Wide body vs narrow body pay, right?


How does that turn into a north vs south deferential?

This is an interesting point--the generational gap in "what matters" when it comes to compensation.

Several studies out there--seems like the "baby boomers" are generally happy to make as much money as possible, even if it means working more. Later generations seek good money, it's true, but also value other forms of compensation very highly--especially time off.

Those are some broad generalizations, certainly. But suffice to say it's not all about straight cash anymore for many younger guys. ALPA ought to consider these generational differences...but it's pretty unlikely when all the fat cats are baby boomers.

Gszg is attempting to revise a set of events that he had no part of and spin it to be something it is and was not. His premise was incorrect and so his result was incorrect.

It's not a N/S thing, it's a "gszg is wrong" thing. Sorry if it came across that way. 99.9% of the unified pilot group doesn't measure by the size of their pay rates... For some reason gszg feels the need to make arguments that don't work in reality, but he's pretty much batsh!t crazy so it was my mistake to even address any of his rant.

My apologies if any offense was taken.

I've got thick skin. No problems. I was just wondering. :)

I'd have to see how bad the conditions of the salt mines would actually be.

Then again everyone likes salt, especially Americans. How bad can they be?

And a $500 million stock buyback with the stock at even $30 will make how much difference in the stock price? Be sure to factor in that we have around 850 million shares outstanding.... This stock buyback is about something else, and it is nothing nefarious. Personally I think it makes way more sense to use that $500 mil to pay down debt. THe ROI is much much better, but I totally understand their logic in buying stock.

Our rates were lower, but we kept our pension.


Tr

+717.............

I don't. When a company buys back its stock, does it in any way gain more control? Say, if a company has a million shares out there and buys back 999,999 of them and some little old man has one share at the bottom of his sock drawer, does he go from 0.000001% ownership to 100% ownership? Or does the company basically shed its obligation to outside influences? (yes I know that's over simplistic but my question is do stock buybacks reduce the influence of current shareholders)?

PM coming at ya.

One part I will answer here though. The influence of the retail shareholder is reduced, but it is a very marginal thing, mainly because 100 shares of anything isn't going to move any needle. Big holders, like Warren Buffet, looooove share buybacks. In his letter to shareholders at BRK, he talks about how KO was buying back stock and that that repurchase (of which he did not partake) increased his stake in the company. I think he owns something like 9% of all shares. Now, his percentage is more, and he owns the same number of shares.... Does that answer your question? Your scenario is theoretically correct though. That little old man is Warren Buffett... :D