about 20% less than last year's slow unprofitable first quarter. And unless the economy makes a quick turnaround, revenue for subsequent quarters will come in about 20% lower than yoy.
Like I said, you are trying to hedge your bets at our expense.
Well actually if you count my first airport job its been 30 years.
So the company is predicting a 20% decline in revenue on how much less capacity? 8% yoy? So the effect on yield would be around the area of a 12% decline in revenue. In the meantime fuel, which was around 40% of their costs declined in the double digits, labor also declined.
If you read the 8-K, you'd know that the numbers I've posted take the out-of-money hedges into account. AMR paid $2.00/gal in January, $1.96 in February, and about $1.80 in March, for a first quarter price of about $1.92/gal, reflecting the high priced hedges. AMR has projected a full year fuel cost of about $1.81/gal, leading to a fuel bill of about $5.0 billion for the year.
So fuel costs, which make up around 40% of their total costs may decline from $9 billion to $5billion. Or around 45% for the year.
Actually, first quarter load factors are down significantly yoy, as are yields (leading to the 10.5% decline in RASM). The rest of the industry is not expected to make money this year. On top of that, as you should know after a quarter century in the industry, full flights don't equal profitable flights.
I also know that despite the fact that this industry has reported losses for the majority of the last 25 years it has continued to expand for most of those 25 years. In other words profits really dont matter.
If we wait for the industry to make profits before we ask for a raise we would have been be making minimum wage for the last 75 years, in fact our executives built their bonuses not around profits but on beeing "less unprofitable".
So why should we allow whether or not the company is going to make money determine what we charge for our labor? If this industry is so critical that we arent allowed to strike then profitability doesnt matter.
Absolute nonsense. AA's concessions totaled $1.62 billion for the represented groups and $1.8 billion total, including management, agents and support staff. 2004's spending on wages and salaries (from the 10-K) reflects reduced spending of $1.8 billion. (2003's spending was only about $900 million less because the concessions were imposed in May.)
Wrong again. The fact is that management salaries are included in all that and management salaries(and PUPS) distort the real savings from "labor". AA reclassified all their supervisors and made them managers-upping their pay without saying they gave them raises.
Claiming that TWU members suffered $1.3 billion of the total $1.8 billion is ludicrous. When you embelish the truth like that, Bob, people stop taking you seriously. So pilots and FAs suffered only $300 million in concessions? Seriously? Your pants are on fire.
What I am saying, and sticking to is that we gave around $1,3 billion (in concessions and job losses) to the company, whether or not they realized those savings on their bottom line was up to them. If they used some of those savings for the PUPs, hire more management and to raise all thier supervisors to managers or even to pay OT to rectify some of the screw ups that overzelous cost cutting may have caused doesnt diminish the value of what we gave up. If I had to work 50 hours/week to make what I used to make in 40 then I took a paycut even if AA still claims they laid out $60k/yr for my labor.
Wage and benefit cuts comprised about half of the concessions, with job reductions accounting for the rest.
Where are you getting your figures from? Pilots had the jobs losses figured into their savings. (Thats why they got back 9% the first year)I dont know about the FAs. My guess is that both groups gave up more than management was able to realize. We lost 5000 jobs in M&R (10,000 in the TWU) that was not in the agreement nor was the cost savings of 5000 jobs in maintenance figured into the concessions. YOU ARE WRONG!!!!
