Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




aerospacepilot
11-03-2007, 09:10 AM
I wanted to post some recent financial results from the United States largest 7 airlines.

(These numbers are in MILLIONS of dollars. They represent Net Income, not those crazy $23 billion dollar paper profits from exiting bankruptcy)

AA UAL DAL CAL NWA USAIR SOUTHWEST
2Q06 291 119 175 198 179 305 333
3Q06 15 190 52 237 252 -78 48
4Q06 17 -61 -179 -26 -267 12 57

NET06 231 -58 -308 343 35 303 499

1Q07 81 -152 -6 22 -292 66 93
2Q07 317 274 274 278 273 263 278
3Q07 175 334 220 241 244 177 162


Combined over the past 6 quarters (1.5 years), these 7 airlines have made a combined 5.19 BILLION dollars.
That means each airline is average close to $500 Million dollars a year.

Your airline can afford it!


Tinpusher007
11-03-2007, 09:12 AM
They can't afford a raise for us AND their million dollar bonuses! See, they weren't lying.

newKnow
11-03-2007, 09:35 AM
If they can make proffits with oil at $95 a barrel they could have afforded our pay rates of 5 years ago. They do what they want to do and we just "dance on a string held by the bigshots."


NGINEWHOISWHAT
11-03-2007, 10:35 AM
If they can make proffits with oil at $95 a barrel they could have afforded our pay rates of 5 years ago. They do what they want to do and we just "dance on a string held by the bigshots."

It's going to be interesting negotiations when the sabre rattling with Iran stops and the pen-striped suits of Wall St. lose their glutes on oil futures.It's important for SWA to hold the line, and for the rest of us to, "take it back." I'm not trying to kill the golden goose, but get back SOME of what we lost. I too agree that if an airline has repetitive 200M quarters at 80+ oil, then at 60-70 oil, net profits should exceed a billion easily. The question is can we get the futures trading under control? I know there are a million other geographical and geopolitical reasons for high oil, but as far as I'm concerned the futures traders are the biggest culprit.Tom

HercDriver130
11-03-2007, 12:16 PM
Futures traders are a BIG reason oil is at the price it is.... pure speculation..... i hope they fall on their ass.

sully606
11-03-2007, 01:34 PM
If they can make proffits with oil at $95 a barrel they could have afforded our pay rates of 5 years ago. They do what they want to do and we just "dance on a string held by the bigshots."

I think that most airlines are hedged well below $95 at this time.

FlyByCable
11-03-2007, 03:45 PM
I wanted to post some recent financial results from the United States largest 7 airlines.

(These numbers are in MILLIONS of dollars. They represent Net Income, not those crazy $23 billion dollar paper profits from exiting bankruptcy)

AA UAL DAL CAL NWA USAIR SOUTHWEST
2Q06 291 119 175 198 179 305 333
3Q06 15 190 52 237 252 -78 48
4Q06 17 -61 -179 -26 -267 12 57

NET06 231 -58 -308 343 35 303 499

1Q07 81 -152 -6 22 -292 66 93
2Q07 317 274 274 278 273 263 278
3Q07 175 334 220 241 244 177 162
Combined over the past 6 quarters (1.5 years), these 7 airlines have made a combined 5.19 BILLION dollars.
That means each airline is average close to $500 Million dollars a year.

Your airline can afford it!



That's great, but UPS made almost that much last year alone.

NoWake200
11-03-2007, 04:26 PM
That's great, but UPS made almost that much last year alone.

And God knows.........they use FUEL!!! :p

ryane946
11-03-2007, 09:12 PM
That's great, but UPS made almost that much last year alone.

First off what's your point? We all know that UPS is making money.

Your right. And their pay rates are still well below many legacy carriers in 2000. That's the only unfortunate thing.

newKnow
11-03-2007, 09:47 PM
I think that most airlines are hedged well below $95 at this time.

Yes, they are hedged below $95. But when oil was approaching $70 a barrell and we were making pre bankrupcy wages, the airlines were crying bloody murder about the cost of fuel. I hear no such cries now. Just something to make you wonder....

JoeyMeatballs
11-04-2007, 04:53 AM
Yes, they are hedged below $95. But when oil was approaching $70 a barrell and we were making pre bankrupcy wages, the airlines were crying bloody murder about the cost of fuel. I hear no such cries now. Just something to make you wonder....

Well, its time to get involved with the unions and take a stand............ The reason why our wages are so low, is because we all (majority) approved it..... Management is going to do to us what we allow them............ I hope the CAL guys stick their pathetic contract down Larry's throat........... If anything is going to keep us down, it will be an apathetic pilot group, its time to stand up to management, and it couldn't be a better time..................

newKnow
11-04-2007, 06:20 PM
Well, its time to get involved with the unions and take a stand............ The reason why our wages are so low, is because we all (majority) approved it..... Management is going to do to us what we allow them............ I hope the CAL guys stick their pathetic contract down Larry's throat........... If anything is going to keep us down, it will be an apathetic pilot group, its time to stand up to management, and it couldn't be a better time..................

You are exactly right. Let's gather our gonads and kick butt. No more zero sum agreements. We want net gains. We deserve it, but only if we take it. Personally, I'm tired of looking at the flight attendants with envious eyes. ("Wow, you ladies and guys got a majority together to vote 'no'") Hopefully, someday we will find a pilot group that will do the same.....

ewrbasedpilot
11-05-2007, 03:43 AM
........ Personally, I'm tired of looking at the flight attendants with envious eyes. ("Wow, you ladies and guys got a majority together to vote 'no'") Hopefully, someday we will find a pilot group that will do the same.....

Envious eyes? You gotta be kidding. Maybe you should go be a flight attendant........:rolleyes:

JungleBus
11-05-2007, 04:38 AM
You know what he meant. We may not want to be FAs, truck drivers, etc - but we should absolutely emulate any labor group that is unified and focused on bettering their pay & working conditions...

JoeyMeatballs
11-05-2007, 04:46 AM
You know what he meant. We may not want to be FAs, truck drivers, etc - but we should absolutely emulate any labor group that is unified and focused on bettering their pay & working conditions...

Thats why we need to get rid of the apathy thats been going on and get involved with the unions and start educating people

Eric Stratton
11-05-2007, 05:03 AM
Well, its time to get involved with the unions and take a stand............ The reason why our wages are so low, is because we all (majority) approved it..... Management is going to do to us what we allow them............ I hope the CAL guys stick their pathetic contract down Larry's throat........... If anything is going to keep us down, it will be an apathetic pilot group, its time to stand up to management, and it couldn't be a better time..................

like LCC's who don't think they deserve raises because they fly for a LCC...

ewrbasedpilot
11-05-2007, 05:29 AM
You know what he meant. We may not want to be FAs, truck drivers, etc - but we should absolutely emulate any labor group that is unified and focused on bettering their pay & working conditions...

I know EXACTLY what he meant, but unfortunately we have a LOT of pilots banging the drum, screaming bloody murder, and then voting for the anti-labor candidates that blame labor for all the woes of the industry, and see nothing wrong with the CEO's and oil companies walking away with it all. Hard to get better pay and working conditions when so many vote against the people trying to get it for you.:(

OscartheGrouch
11-05-2007, 05:56 AM
like LCC's who don't think they deserve raises because they fly for a LCC...

Since you have it all figured out, please enlighten us. Just exactly what is a LCC now days anyway? Is it post bankruptcy carriers? Is it USair who uses LCC on the NYSE? Is it so called "legacy" carriers with pay levels that they agreed to? If your company management has been dishonest with you than hold them accountable. Pay raises are justified when the company and the unions agree on a contract each can live with. So which is it? Ask yourself if you have a contract with benefits that you can live with. If the answer is "no" then get to work. Competition will always be there. Please quit pointing to other airlines and justifying or blaming your position in the market place on them.:rolleyes:

Eric Stratton
11-05-2007, 06:46 AM
Hey Einstein! Just exactly what is a LCC now days anyway? Is it post bankruptcy carriers? Is it USair who uses LCC on the NYSE? Is it so called "legacy" carriers with pay levels that they agreed to? If your company management has been dishonest with you than hold them accountable. Pay raises are justified when the company and the unions agree on a contract each can live with. So which is it? Ask yourself if you have a contract with benefits that you can live with. If the answer is "no" then get to work. Competition will always be there. Please quit pointing to other airlines and justifying or blaming your position in the market place on them.:rolleyes:

Exactly where do you think the legacy payscales fell to...just around LCC wages. The legacies in the past always tried to keep the wages going forward. Kind of like playing leap frog. What have the LCC's giving us in regards to a better contract. Let me answer that for you...it's nothing that I have ever heard of and for a fact it isn't pay. Southwest leading the pack is by default. I am waiting to see what southwest will do now that they have the lead vs. playing follow the leader. I read one guy say that it takes time to bring the wages up and his carrier has been around for 30 years. that's not a start up anymore. If you don't think that other airlines payrates help or hurt negotiations that's extremely naive. I'm sure southwest, airtran, jetbue, spirit and other LCC management will never bring up how the legacies have lowered their employee cost during negotiations. :rolleyes:

NGINEWHOISWHAT
11-05-2007, 07:12 AM
we have a LOT of pilots banging the drum, screaming bloody murder, and then voting for the anti-labor candidates that blame labor for all the woes of the industry, and see nothing wrong with the CEO's and oil companies walking away with it all. Hard to get better pay and working conditions when so many vote against the people trying to get it for you.:(


WELL said.

Tom

FliFast
11-06-2007, 06:12 AM
First off what's your point? We all know that UPS is making money.

Your right. And their pay rates are still well below many legacy carriers in 2000. That's the only unfortunate thing.


Nothing like throwing a hand gernade at the Brown guys.

If you can find the legacy payrates for 2000, I would be curious how they stack up to Big Brown.

Thanks in advance,

FF

Nashmd11
11-06-2007, 08:44 AM
Nothing like throwing a hand gernade at the Brown guys.

If you can find the legacy payrates for 2000, I would be curious how they stack up to Big Brown.

Thanks in advance,

FF

They were much higher than we have now. I hope you knew that, or is this why the Contract passed. The rates for a narrow body at UAL and DL were around $265, wide body went up to $318 an hour. Puts are 2007 $223/hr to shame.

Nashmd11
11-06-2007, 08:46 AM
First off what's your point? We all know that UPS is making money.

Your right. And their pay rates are still well below many legacy carriers in 2000. That's the only unfortunate thing.

So True. We screwed up. COLA raise only.

ryane946
11-06-2007, 09:12 AM
Nothing like throwing a hand gernade at the Brown guys.
I did not mean to put down UPS. I know they are one of the best airlines the work for. I just was a little upset with whoever made the comment about "Well UPS made that much money last year... what's your point?"

These legacy pilots who believe their carriers cannot afford pre 9/11 contracts need to see that their carriers are turning profits. They are making hundreds of millions of dollars a year, and that is with record high fuel prices. I didn't like how someone from UPS coming in and making a comment to put down the rest of the airline industry. We all know your airline is making lots of money. Good for you guys. Now come next contract for FedEx and UPS (once the legacy carriers have negotiated much improved contracts), you guys have an opportunity to set the record for a contract. I just wanted to remind you that you are not there...yet.

So True. We screwed up. COLA raise only.

I think you guys negotiated a good contract given the circumstances (all other carriers below your rates before negotiation). However, you did set the bar higher. I believe that once the legacies get their paycuts back, you guys (FedEx and UPS) will be able to set the "ultimate" bar for the industry.


Hey, 1000th post!

NGINEWHOISWHAT
11-06-2007, 10:08 AM
Hey, 1000th post!

1000th, post eh? Officer Smith will be by to see you shortly! Congrats.

:)

Tom

1142

boilerpilot
11-06-2007, 11:20 AM
Exactly where do you think the legacy payscales fell to...just around LCC wages. The legacies in the past always tried to keep the wages going forward. Kind of like playing leap frog. What have the LCC's giving us in regards to a better contract. Let me answer that for you...it's nothing that I have ever heard of and for a fact it isn't pay. Southwest leading the pack is by default. I am waiting to see what southwest will do now that they have the lead vs. playing follow the leader. I read one guy say that it takes time to bring the wages up and his carrier has been around for 30 years. that's not a start up anymore. If you don't think that other airlines payrates help or hurt negotiations that's extremely naive. I'm sure southwest, airtran, jetbue, spirit and other LCC management will never bring up how the legacies have lowered their employee cost during negotiations. :rolleyes:

Hmmm. I'll probably get in trouble if I get into posts like these, though I found it a little amusing to go back through your past posts and see that this comment isn't at all out of line with your norm.

I will throw this ball into your court though: Since you seem to be so adamant about LCCs dragging down pilot salaries, how bout you put your money where your mouth is and cite some data? You know, say, 20 years back, comparing average WN pilot annual pay (not just looking up their hourly pay for that year, but taking into account rules) to average <pick your airline> or <average of all legacies> annual pay? Oh and project that for every year in between. Show that not only does a Legacy pay better, but it pays better on average over 20 years.

Rocco
11-06-2007, 12:43 PM
I did not mean to put down UPS. I know they are one of the best airlines the work for. I just was a little upset with whoever made the comment about "Well UPS made that much money last year... what's your point


If you look at flybycable's posts he/she is usually just trying to stir the pot....

Eric Stratton
11-06-2007, 03:07 PM
Hmmm. I'll probably get in trouble if I get into posts like these, though I found it a little amusing to go back through your past posts and see that this comment isn't at all out of line with your norm.

I will throw this ball into your court though: Since you seem to be so adamant about LCCs dragging down pilot salaries, how bout you put your money where your mouth is and cite some data? You know, say, 20 years back, comparing average WN pilot annual pay (not just looking up their hourly pay for that year, but taking into account rules) to average <pick your airline> or <average of all legacies> annual pay? Oh and project that for every year in between. Show that not only does a Legacy pay better, but it pays better on average over 20 years.

why would you get into trouble by responding? I don't have the info that I had back in 1992 when I was comparing southwest vs the majors. I'm not that big of a pack rat. My buddy thought about going and the only positive thing he could come up with at the time, was that it was a quicker upgrade. Kind of like today with jetblue, airtran, virgin.

If you are saying that the LCC's don't have an impact on the majors I find that quit interesting. just name me one LCC that has ever raised the bar. I'm betting you can't. show me what good they have done for the industry.

FliFast
11-06-2007, 03:24 PM
They were much higher than we have now. I hope you knew that, or is this why the Contract passed.

Hi Nash,

I may have misunderstood your response, but what I thought you meant was, that me, not remembering the payrates 7 1/2 years ago was the reason why the UPS pilot contract passed in 2006. In addition, that UPS pilots are making less now than their counterparts did in 2000.

In 2000, I was a 767 F/O at TWA on 5th year pay making far less than the $125/hr or so that a 5th year UPS F/O makes on any equipment. In years 2001-2002, I was on the American Airlines pay scales as a 6th/7th year 767 Intl F/O making approx $124/hr, again slightly less than what a 6th/7th year UPS F/O makes.

If memorey serves me correct, Delta, United and USAir had the top three W-2 contracts on or around 2000 with some of their payrates/hr. greater than those at UPS. Being a TWA/American Airlines employee during 2000-2003, I can tell you their rates were less than UPS' rates of today. I wasn't sure about the rest NWA, CAL, SWA etc, that's why I asked if anyone could post them.

Nash, I always enjoy your posts. They're well-thought and informative. It puzzles me to think that you are inferring that I voted for the UPS pilot contract of 2006 when I was hired in Feb 2007. A cheap shot by you, which was rather unexpected.

Tailwinds,

FF

FliFast
11-06-2007, 04:04 PM
I did not mean to put down UPS. I know they are one of the best airlines the work for. I just was a little upset with whoever made the comment about "Well UPS made that much money last year... what's your point?"

Hey, 1000th post!

Ryanne,

The UPS person that posted that comment usually posts inflammatory remarks to "stir the pot". Hopefully, his remarks won't be viewed as representative of the UPS pilot group, because they aren't.

In my opinion your post is well-intentioned. Airlines can afford pay raises to the employee groups that had to shoulder the rebuilding of the airline industry the last 5-6 years. I have been unemployed twice, so I'm familiar with "the shouldering", whilst I watch CEOs drink champagne and send their kids to Switzerland for bon bons.

I would take you to task that the current UPS pay rates are <in your words> still well below most legacy carriers in 2000. However, it's not worth the rock-throwing or ankle-biting. I understand your point.

I look forward to your response, and hopefully brighter futures for the working groups of aviation are ahead.

Regards,

Flifast

ps. 100th post..well done...looking forward to the next 1000.

OscartheGrouch
11-07-2007, 06:24 AM
Exactly where do you think the legacy payscales fell to...just around LCC wages. The legacies in the past always tried to keep the wages going forward. Kind of like playing leap frog. What have the LCC's giving us in regards to a better contract. Let me answer that for you...it's nothing that I have ever heard of and for a fact it isn't pay. Southwest leading the pack is by default. I am waiting to see what southwest will do now that they have the lead vs. playing follow the leader. I read one guy say that it takes time to bring the wages up and his carrier has been around for 30 years. that's not a start up anymore. If you don't think that other airlines payrates help or hurt negotiations that's extremely naive. I'm sure southwest, airtran, jetbue, spirit and other LCC management will never bring up how the legacies have lowered their employee cost during negotiations. :rolleyes:

Ryan,

I waited a little while to reply because I do have a life other than joining the 1000 post club. Congratulations though anyway.

Talk about naive? If you think for one minute I and many of my fellow pilots at SWA are trying to raise the bar for those at another airline you should get a urinanalysis. Fact is our wages have gone up gradually year after year because the revenue and our worth (productivity) is of value to this airline. Taking two steps forward and then one, two, maybe three backwards is not a game of leap frog. It is a waste of time and frustrating for everyone concerned (customers, fellow employees, recent furloughees, etc.) Slow and steady keeps the blood pressure down.

I really wish one of the pilot's at a so called "legacy" would please address the issue of competition. Do you think you live in a bubble where everything is gonna work out in your favor? Adjust to the LCC's or again beg for subsidization in bankruptcy court. SWA has adjustments to make in the current environment or we too may find our debt to asset ratio as pathetic as much of our competition.:eek:

iahflyr
11-09-2007, 08:59 AM
American, US Air, and Southwest are currently in contract negotiations.

Continental becomes amendable December 2008
United becomes amendable December 2009
Delta becomes amendable January 2010
Northwest becomes amendable December 2011 :eek::eek:

Don't settle for a subpar contract. These airlines are making hundreds of millions of dollars every quarter.

ewrbasedpilot
11-09-2007, 10:52 AM
..................... really wish one of the pilot's at a so called "legacy" would please address the issue of competition. Do you think you live in a bubble where everything is gonna work out in your favor? Adjust to the LCC's or again beg for subsidization in bankruptcy court. SWA has adjustments to make in the current environment or we too may find our debt to asset ratio as pathetic as much of our competition.:eek:

Just remember what goes around comes around. SWA's turn in the barrel is coming............. BTW, what's up with your crappy stock price???????? Your stock has been dead in the water for a couple of years already. At least the legacies have some stock value out there, unlike SWA!!! :eek:

JMT21
11-09-2007, 11:49 AM
Ryan,

I waited a little while to reply because I do have a life other than joining the 1000 post club. Congratulations though anyway.

Talk about naive? If you think for one minute I and many of my fellow pilots at SWA are trying to raise the bar for those at another airline you should get a urinanalysis. Fact is our wages have gone up gradually year after year because the revenue and our worth (productivity) is of value to this airline. Taking two steps forward and then one, two, maybe three backwards is not a game of leap frog. It is a waste of time and frustrating for everyone concerned (customers, fellow employees, recent furloughees, etc.) Slow and steady keeps the blood pressure down.

I really wish one of the pilot's at a so called "legacy" would please address the issue of competition. Do you think you live in a bubble where everything is gonna work out in your favor? Adjust to the LCC's or again beg for subsidization in bankruptcy court. SWA has adjustments to make in the current environment or we too may find our debt to asset ratio as pathetic as much of our competition.:eek:

One of the most down to earth posts I've read in awhile.

Just remember what goes around comes around. SWA's turn in the barrel is coming............. BTW, what's up with your crappy stock price???????? Your stock has been dead in the water for a couple of years already. At least the legacies have some stock value out there, unlike SWA!!! :eek:

The airline sector as a whole is down nearly 30% in the past month. SWA continues to be one of the more expensive stocks out there.

ewrbasedpilot
11-09-2007, 02:51 PM
.....................

The airline sector as a whole is down nearly 30% in the past month. SWA continues to be one of the more expensive stocks out there.

Better check the stock prices again. SWA is one of the lowest right now.

Today's closing prices:

LUV $13.23
DAL $16.50
AMR $20.42
CAL $27.78
UAL $40.31
NWA $16.37

grumman
11-09-2007, 05:42 PM
Just remember what goes around comes around. SWA's turn in the barrel is coming............. BTW, what's up with your crappy stock price???????? Your stock has been dead in the water for a couple of years already. At least the legacies have some stock value out there, unlike SWA!!! :eek:

I'm guessing you're CAL. Attached is 6 month comparison. Not much "stock value" lately there either. I bet the 10% at DAL who passed on the BK claim sale and took the stock instead aren't too excited about their stock value either. Entire sector is crappy, not just LUV.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=6m&s=CAL&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=luv

NGINEWHOISWHAT
11-09-2007, 06:11 PM
Better check the stock prices again. SWA is one of the lowest right now.

Today's closing prices:

LUV $13.23
DAL $16.50
AMR $20.42
CAL $27.78
UAL $40.31
NWA $16.37

SWA stock is fine. They have a much higher market cap and total shares outstanding than any legacy. I'm not a MBA so my math could be off. Also, there are fewer fluctuations to LUV's price than most legacies.

Tom

JMT21
11-10-2007, 07:36 AM
Better check the stock prices again. SWA is one of the lowest right now.

Today's closing prices:

LUV $13.23
DAL $16.50
AMR $20.42
CAL $27.78
UAL $40.31
NWA $16.37

Trading prices tell you little. The Price/Earnings (P/E) ratio is the best measure of whether a stock is "expensive" or "cheap."

P/E ratios:
LUV 17.64
AMR 9.74
CAL 6.57
JBLU 32.85
Industry 16.47

OscartheGrouch
11-11-2007, 03:48 PM
Better check the stock prices again. SWA is one of the lowest right now.

Today's closing prices:

LUV $13.23
DAL $16.50
AMR $20.42
CAL $27.78
UAL $40.31
NWA $16.37

Ewr,

Once again I see you have posted with misinformation. Based on the last few posts do you get it or do I have to accuse you of being a flight attendant? Please go back in history and figure out what CAL's stock price should be. I know it will be difficult because of the two bankruptcies but you seem bright so please enlighten us.:rolleyes:

Please don't feel too bad because I made the mistake of indentifying Ryan946 but giving Eric Stratton the grief. Must be my rapidly approaching dimensia associtated with the age 60 rule.

ewrbasedpilot
11-12-2007, 04:11 AM
Ewr,

Once again I see you have posted with misinformation. Based on the last few posts do you get it or do I have to accuse you of being a flight attendant? Please go back in history and figure out what CAL's stock price should be. I know it will be difficult because of the two bankruptcies but you seem bright so please enlighten us.:rolleyes:

Please don't feel too bad because I made the mistake of indentifying Ryan946 but giving Eric Stratton the grief. Must be my rapidly approaching dimensia associtated with the age 60 rule.

Posted with misinformation? Gee, I guess the quotes were wrong then right? Oh, I'm sorry, your statement " SWA continues to be one of the more expensive stocks out there" doesn't leave any room for "interpretation" and means that a person has to go review an airlines stock history to come to the same conclusion that you did. Sorry, my bad. I guess my masters and bachelors in business didn't pay off. I was in the military during CAL's BK's, so please don't lay that happy horsehockey on me. You're right though...........the age 60 retirement can't come too soon for some of you.:eek: (And I believe it's dEmenTia and associAted, since you're so smart, but I know flight attendants that actually spell better than you, so I'll refrain from degrading them. :rolleyes:

ewrbasedpilot
11-12-2007, 04:22 AM
Trading prices tell you little. The Price/Earnings (P/E) ratio is the best measure of whether a stock is "expensive" or "cheap."

..............

You're right. LUV is very expensive relative to their earnings, and not a stock to make money on. It's been idle for the past few years. Kinda like putting your money in the bank and being happy with a 3% return, while the gamblers are out investing in other companies and making 20 or 30% on their money. Sure it's safe, but then again, so is putting your money under your mattress or in a safe deposit box. The pilot millionaires at SWA aren't being made like they used to.

OscartheGrouch
11-12-2007, 05:26 AM
Posted with misinformation? Gee, I guess the quotes were wrong then right? Oh, I'm sorry, your statement " SWA continues to be one of the more expensive stocks out there" doesn't leave any room for "interpretation" and means that a person has to go review an airlines stock history to come to the same conclusion that you did. Sorry, my bad. I guess my masters and bachelors in business didn't pay off. I was in the military during CAL's BK's, so please don't lay that happy horsehockey on me. You're right though...........the age 60 retirement can't come too soon for some of you.:eek: (And I believe it's dEmenTia and associAted, since you're so smart, but I know flight attendants that actually spell better than you, so I'll refrain from degrading them. :rolleyes:

Once again I am slammed for spelling and the message is completely disregarded. Here is my excuse. My current contact prescription is brand new and without reading glasses (and time limited) I am at the peril of the spelling police. Just like I have with some of the other SWA haters on this site I will make sure I take the time to go back and (get my glasses) spell check my replies.

Please don't let my grammar keep you from answering one question. If NO airline had been subsidized by grants, loans, or BK after 9-11 how do you think the remaining airlines stock would have performed? I have my theories but I would like to hear from you and your compadres. Oh! Please answer another question. Since you are so highly educated how many of the fine aircraft that CAL has do they own? Surely you did case studies on what happened in the airline industry back in the 80's and are familiar with the credit ratings that resulted from leveraging? It doesn't matter if you were around for CAL's BK's they did in fact effect the current stock prices of all airlines (and Eastern, Pan Am, etc.)

Also it wasn't my "statement" that your mentioned in your post but I won't argue with it. I will have to say that it is on the level of elementary school to take one days stock price (yes,a misrepresentation) and prove that SWA is doomed. As mentioned by some of the other folks on this thread you should look at P/E, market capitalization, etc. These factors determine your ability to borrow money, but somehow money keeps getting thrown at poor business models. Must be all that glamour you keep talking about.

I am not the best at spelling and will admit there might be a few FA's who are better. At my age (48) I will be around a little while to improve my grammar skills and to bother those who misrepresent the facts.:cool:

Please answer one of my questions.

ewrbasedpilot
11-12-2007, 06:46 AM
.............. If NO airline had been subsidized by grants, loans, or BK after 9-11 how do you think the remaining airlines stock would have performed? ..............

I really have no idea, but since our country has been run by complete idiots since 2000, I'm sure it would have been bad. SWA wasn't affected on 9-11 like the majors were. We had airplanes stuck all over the WORLD, not just in the USA. Our passengers were put in hotels at OUR expense. SWA didn't have passengers that were "stuck" in another country. (See, this is the different business model you have). When you have a B777 stuck in Iceland, or Bermuda and have to pay upwards of $275 a night for a room for 277 people for a week, it gets rather expensive and drains the accounts really fast. When your government is run by idiots who shut down an airport for 2 or 3 months like DCA and it's your hub, what do you think the result is? USAirways had NO ability to make the gov't open their "hub". Who's fault was that? USAirways? I don't think so. So to answer your question, I have no idea what the stock price would be, but if SWA's stock is such a hot commodity, why hasn't it performed? I have many friends at SWA and think it's a great airline, but like many airlines in the past, it will have it's day in the sun, and its days as a deer in the headlights. Pan Am was thought to be bulletproof too, but look what happened to it. Times change................ Sorry for the "statement" post, I goofed on that one.

Eric Stratton
11-12-2007, 07:38 AM
Ryan,

I waited a little while to reply because I do have a life other than joining the 1000 post club. Congratulations though anyway.

Talk about naive? If you think for one minute I and many of my fellow pilots at SWA are trying to raise the bar for those at another airline you should get a urinanalysis. Fact is our wages have gone up gradually year after year because the revenue and our worth (productivity) is of value to this airline. Taking two steps forward and then one, two, maybe three backwards is not a game of leap frog. It is a waste of time and frustrating for everyone concerned (customers, fellow employees, recent furloughees, etc.) Slow and steady keeps the blood pressure down.

I really wish one of the pilot's at a so called "legacy" would please address the issue of competition. Do you think you live in a bubble where everything is gonna work out in your favor? Adjust to the LCC's or again beg for subsidization in bankruptcy court. SWA has adjustments to make in the current environment or we too may find our debt to asset ratio as pathetic as much of our competition.:eek:

I think that was the point to my posts on how the LCC haven't helped any causes at the majors (maybe a better word should be industry) only brought them down. the majors had always tried to raise the bar while the LCC's have always tried to under cut the majors and one of those ways is pay. southwest has always been below as is airtran, jetblue and now virgin.

the majors have adjusted to the LCC pay. They've lower the costs down to the LCC level and are addressing that competition rather than ignoring them like they have in the past.

Eric Stratton
11-12-2007, 07:46 AM
I really have no idea, but since our country has been run by complete idiots since 2000, I'm sure it would have been bad. SWA wasn't affected on 9-11 like the majors were. We had airplanes stuck all over the WORLD, not just in the USA. Our passengers were put in hotels at OUR expense. SWA didn't have passengers that were "stuck" in another country. (See, this is the different business model you have). When you have a B777 stuck in Iceland, or Bermuda and have to pay upwards of $275 a night for a room for 277 people for a week, it gets rather expensive and drains the accounts really fast. When your government is run by idiots who shut down an airport for 2 or 3 months like DCA and it's your hub, what do you think the result is? USAirways had NO ability to make the gov't open their "hub". Who's fault was that? USAirways? I don't think so. So to answer your question, I have no idea what the stock price would be, but if SWA's stock is such a hot commodity, why hasn't it performed? I have many friends at SWA and think it's a great airline, but like many airlines in the past, it will have it's day in the sun, and its days as a deer in the headlights. Pan Am was thought to be bulletproof too, but look what happened to it. Times change................ Sorry for the "statement" post, I goofed on that one.

southwest is no different than CAL or any other major. They both are in the business of transporting people from one place to the other. just because some of those places happen to be different doesn't make them different. cargo and people are different but not people and people.

Skyone
11-12-2007, 08:29 AM
southwest is no different than CAL or any other major. They both are in the business of transporting people from one place to the other. just because some of those places happen to be different doesn't make them different. cargo and people are different but not people and people.

You are absolutely right. Transporting people on an RJ is exactly the same as transporting people internationally with all of the attendant costs associatiated with it. Let's see, how did SARS affect SWA? How has internatational "events" affected SWA compared to overseas legacies? As I have said before, every airline gets its decade. Right now its SWA's decade. Can they make it last? Fuel hedging might have something to say about that. There is a darling airline or two for every decade.

Eric Stratton
11-12-2007, 09:45 AM
You are absolutely right. Transporting people on an RJ is exactly the same as transporting people internationally with all of the attendant costs associatiated with it. Let's see, how did SARS affect SWA? How has internatational "events" affected SWA compared to overseas legacies? As I have said before, every airline gets its decade. Right now its SWA's decade. Can they make it last? Fuel hedging might have something to say about that. There is a darling airline or two for every decade.

I'm assuming you have the sarcasm button pressed. so how would a 757 from new york to LA differ from a 757 from new york to dublin. aren't they doing the same thing. same size about the same distance just different destinations. how about 2 rj's flying the same route as a southwest 737. how is there any difference in that. both flying people just in different planes.

skywatch
11-12-2007, 10:48 AM
I really have no idea, but since our country has been run by complete idiots since 2000, I'm sure it would have been bad. SWA wasn't affected on 9-11 like the majors were. We had airplanes stuck all over the WORLD, not just in the USA. Our passengers were put in hotels at OUR expense. SWA didn't have passengers that were "stuck" in another country. (See, this is the different business model you have). When you have a B777 stuck in Iceland, or Bermuda and have to pay upwards of $275 a night for a room for 277 people for a week, it gets rather expensive and drains the accounts really fast. When your government is run by idiots who shut down an airport for 2 or 3 months like DCA and it's your hub, what do you think the result is? USAirways had NO ability to make the gov't open their "hub". Who's fault was that? USAirways? I don't think so. So to answer your question, I have no idea what the stock price would be, but if SWA's stock is such a hot commodity, why hasn't it performed? I have many friends at SWA and think it's a great airline, but like many airlines in the past, it will have it's day in the sun, and its days as a deer in the headlights. Pan Am was thought to be bulletproof too, but look what happened to it. Times change................ Sorry for the "statement" post, I goofed on that one.

Man, this is great....I had no idea the downfall of the modern legacy airline can be traced back to expensive hotel rooms...this is genius. Forget refineries or better MPG - we need MORE HOLIDAY INN's!!!!

Wedge Buster
11-12-2007, 10:57 AM
I had the opportunity to speak with an old Clipper pilot not so long ago. I was [not]surprised to learn that Pan Am paid its pilots around $50,000 in 1960. Fast forward to 2007 and may pilots are still making the same amount of money (many make less). Unfortunately $50,000 1960 = over $330,000 today.

I know its been said before butÖ that sucks!

It must have seemed unfathomable to pilots back then that in the future the fortune and glamour of being an airline pilot would have deteriorated to this point. Today regional FOís sleep two or more to a room with their mattresses lying directly on the floor because they canít afford box sprigs.

I feel like we can make a change in the industry if we are united in our goals and support each other. Can we please work together to bring respect and livable wages back to this industry?

Sorry about the ranting and sorry about the poor grammar and punctuation, I just feel like venting.

N0315
11-12-2007, 12:59 PM
I firmly belive this is what happens when people do a job for the love of it. People are still wanting to become professional pilots, reguardless of cost and pay becuase it is the best job in the world minus the pay. Strong union leadership will solve the problem I hope. I know I can't wait until I am a member of the ALPA, etc.

ClipperJet
11-12-2007, 07:11 PM
To be fair, How large was the industry back in 1960s? How does that compare to today? If there are way more airliners and airline pilots per capita today than in the 1960s, then it make since that would pay would be less. Anybody know the real numbers?

Best I can figure (based on Panam.org, a cool site BTW), Pan Am had about 200 707s, a couple dozen DC-8s and a few DC6s.

seaav8tor
11-12-2007, 09:36 PM
Today regional FO’s sleep two or more to a room with their mattresses lying directly on the floor because they can’t afford box sprigs.


You guys got mattresses? That's great! I guess the industry is getting better.

(This account picks up at 31 yrs of age, had been flying since 17, now living the dream as an airline pilot! )

I slept in the back of a pickup in a camper shell in the BOI employee lot for 10 months, through the winter, with no heat! I went to the local fast food joint; it was pretty new had a big bathroom, I could lock the door wash up, wash my hair, and blow dry with one of those on the wall dryers; the outlet would swing 360 deg! I got a funny look a couple times because I never bought anything.

Chief Pliot cornered me one day and said I could not live in the employee lot anymore. I said fine, I'll sleep in the terminal, in uniform. He said that would cast the airline in an unfavorable light. I didn't understand how it could be any worse than buying food with food stamps while in full uniform ( including hat ) I told him I had no where else to go. The $ 230.00 weekly take home pay the company so generously provided was not cutting it with a wife and two small kids living large 450 miles away in the mobile home. ( That was $ 230 in 92... would need $ 342 net / week today to match w/cpi adjst )

My point is this..... the career was taking a nose dive long before 9/11. It has been on a long term slide for 30 years! Dot com bust of 2000, 9/11 both just kicked the slide into high gear. It wasn't clear to me in 92 what was going on.... I thought for decades..... oh, it's cyclical.... it'll come back. Time has a way of changing your perspective.

Pilot shortage...... never has been one, never will be one; because prostitutes are willing to sleep on the street ( or the back of the pickup or on the mattress on the floor ). So I apologize to my fellow aviators. I took the job and perpetuated the problem. At the time I didn't understand, now I do. This behavior and the organized efforts of airline managements ( ATA, AIRCON ) have left the pilots in the position they stand today.

http://aircon.org/

newKnow
11-12-2007, 10:53 PM
Ryan,

I waited a little while to reply because I do have a life other than joining the 1000 post club. Congratulations though anyway.

Talk about naive? If you think for one minute I and many of my fellow pilots at SWA are trying to raise the bar for those at another airline you should get a urinanalysis. Fact is our wages have gone up gradually year after year because the revenue and our worth (productivity) is of value to this airline. Taking two steps forward and then one, two, maybe three backwards is not a game of leap frog. It is a waste of time and frustrating for everyone concerned (customers, fellow employees, recent furloughees, etc.) Slow and steady keeps the blood pressure down.

I really wish one of the pilot's at a so called "legacy" would please address the issue of competition. Do you think you live in a bubble where everything is gonna work out in your favor? Adjust to the LCC's or again beg for subsidization in bankruptcy court. SWA has adjustments to make in the current environment or we too may find our debt to asset ratio as pathetic as much of our competition.:eek:


So Oscar,

(Assuming this is pre 9/11 and the Legacy carriers made more than the LCC's) If we adjusted to the LCC's then does that mean that you would in turn adjust downward as well? Your scenerio is just creating a race to the bottom. The competition you are creating will lead this profession to the bread line.

What issue of competition do you want addressed?

I take issue with your statement that "we" need to adjust to LCC's or "again beg for subsidization in bankruptcy court." The legacy carriers did not wind up in bankrupcy because pilots did not adjust to the LCC pay rates. They wound up in bankrupcy for a number of reasons that the employees had nothing to do with, including; poor management, insufficient fuel hedges, and for lack of percise term, because they wanted to. (NWA "found" $300 million two months after they declared bankrupcy)

As for your statement about the bubble; I think that we are all in the same bubble because we do the same job. I am not out to compete against you or any other pilot group. It seems like you are though. That's exactly what these corporations want. That's what really increases their debt to asset ratio, and you're right, it's pathetic..... :cool:

newKnow

OscartheGrouch
11-13-2007, 01:09 PM
So Oscar,

(Assuming this is pre 9/11 and the Legacy carriers made more than the LCC's) If we adjusted to the LCC's then does that mean that you would in turn adjust downward as well? Your scenerio is just creating a race to the bottom. The competition you are creating will lead this profession to the bread line.

What issue of competition do you want addressed?

I take issue with your statement that "we" need to adjust to LCC's or "again beg for subsidization in bankruptcy court." The legacy carriers did not wind up in bankrupcy because pilots did not adjust to the LCC pay rates. They wound up in bankrupcy for a number of reasons that the employees had nothing to do with, including; poor management, insufficient fuel hedges, and for lack of percise term, because they wanted to. (NWA "found" $300 million two months after they declared bankrupcy)

As for your statement about the bubble; I think that we are all in the same bubble because we do the same job. I am not out to compete against you or any other pilot group. It seems like you are though. That's exactly what these corporations want. That's what really increases their debt to asset ratio, and you're right, it's pathetic..... :cool:

newKnow

nK,

I agree with you about bankruptcy court and the participants. If you think I was attacking pilots I think you should go back and read my post with a different mindset. Management at many of the airlines that wound up in BK are certainly to blame and should be held accountable by the employees who seemed willing to allow mistakes just for the sake of "growth." Leveraged buyouts and then assets being transfered to individuals or other entities was a crime. NWA comes to mind immediately because they had one of the strongest balance sheets in the late 80's and then after Checci and Wilson were through with them they avoided BK by the skin of their teeth.

As I said before I will not apologize for SWA's business model. It has done well (so far) by giving the customer a product at a fair price. Gouging someone just because you can doesn't endear you to your lifeline (customers). When another option comes along they will bolt in droves and never look back. Case in point is MSP. If true competition comes in, NWA will see customers leave just because of the abuse they have endured.

In reference to competing against other pilots I don't think that is what I am doing (just my opinion though). When I chime in here it is to counter misinformation by folks who have forgotten history or wish to belittle others (LCC's and whatever that means anymore). Happy employees who are well compensated should be the goal of management or they will have to deal with those who are disgruntled. For the most part the employees of SWA are doing okay and it would be my wish that it stay that way. If the management of SWA does anything to endanger our future I will lead the way in challenging them.:)

My issue and the main reason for this thread originally ( I believe) was to look at the ability of certain airlines to give back to their employees when the profits indicate raises are in order. Whether your individual airline has sufficient revenues to demand raises is something each of us will have to hold our management accountable for.

OscartheGrouch
11-13-2007, 01:38 PM
I really have no idea, but since our country has been run by complete idiots since 2000, I'm sure it would have been bad. SWA wasn't affected on 9-11 like the majors were. We had airplanes stuck all over the WORLD, not just in the USA. Our passengers were put in hotels at OUR expense. SWA didn't have passengers that were "stuck" in another country. (See, this is the different business model you have). When you have a B777 stuck in Iceland, or Bermuda and have to pay upwards of $275 a night for a room for 277 people for a week, it gets rather expensive and drains the accounts really fast. When your government is run by idiots who shut down an airport for 2 or 3 months like DCA and it's your hub, what do you think the result is? USAirways had NO ability to make the gov't open their "hub". Who's fault was that? USAirways? I don't think so. So to answer your question, I have no idea what the stock price would be, but if SWA's stock is such a hot commodity, why hasn't it performed? I have many friends at SWA and think it's a great airline, but like many airlines in the past, it will have it's day in the sun, and its days as a deer in the headlights. Pan Am was thought to be bulletproof too, but look what happened to it. Times change................ Sorry for the "statement" post, I goofed on that one.

EWR,

Please elaborate on who the idiots are since 2000. Of course any indication that you are going to go political on us will be closely watched by APC monitors (and of course by the CIA). Be afraid, be very afraid (just a joke).

Actually SWA was affected by stranded passengers, aircrew, etc. Of course we probably put everyone up at the Motel 6 with 600 rooms versus Bermuda with 275 rooms. My point was when a business model lives on the edge and leverages the future should it be rescued at expense of the competition? Not having enough money to salvage a catastrophe (like 9-11) is (or shouldn't be) something the taxpayer should ante up for. If a few airlines had failed it would have benefited the industry and would have resulted in fewer airlines filing for BK.

Since you know I am just a Marine I will say it really slowly again. Why would anyone buy a stock (SWA's or any airline's) if you know that inevitably their competition will be subsidized by a government bailout or bankruptcy? I certainly haven't bought SWA stock recently for that very reason. :(

BTW. Just so you know I think the turnaround by CAL has been truly remarkable. You have customers who prefer CAL and like all frequent flyers have a loyalty akin to cult like behavior. I was just amazed to see new aircraft show up after CAL's trips through bankruptcy but they never seemed to have enough money to pay creditors or their employees.

newKnow
11-13-2007, 09:18 PM
nK,

I agree with you about bankruptcy court and the participants. If you think I was attacking pilots I think you should go back and read my post with a different mindset. Management at many of the airlines that wound up in BK are certainly to blame and should be held accountable by the employees who seemed willing to allow mistakes just for the sake of "growth." Leveraged buyouts and then assets being transfered to individuals or other entities was a crime. NWA comes to mind immediately because they had one of the strongest balance sheets in the late 80's and then after Checci and Wilson were through with them they avoided BK by the skin of their teeth.

As I said before I will not apologize for SWA's business model. It has done well (so far) by giving the customer a product at a fair price. Gouging someone just because you can doesn't endear you to your lifeline (customers). When another option comes along they will bolt in droves and never look back. Case in point is MSP. If true competition comes in, NWA will see customers leave just because of the abuse they have endured.

In reference to competing against other pilots I don't think that is what I am doing (just my opinion though). When I chime in here it is to counter misinformation by folks who have forgotten history or wish to belittle others (LCC's and whatever that means anymore). Happy employees who are well compensated should be the goal of management or they will have to deal with those who are disgruntled. For the most part the employees of SWA are doing okay and it would be my wish that it stay that way. If the management of SWA does anything to endanger our future I will lead the way in challenging them.:)

My issue and the main reason for this thread originally ( I believe) was to look at the ability of certain airlines to give back to their employees when the profits indicate raises are in order. Whether your individual airline has sufficient revenues to demand raises is something each of us will have to hold our management accountable for.


Sounds good to me Oscar. :)

XJPILOT1
11-14-2007, 03:59 AM
It's going to be interesting negotiations when the sabre rattling with Iran stops and the pen-striped suits of Wall St. lose their glutes on oil futures.It's important for SWA to hold the line, and for the rest of us to, "take it back." I'm not trying to kill the golden goose, but get back SOME of what we lost. I too agree that if an airline has repetitive 200M quarters at 80+ oil, then at 60-70 oil, net profits should exceed a billion easily. The question is can we get the futures trading under control? I know there are a million other geographical and geopolitical reasons for high oil, but as far as I'm concerned the futures traders are the biggest culprit.Tom

This "IS" the problem with oil. We never run out (for now) yet we pay higher prices 'cause these guys want to make some money off of us. I don't beleive in trading barrels. Oil, as far as I'm concerned, should not be traded like pork bellies and FCOJ!!!

newKnow
11-14-2007, 09:10 AM
The price of gas has tripled in the past 5 years and we just keep paying,,,,