What Is "other"

[FWAAA]

Let me clarify it for you. We should have rejected the concessions, period. Whether or not they would have filed is speculation. They had a drop dead date that was quickly amended when the F/As rejected the contract.

If I recall I jumped all over you because your statement implied that if we rejected the contract we would have forced AA to go C-11.

If the company had chosen C-11 then so what? We lost more than UAL did anyway. With 60% or so of the industry facing possible liquidation and the unions holding to their guns that abrogation will mean strike I feel the results would have been quite different than they have been. And over the long run airline workers would have been much better off.

Yes, you are a bright guy, and I'm sure that you realize that such an utter collapse of the industry would force the government to do something. When the NYC MTA claims they have no money, they raise fares, they dont go and cut the workers pay by 25%. If the government wants air travel to be just as accessible as a subway train or a city bus then fund it like that, dont expect us to work these crazy hours, weekends and holidays for nothing.

Oh, so its not the LCC'S?

When one is being dragged down usually what is dragging you down is lower than you, the fact is we undercut both of those carriers. Our labor costs were and are lower. They did not drag us down, they simply gave the TWU and AA the excuse to push us down.In fact its the opposite of what you claim, our concessions put the final nail in their coffins. So even when they are gone, what did we accomplish? We are stuck with this until 2009. We would need to nearly double our wage just to get back to where we were. While it might be a good deal for a company to engage in predatory pricing so that they can raise fares in the future it doesnt do us a damn bit of good to agree to long term concessions to put someone else out of work. While the TWU may like the idea of more dues payers those people who are not absorbed are now competitors for our jobs and we will not have the flexibility to arbitrarily restore our wages or benifits either.

Well I'm still working with a paycut, plus they raised my out of pocket costs for medical, so they are treating us no better this year than last. I've always said that the LCC claim was a farce,seems that you have altered from your position there.

So by not going BK AA got to keep the $20 Billion in debt, preserve the value of AA stocks and AA's other creditors kept getting their bills to AA paid even if AAs employees cant pay their bills. Gee that should make us all feel great shouldnt it? We are falling into debt, working second jobs all so people can fly cheap and everyone else can profit off the service that we provide!

I keep hearing too much capacity, even though the airplanes are flying with historically high load factors. I know, breakeven point, well that goes back to price. Like I said if the airplanes are flying full, they could have charged more. Its like an old Abbott and Costello routine.

[post="205619"][/post]​

Planes are full? The publicly available data don't support that claim.

For instance, last month, AA's systemwide load factor was 73.4%.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/041202/dath034_1.html

Yes, I realize that is several points higher than AA's historic load factors for much of the 1980s and 1990s, when it tended to hover around 67% to 70% or so. But overall, there are still plenty of empty seats.

And load factors are up because airlines are desperate for any revenue they can get, and have thus reduced fares to try to fill those seats. Increase price, you say? The year 2000 saw 11 industrywide price hikes. Back then they stuck. AA and others have tried to raise price many times in the past 3 years. But very few of them have stuck.

Nevertheless, the overcapacity is very real. You may think that an airline seat is an airline seat is an airline seat. But what AA sells and what the industry darline LCCs sell are two completely different products.

I'll say it one more time: There is overcapacity in the Fancy Pants segment of the airline industry - that is, the six legacy network airlines that fly all over the USA and all over the world. For some people, their product is interchangable with that of the LCCs. But for those of us who fly both for business and pleasure, all over the world, the LCCs are not a viable alternative. If I pick each flight I take by price, I'd never achieve top-tier status, and that's what glues me to AA.

When I pay $6,000 for a discounted J ticket LAX-LHR for business travel, AA treats me like someone special. And since I'm an EXP, AA generally treats me special when I pay $216 for an N fare transcon (for instance, when I take the family on holiday). That's the allure of the frequent flyer program for someone who flies a lot.

I routinely encounter people who look at AA as a white shoe airline, catering not to ordinary people but to movie stars and rich people. While it is true that AA owns much of that market, AA also sells tickets on the cheap. Big problem is that UA also flies LAX-LHR and LAX-JFK, carrying its share of the big-spenders. If AA could pick up a few more of those customers, AA's finances would improve. UA's disappearance would speed up that process.

Bottom line: Too much capacity in the Fancy Pants airline industry. Still, reasonable people can differ on that.

Couple of years ago, you often accused people of spreading FEAR (you often capitlized it, bolded it, typed it in huge fonts).

Interesting that now, from my perspective, you are the one spreading fear. Claiming that AA will terminate your pension if UA or US is successful in killing their pensions. How do you know?

Lots of fear-mongers (not just you) keep saying that more concessions are just around the corner at AA. How do you know?

Two years ago, you lobbied against the concessions, and in many of your posts today, you still complain about them.

It's almost as though you want more bad news for AA. But then again, that's only natural, because if AA succeeds over the long term, many of your predictions will turn out to be off-the-mark. You have turned into the purveyor of Doom and Gloom, and good news isn't welcome, is it?

 

[Bob Owens]

FWAAA,Dec 3 2004, 08:04 PM]
Planes are full? The publicly available data don't support that claim.

High load factos is what I said.

For instance, last month, AA's systemwide load factor was 73.4%.

For the Industry that is high.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/041202/dath034_1.html

Yes, I realize that is several points higher than AA's historic load factors for much of the 1980s and 1990s, when it tended to hover around 67% to 70% or so. But overall, there are still plenty of empty seats.

On some flights but not others. While some routes go trips go 90% or better others go at 50% or less. Maybe they need to cut out the losers and focus on the money makers more.But then again some of those 50% flights might be the one where you say you doled out $6k. At that rate how full would the flight have to be to make money? So its not just how many seats are occupied but what they went for.

And load factors are up because airlines are desperate for any revenue they can get, and have thus reduced fares to try to fill those seats. Increase price, you say? The year 2000 saw 11 industrywide price hikes. Back then they stuck. AA and others have tried to raise price many times in the past 3 years. But very few of them have stuck.

Why didnt they stick? Because the competitor did not lower his fare? Besides you speak as if they raise all fares , regardless of destination , thats not really how fares are done, each market is priced as to what that market will bear. If AA jacked yp the NYC to BOS and SWA kept their ISP to PVD the same what does it matter?

Nevertheless, the overcapacity is very real. You may think that an airline seat is an airline seat is an airline seat.

Not at all.

Got to go, finish this later.

 

[Bob Owens]

Bottom line: Too much capacity in the Fancy Pants airline industry. Still, reasonable people can differ on that.

Couple of years ago, you often accused people of spreading FEAR (you often capitlized it, bolded it, typed it in huge fonts).

Maybe, or maybe you have me confused with someone else.

Interesting that now, from my perspective, you are the one spreading fear. Claiming that AA will terminate your pension if UA or US is successful in killing their pensions. How do you know?

Well that is what Arpey implied to the press and what TWU Rep Bobby Gless told a mechanic here at JFK.

Lots of fear-mongers (not just you) keep saying that more concessions are just around the corner at AA. How do you know?

How do we know? Because why wouldnt they go for more? They took everything else and nothing happened, they are on a roll, why stop? Once we fight back they can always give something back right?

Two years ago, you lobbied against the concessions, and in many of your posts today, you still complain about them.

And I will continue to do so until we get everything back and/or replace the Union that put them in place.

It's almost as though you want more bad news for AA. But then again, that's only natural, because if AA succeeds over the long term, many of your predictions will turn out to be off-the-mark.

And what predictions were they? If AA "succeeds" but we have to quit and leave how is that a victory for us? What do you mean by succeeds? Succeeds in lowering our standard of living? I was always more than willing to participate in anything that would be mutually benificial, slashing my pay by 25% does not fit that criteria.

You have turned into the purveyor of Doom and Gloom, and good news isn't welcome, is it?

Sure good news is welcome, it depends on what you consider to be good news. For you it seems to be anything that would make your tickets cheaper, like lower wages for us. For me good news is anything that will restore my wages.

 

[FWAAA]

Interesting that now, from my perspective, you are the one spreading fear. Claiming that AA will terminate your pension if UA or US is successful in killing their pensions. How do you know?

Well that is what Arpey implied to the press and what TWU Rep Bobby Gless told a mechanic here at JFK.

This statement is directly contradictory to Arpey's (and all other AA executives' public statements on the pension issue. Would you have any quotes or cites or links? Anything to support the assertion that AA is gonna play follow the leader on the pensions??

Sure good news is welcome, it depends on what you consider to be good news. For you it seems to be anything that would make your tickets cheaper, like lower wages for us. For me good news is anything that will restore my wages.

[post="228673"][/post]​

No, I don't obsess about ticket prices. Tickets were a good deal 10 years ago, and they are even cheaper today. And no, I don't revel in lower wages for you and your co-workers. Good news (about AA) to me is the demise of US and UAL, combined with AA's higher yields. Long term, IMO, those factors will help you recover wage superiority in the industry. You probably disagree.

Good luck with your lottery ticket approach to solving what ails the industry: An industry-wide general strike. Yep, that's gonna happen.

You haven't even been able to successfully convert your own co-workers (AA's mechanics) to your new union of choice - how the hell are you gonna organize over half a million airline workers to join your general strike in an attempt to "shut it down"?

 

[Bob Owens]

No, I don't obsess about ticket prices. Tickets were a good deal 10 years ago, and they are even cheaper today. And no, I don't revel in lower wages for you and your co-workers. Good news (about AA) to me is the demise of US and UAL, combined with AA's higher yields. Long term, IMO, those factors will help you recover wage superiority in the industry. You probably disagree.

Good luck with your lottery ticket approach to solving what ails the industry: An industry-wide general strike. Yep, that's gonna happen.

You haven't even been able to successfully convert your own co-workers (AA's mechanics) to your new union of choice - how the hell are you gonna organize over half a million airline workers to join your general strike in an attempt to "shut it down"?

[post="228903"][/post]​

No you just obsess about an airline in an industry that you claim that you have no interest in other than the fact that you like flying one particular company. Yea right!

Why are you here again? You dont care about the fares?


Well where it counts they were "converted". Here in NY we voted NO by over 90% to the concessions and even more filled out cards for AMFA. Most of the other lines stations were also high in both. So if we strike, and the good old boys from Tule and MCI decide to work (which I doubt they would despite our differences), I doubt that the company would be making enough money out of Kansas City and Tulsa to even make the interest payments.







This statement is directly contradictory to Arpey's (and all other AA executives' public statements on the pension issue. Would you have any quotes or cites or links? Anything to support the assertion that AA is gonna play follow the leader on the pensions??

Well I'm not going to dig it out, since you didnt either but either Arpey or a spokesman for AA was quoted that if UAL cancels their pension that "AA had to be competative" in every way. Considering that right up until 2003 the company was saying that everything was OK and that our pay and benifits were secure then they hit us with the most massive concession package in history I would take that as a clear warning that should UAL lose the pension that they were coming back to us for ours.

Forgive me if I look at anything that comes out of corporate HQ with skeptacism, but that comes from past experience.

AA doesnt play follow the leader with concessions, thanks to the TWU they are always the leader.

Would you like a list?

 

[Bob Owens]

No you just obsess about an airline in an industry that you claim that you have no interest in other than the fact that you like flying one particular company. Yea right!

Why are you here again? You dont care about the fares?
Well where it counts they were "converted". Here in NY we voted NO by over 90% to the concessions and even more filled out cards for AMFA. Most of the other lines stations were also high in both. So if we strike, and the good old boys from Tule and MCI decide to work (which I doubt they would despite our differences), I doubt that the company would be making enough money out of Kansas City and Tulsa to even make the interest payments.
This statement is directly contradictory to Arpey's (and all other AA executives' public statements on the pension issue. Would you have any quotes or cites or links? Anything to support the assertion that AA is gonna play follow the leader on the pensions??

Well I'm not going to dig it out, since you didnt either but either Arpey or a spokesman for AA was quoted that if UAL cancels their pension that "AA had to be competative" in every way. Considering that right up until 2003 the company was saying that everything was OK and that our pay and benifits were secure then they hit us with the most massive concession package in history I would take that as a clear warning that should UAL lose the pension that they were coming back to us for ours.

Forgive me if I look at anything that comes out of corporate HQ with skeptacism, but that comes from past experience.

AA doesnt play follow the leader with concessions, thanks to the TWU they are always the leader.

Would you like a list?

[post="228909"][/post]​

I guess he didnt need one.