Will AA declare bankruptcy?

[Buck]

Spinning off overhaul would make the most sense. TWU can still collect your dues and AAMRO is on it's way!

Just thought of something funny.....

What if AA spun off OH and the TWU did not get to represent them?

 

[Frank Szabo]

Just thought of something funny.....

What if AA spun off OH and the TWU did not get to represent them?

Now wouldn't that be a shame?

 

[Bob Owens]

I'm still waiting on someone to tell me what management sacrificed the last 8 years???? anybody???

In Pull Together/Win Together......can anyone tell me what I won the last 8 years?????

I asked across the table during negotiations if anyone on that side (management) was making less today that they were 8 years ago. They claimed they were, Ream claimed that Continental paid very well, I suspect the rest were not being truthful.

 

[eolesen]

I know it's going to sound like heresy to some of you, since you know management is lying if their lips are moving, but it's quite likely they are indeed telling the truth.

The statistics came out last week that average household income is now at 1996 levels adjusted for inflation ($49,445).

( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904265504576568543968213896.html )

Based on my paycut in 2003, I'm guessing directors and above lost a minimum of ~20% in pay, not including whatever they've lost in stock values (my last set of stock options issued before 9/11 were at a grant price of $22 a share).

Anyone who has stayed at the same level hasn't recouped that based on a couple of 1 & 2% adjustments made. A couple of PSP payments might have bumped them up a little more, but not enough to make them whole at 2003 levels. Someone who promoted once or twice would be making more, but that's to be expected, and you guys had the same opportunity to move into management and do likewise.

I know, they make enough money that a ~20% or more paycut wasn't as bad as it was for you guys, but I'd guess that on a percentage basis, they're probably much closer to their 2003 levels than you guys are.

 

[Frank Szabo]

I know it's going to sound like heresy to some of you, since you know management is lying if their lips are moving, but it's quite likely they are indeed telling the truth.

The statistics came out last week that average household income is now at 1996 levels adjusted for inflation ($49,445).

( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904265504576568543968213896.html )

Based on my paycut in 2003, I'm guessing directors and above lost a minimum of ~20% in pay, not including whatever they've lost in stock values (my last set of stock options issued before 9/11 were at a grant price of $22 a share).

Anyone who has stayed at the same level hasn't recouped that based on a couple of 1 & 2% adjustments made. A couple of PSP payments might have bumped them up a little more, but not enough to make them whole at 2003 levels. Someone who promoted once or twice would be making more, but that's to be expected, and you guys had the same opportunity to move into management and do likewise.

I know, they make enough money that a ~20% or more paycut wasn't as bad as it was for you guys, but I'd guess that on a percentage basis, they're probably much closer to their 2003 levels than you guys are.

The poor, poor, babies. Not sure how they'll be able to face their neighbors in "Better-Than-Thou-ville" after a net pay cut lke that.

Perhaps, as the workers have had suggested to them on a regular basis, our "management" should take their "talents" elsewhere so as to reap a decent salary more befitting their "skills" - this isn't the Soviet Union, you know - everyone is free to come and go as they choose unless, of course, one has too much time invested in their present employment to do so (as many of AA's older workers) or their "talents" aren't needed (nor desired) by any sane organization trying to make a profit.

Spare us the "dedication to company" lecture as those "gentlemen" are in this for the money alone as has been proven by their actions over the past eight years.

 

[FWAAA]

I'm still waiting on someone to tell me what management sacrificed the last 8 years???? anybody???

To add to what eolesen posted, top management took large paycuts in mid-September, 2001; I think Carty waived his salary for the fourth quarter. In 2002, managment pay was restored but, of course, the variable pay didn't pay off. In 2003, management base pay was cut by 15% to 17%, approximately the same percentage cuts as imposed on the rank and file. Except for the three years when the PUP/PSP paid off in spades, top management has made only about 65% of their targeted total pay.

Arpey has had some increases since then which resemble step increases, including one raise he got when Horton was rehired and the board wanted Arpey to make more money as the CEO, so Arpey's base pay was raised. Of course, plenty of pilots and FAs received step increases in the past eight years also.

As Frank's post indicates, however, top management "concessions" were not large enough. His response reads almost exactly like hopeful's typical response when someone asks what management gave up. The facts are that top management has made less money than they would have without the 2003 concessions, but the reality is that management will never suffer as much as the rank and file. That's what happens when your base guaranteed pay is 8-10 times the top pay for mechanics.

 

[Rogallo]

Charts and graphs people....gotta love 'em!!

 

[eolesen]

The poor, poor, babies. Not sure how they'll be able to face their neighbors in "Better-Than-Thou-ville" after a net pay cut lke that.

I didn't expect any sympathy from anyone, especially you, Frank, but the fact is that people at all income levels live paycheck to paycheck.

I know one guy in management who wound up in foreclosure because of his pay cut. The value on his house took a 50% cut, and taking a job somewhere else as you suggested wasn't quite so simple as you make it out to be because there was no way he could get out from underneath his mortgage short of foreclosure. He's in another job now that the house was repo'd, but even though he's making more than AA paid, he won't be buying a house for another two or three years at best because of lending requirements. There are probably tens of millions of current and former homeowners who can well afford to buy houses today, yet are locked out of housing market because of the overall collapse in values.

Another guy I know with a six figure salary and six kids wound up in both foreclosure and bankruptcy because his wife lost her job, and that's how they were making ends meet.

Yep, it's all their fault for living within what their means were at the time, right?

There were some people who mocked the pilot and flight attendant couple in Southlake who were bemoaning in the newspaper the fact that the pay cuts in 2003 forced him to take his kids out of private school.

Laugh again now if you must, but the fact is that they were living within their means one day, and the next day, they couldn't make ends meet.

Doesn't matter what your pay grade is, disrupting your kids lives because of your income sucks.

Doesn't matter what your pay grade is, foreclosure sucks.

Doesn't matter what your pay grade is, telling your kid he's now on his own for college sucks.

I know, management pukes from Centerpork deserve what they get. Heard that message loud and clear from you and others for the past ten years or so.

 

[jimntx]

Living within one's means does not mean spending every dime you make. It has been a constant of financial advisers for as long as I've been alive (a looooong time) that every person/family/blended living-in-sinners (lol) should have 6 months expenses in savings. If you have to send the children to public school for a couple of years while you build up your savings, so be it. (If you want to complain about the quality of your local public schools, then quit voting down every requested tax increase and/or bond issue. Just as your expenses and mine have gone up over the years, so has the school district's expenses.)

I have the same argument for flight attendants who've just come from working a flight from Europe, and they complain that they can't afford to retire while stuffing shopping bags from Vuitton and Armani in the trunk of their Mercedes. No retirement plan and no Social Security was ever intended to be one's sole source of income in retirement. If someone hasn't saved a dime toward retirement, that is not American Airlines' (or the government's) fault.

Yes, I drive a BMW. I bought a certified, pre-owned one (aka, used) this year after driving the same Subaru Forester for 11 years. I live in Kessler Park. BUT, my car payment and my mortgage are my only debts other than current month's expenses--lights, gas, etc. I have deal with myself that I can shop at Nordstrom's to my heart's content, but when the bill comes, it has to be paid in full. (You'd be surprised how much I don't need that new $200 shirt when the prospect of having to pay for it in the next two weeks presents itself to me.)

I read an article recently that proposed a giant nationwide default on loans by the American public. (It was written by a prominent economist.) His position is that the American people's personal debt (not counting government debt) is so out of control that we should just declare national bankruptcy, write off the $13 TRILLION in personal debt, and start over. Seems a bit drastic to me, but what do I know? I was an English major.

Let me add though that if the public were allowed this luxury, so should all debt-burdened corporations, like AMR for instance.

 

[Bob Owens]

I know it's going to sound like heresy to some of you, since you know management is lying if their lips are moving, but it's quite likely they are indeed telling the truth.

Anyone who has stayed at the same level hasn't recouped that based on a couple of 1 & 2% adjustments made. A couple of PSP payments might have bumped them up a little more, but not enough to make them whole at 2003 levels. Someone who promoted once or twice would be making more, but that's to be expected, and you guys had the same opportunity to move into management and do likewise.

I know, they make enough money that a ~20% or more paycut wasn't as bad as it was for you guys, but I'd guess that on a percentage basis, they're probably much closer to their 2003 levels than you guys are.

I guess you are unaware of the "Rise" "Derise" programs. What they did in Mtc was raise all the supervisors they kept to managers, they did the same things but the new title included a payraise, then more receently they had the derise phase where they knocked them back down to Supervisors but not the pay.

So yes they probably are much closer than we are and they didnt lose Vacation or Holidays either.

 

[eolesen]

I guess you are unaware of the "Rise" "Derise" programs. What they did in Mtc was raise all the supervisors they kept to managers, they did the same things but the new title included a payraise, then more receently they had the derise phase where they knocked them back down to Supervisors but not the pay.

So yes they probably are much closer than we are and they didnt lose Vacation or Holidays either.

I'm aware of the re-leveling, Bob. When they did this at the airports, those who were below the minimum were brought up to the minimum for the new level. It wasn't a promotional raise in the traditional sense (7-9%).

I won't guarantee that the same was done for maintenance, but given past practice and HR being tight with the purse strings, I'd be surprised if it was handled otherwise.

 

[Buck]

I'm aware of the re-leveling, Bob. When they did this at the airports, those who were below the minimum were brought up to the minimum for the new level. It wasn't a promotional raise in the traditional sense (7-9%).

I won't guarantee that the same was done for maintenance, but given past practice and HR being tight with the purse strings, I'd be surprised if it was handled otherwise.

Eric,

I understand, but when can I receive a 7%-9% raise? If not now, okay but I have never received that large of a raise in 27 years.

 

[Birdman]

Did you forget 2001?

 

[eolesen]

Eric,

I understand, but when can I receive a 7%-9% raise? If not now, okay but I have never received that large of a raise in 27 years.

You earn it, Buck. Not thru seniority, not by a labor agreement, but by proving yourself worthy of promotion.

At best, you should wind up earning maybe 10% more than the people you supervise. Not exactly Arpey pay, but a reasonable premium for the responsibility you're supposed to take on as a manager.

Factor in some of the stuff you lose (e.g. overtime, holiday pay, license premiums), and even with the 7-9% you could wind up earning less than the guys under you.

I know, that probably means kissing ass to you, but get outside of M&E, and there's a lot less of that BS.

 

[Buck]

Eric,

You are very funny.....

I have not seen you post here, except with a serious tone. Thanks for making me laugh.

I am in the union, my seniority is exactly that, my seniority. I cannot do any more except to be recognized under that program and that will get me maybe $50 at Target.