TWU negotiations.........what?

[Buck]

Maybe American and other airlines should lobby Congress for some tax credits due to the fuel price issues. After Vicki Bryan made her statement concerning labor.

Maybe The TWU/ATD come use some of it's political muscle to lobby Congress?


You can find some political information at this link. Open Secrets.org

 

[Chuck Schalk]

Gimme Credit analyst Vicki Bryan took a hard look at AMR's numbers in her investor report Monday and pointed out that despite annual revenue rising 35 percent since 2003, AMR is still posting significant losses.

"The main culprit, however, has not been AMR's labor costs. It was spiking fuel expense, which is up 187 percent from $2.8 billion per year in 2003 to the current $7.96 billion," Bryan wrote.

Bryan told investors that AMR's top executives are receiving compensation packages worth 10 times their base pay and are earning more than the top executives at United Continental and are close to Delta Air Lines' executive pay. Those two airlines are posting consistent profits.


enough said.............

another analyst:

AMR's issues are fuel and network/revenue, not just labor costs ByTerry Maxon/Reporter


11:34 AM on Wed., Nov. 16, 2011 |
As industry watchers focus on the fate of American Airlines' labor talks, airline analyst Daniel McKenzie of Rodman & Renshaw advises that AMR's problems are more than just its labor costs and contracts

 

[Hopeful]

another analyst:

AMR's issues are fuel and network/revenue, not just labor costs ByTerry Maxon/Reporter


11:34 AM on Wed., Nov. 16, 2011 |
As industry watchers focus on the fate of American Airlines' labor talks, airline analyst Daniel McKenzie of Rodman & Renshaw advises that AMR's problems are more than just its labor costs and contracts

Save your breath, there will always be those that need to blame labor just about every woe affecting any company in any industry. It is called class warfare.

I could picture it now should AA file BK and sometime after that oil sky rockets to new highs...they will be crying again and again and again and labor will always bear the brunt.

 

[FWAAA]

another analyst:

AMR's issues are fuel and network/revenue, not just labor costs ByTerry Maxon/Reporter


11:34 AM on Wed., Nov. 16, 2011 |
As industry watchers focus on the fate of American Airlines' labor talks, airline analyst Daniel McKenzie of Rodman & Renshaw advises that AMR's problems are more than just its labor costs and contracts

Exactly. AA has many problems, including fuel prices and lagging revenue and substantially higher labor costs than its competitors. Had AA slashed employee labor costs as far as its legacy competitors, AA would be better able handle the higher fuel prices.

WT insists that fuel prices are not a problem. Some analysts apparently agree.

As for revenue? Had AA lowered its costs as far as did NW, DL, UA and US, perhaps it could have combined with one of them to become a huge mega-carrier, helping AA to attract higher revenue. WT has posted that AA's smaller size places AA at a revenue disadvantage.

Yes, they are all interrelated. AA has higher labor costs (even though its pay rates may not be the highest), it is suffering from $3/gal fuel and its revenue growth isn't keeping up with the Joneses.

 

[FWAAA]

Maybe American and other airlines should lobby Congress for some tax credits due to the fuel price issues. After Vicki Bryan made her statement concerning labor.

The fuel excise tax is just 4.4 cents per gallon, amounting to just 10% of this year's expected AMR loss. Of course, every little bit helps. What would be really beneficial would be a rollback of the various federal taxes imposed on air travel, from the ticket excise tax and the ticket segment tax and the September 11 Security Fee plus the local PFCs. Of a typical coach ticket, something like 30% or more is handed to the feds (all those federal taxes) and the airports (PFCs). If those ticket taxes were cut in half, AA (and other airlines) would each have several billion extra dollars - making fuel prices a much less imposing burden and removing the need to extract labor cost savings.

Maybe The TWU/ATD come use some of it's political muscle to lobby Congress?

You can find some political information at this link. Open Secrets.org

I think everyone whose incomes depend on commercial aviation should be lobbying to have these taxes reduced/repealed. As some airline CEOs have repeatedly said (CO in particular), air travel isn't a sin, yet its tax burden resembles the sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco.

 

[AANOTOK]

Exactly. AA has many problems, including fuel prices and lagging revenue and substantially higher labor costs than its competitors. Had AA slashed employee labor costs as far as its legacy competitors, AA would be better able handle the higher fuel prices.

WT insists that fuel prices are not a problem. Some analysts apparently agree.

As for revenue? Had AA lowered its costs as far as did NW, DL, UA and US, perhaps it could have combined with one of them to become a huge mega-carrier, helping AA to attract higher revenue. WT has posted that AA's smaller size places AA at a revenue disadvantage.

Yes, they are all interrelated. AA has higher labor costs (even though its pay rates may not be the highest), it is suffering from $3/gal fuel and its revenue growth isn't keeping up with the Joneses.

F, we get it. You mentioned three different times in this four paragraph reply how labor and managements failure to get more from them is the main problem. You have made your feelings pretty clear that labor (through management or through the TWU etc...) is what has brought your beloved airline to it's knees.

 

[Buck]

Exactly. AA has many problems, including fuel prices and lagging revenue and substantially higher labor costs than its competitors. Had AA slashed employee labor costs as far as its legacy competitors, AA would be better able handle the higher fuel prices.

WT insists that fuel prices are not a problem. Some analysts apparently agree.

As for revenue? Had AA lowered its costs as far as did NW, DL, UA and US, perhaps it could have combined with one of them to become a huge mega-carrier, helping AA to attract higher revenue. WT has posted that AA's smaller size places AA at a revenue disadvantage.

Yes, they are all interrelated. AA has higher labor costs (even though its pay rates may not be the highest), it is suffering from $3/gal fuel and its revenue growth isn't keeping up with the Joneses.

Can anyone account for the differences in skill sets as labor cost compared to the companies competitores? What do the Pilots make in comparison and the mechanics and Fleet and so on?

 

[Buck]

The fuel excise tax is just 4.4 cents per gallon, amounting to just 10% of this year's expected AMR loss. Of course, every little bit helps. What would be really beneficial would be a rollback of the various federal taxes imposed on air travel, from the ticket excise tax and the ticket segment tax and the September 11 Security Fee plus the local PFCs. Of a typical coach ticket, something like 30% or more is handed to the feds (all those federal taxes) and the airports (PFCs). If those ticket taxes were cut in half, AA (and other airlines) would each have several billion extra dollars - making fuel prices a much less imposing burden and removing the need to extract labor cost savings.


I think everyone whose incomes depend on commercial aviation should be lobbying to have these taxes reduced/repealed. As some airline CEOs have repeatedly said (CO in particular), air travel isn't a sin, yet its tax burden resembles the sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco.

I am not referring to the existing taxes of any kind. I am saying that the airlines need to lobby for fuel, security and even TARMAC fee adjustments in the form of grants. Yes, a little more regulation. Rob from Peter to pay Paul.........

 

[TWU informer]

Question: How Many Vice Presidents does it take to destroy an Airline?

American Airlines' parent company AMR Corp., announced the appointment of three new officers on Thursday morning, all who are replacing people who have left the carrier.

Charles Schubert has been named Vice President of Network Planning, succeeding Walter Aue who will retire on Dec. 1. Pedro Fabregas has been named Senior Vice President of Customer Service for American Eagle, replacing George Hazy who will also retire on Dec. 1.

Andrew Backover has been named Vice President of Corporate Communications as his predecessor, Roger Frizzell, left AMR in October for a position at California's PG&E. Backover is a former journalist who worked at the Star-Telegram, the Denver Post and USA Today and then joined the corporate public relations world at AT&T before coming to AMR in 2006.

 

[TWU informer]

Does this still hold true or has our ignorance been exposed again?

My link

 

[Bob Owens]

The fuel excise tax is just 4.4 cents per gallon, amounting to just 10% of this year's expected AMR loss. Of course, every little bit helps. What would be really beneficial would be a rollback of the various federal taxes imposed on air travel, from the ticket excise tax and the ticket segment tax and the September 11 Security Fee plus the local PFCs. Of a typical coach ticket, something like 30% or more is handed to the feds (all those federal taxes) and the airports (PFCs). If those ticket taxes were cut in half, AA (and other airlines) would each have several billion extra dollars - making fuel prices a much less imposing burden and removing the need to extract labor cost savings.



I think everyone whose incomes depend on commercial aviation should be lobbying to have these taxes reduced/repealed. As some airline CEOs have repeatedly said (CO in particular), air travel isn't a sin, yet its tax burden resembles the sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco.

Hmm, havent I been saying that all along? That the government is a silent partner just like other vendors, dont know if you included landing fees, the landing fee at JFK for a 777 is over $4000. The government has an interest in keeping wages low, it leaves more room for them to grab money from the carriers. Since our rights as workers are as restricted as government workers maybe we should be declared government workers and be entitled to the same benefits as government workers?

 

[strikeforce]

I have a question for Bob Owens and/or any other local president or INTL officer on this site, and my question is in regard to the AA presidents council vote last month concerning "the release letter" in where a motion was made, seconded and approved to write a formal release letter to the NMB if a T/A is not reached with the company by November 30, 2011. This vote is part of the record and minutes within the president's council meeting.....Isn't the union OBLIGATED to move forward and write this letter now that November 30 will come and go without a T/A????? Or is that vote meaningless and Roberts Rules of Order just get's ignored. Isn't another motion required to recind the prior motion??????

 

[FWAAA]

I am not referring to the existing taxes of any kind. I am saying that the airlines need to lobby for fuel, security and even TARMAC fee adjustments in the form of grants. Yes, a little more regulation. Rob from Peter to pay Paul.........

Ah, I see. Problem is, the profitable competitors may not want to see AA get a bailout. When nearly all airlines were losing money (exept for WN), bailouts were an easier sell.

Still, I agree that the entire industry is taxed too highly. The very notion that airlines/passengers should pay for a federal agency (TSA) that spends more than 10x what the airlines used to spend on security is irrational to me. And yet even President Bush and some members of Congress wanted to see the September 11 Security Fee (TAX) increased above the current $2.50 per segment/$5 max one-way tax. Of course the current Democrat President wants to increase that fee as well.

Hmm, havent I been saying that all along? That the government is a silent partner just like other vendors, dont know if you included landing fees, the landing fee at JFK for a 777 is over $4000. The government has an interest in keeping wages low, it leaves more room for them to grab money from the carriers. Since our rights as workers are as restricted as government workers maybe we should be declared government workers and be entitled to the same benefits as government workers?

I didn't include the landing fees because unlike the other taxes, those actually show up on the financial statements as airline expenses but they are substantial. The current JFK rate is $5.50 per thousand pounds of MTOW. The new 77Ws at 775k will cost $4,263 each time they take off at JFK.

All the other taxes/fees that I listed don't even appear on the financial statements. Behtune and Smisek at CO used to publish how many billions CO collected in these taxes each year when they ranted about them. One of my criticisms of Arpey is that he didn't join with Bethune/Smisek and the other airlines in lobbying more aggressively to roll back these taxes. I don't think Arpey has ever quantified just how many billions AA turns over in these fees/taxes each year (which are in addtion to the $24 billion of revenue). Passengers actually pay several billion more when they buy their tickets - and if the taxes were repealed, I don't see fares going down much - passengers wouldn't fly any cheaper. Essentially, it would mean billions more in AA's pockets, completely doing away with AA's financial troubles. Dunno if management would want to share with the employees, but there would be billions of profits that aren't there now. History shows that profitable companies tend to pay their employees better than companies that never turn profits.

 

[Buck]

Ah, I see. Problem is, the profitable competitors may not want to see AA get a bailout. When nearly all airlines were losing money (exept for WN), bailouts were an easier sell.

Still, I agree that the entire industry is taxed too highly. The very notion that airlines/passengers should pay for a federal agency (TSA) that spends more than 10x what the airlines used to spend on security is irrational to me. And yet even President Bush and some members of Congress wanted to see the September 11 Security Fee (TAX) increased above the current $2.50 per segment/$5 max one-way tax. Of course the current Democrat President wants to increase that fee as well.



I didn't include the landing fees because unlike the other taxes, those actually show up on the financial statements as airline expenses but they are substantial. The current JFK rate is $5.50 per thousand pounds of MTOW. The new 77Ws at 775k will cost $4,263 each time they take off at JFK.

All the other taxes/fees that I listed don't even appear on the financial statements. Behtune and Smisek at CO used to publish how many billions CO collected in these taxes each year when they ranted about them. One of my criticisms of Arpey is that he didn't join with Bethune/Smisek and the other airlines in lobbying more aggressively to roll back these taxes. I don't think Arpey has ever quantified just how many billions AA turns over in these fees/taxes each year (which are in addtion to the $24 billion of revenue). Passengers actually pay several billion more when they buy their tickets - and if the taxes were repealed, I don't see fares going down much - passengers wouldn't fly any cheaper. Essentially, it would mean billions more in AA's pockets, completely doing away with AA's financial troubles. Dunno if management would want to share with the employees, but there would be billions of profits that aren't there now. History shows that profitable companies tend to pay their employees better than companies that never turn profits.

And yet even President Bush and some members of Congress wanted to see the September 11 Security Fee (TAX) increased above the current $2.50 per segment/$5 max one-way tax. Of course the current Democrat President wants to increase that fee as well.



If both presidents want to impose a fee or tax on a deregulated industry, is that not a regulatory move?

 

[paul1]

I have a question for Bob Owens and/or any other local president or INTL officer on this site, and my question is in regard to the AA presidents council vote last month concerning "the release letter" in where a motion was made, seconded and approved to write a formal release letter to the NMB if a T/A is not reached with the company by November 30, 2011. This vote is part of the record and minutes within the president's council meeting.....Isn't the union OBLIGATED to move forward and write this letter now that November 30 will come and go without a T/A????? Or is that vote meaningless and Roberts Rules of Order just get's ignored. Isn't another motion required to recind the prior motion??????

Are we every going to get a answer, or is dec 1st the answer? STAY INFORMED LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!