georgetg

ACL, i have to disagree.
Unless we complain and make our voice heard there will be little push for improving the language.

The best thing to do is to call your rep and ask them questions, tell them what you think. They represent you, not the other way around.
The only reason to not complain is if you think the JV is satisfactory or if you believe there is no way to affect change...

Putting our head in the sand and hoping for something better is the worst we can do!

Cheers
George

Carl Spackler

While I agree that putting our head in the sand is not helpful, neither is calling reps. Our reps had nothing to do with this. The JV language was signed by a single MEC bureaucrat. Another significant change to our scope language done by one bureaucrat.

Our LEC reps are powerless and therefore meaningless. The solution to this top-down union structure is to tear down the stucture. There is NO other way.

Carl

acl65pilot

If you have an issue correct, but fluttering your wings about language that is part of six and eight party talks will do little to no good. We are just one of those parties, and cannot just demand it be changed to DAL.

Like I said, going forward, make sure the language and effects are different but one must realize that what we have is what we have. Work for change, and make sure the change has a transparent process. Identifying what needs to be changed is one thing, but spending hours whining about how unfair the language is, is just pointless. That was the point.

If you are angry, turn that anger in to action.

Bucking Bar

ACL65,

Thank you for your balanced post on the JV. I like the "production balance" which is a form of inclusive scope. Like you, the size of the compliance window concerns me, but overall I'm positive about the work done in this section of our contract.

acl65pilot

That is the point. It is not perfect, but it is a lot better than what we can see. A perfect example is the V Australia deal.

alfaromeo

Wow, Carl, you are quoting the business press, excellent source of financial analysis. Go and read some financial analysis by people that make their living doing it. Is that really what you are standing on, the headline from the Fort-Worth Star Telegram? Is this a joke or are you seriously using the Fort-Worth Star Telegram as your source for financial analysis.

American only has a little over $1 billion in unsecured debt, I will answer the question but clearly you don't have any information beyond the Fort-Worth Star Telegram. Unsecured debt is just about all that gets wiped out in bankruptcy. The rest is secured, mostly by aircraft, so they will not be able to wipe it out.

American does not have double the debt load of Delta. American (about 8.2 billion) has less long term debt than Delta (about 12.5 billion), but they are a much smaller company now. Another Carlism that flies out the window with yesterday's Fort-Worth Star Telegram. American's chief problem is a revenue problem.

Since you are so into reading newspapers, Carl, why don't you go back two years and list out the PRASM performance of American vs. Delta. Show me how each airline has done in that time. Then tell me why there is a difference. Carl, you can bluster and attack, but you can't come up with a reason why American has underperformed Delta in the last few years.

You show headlines from the press that has no clue on anything that happens in this industry. I offer analysis gleaned from researching company reports and from people that get paid lots of money to do nothing else but analyze the industry. I guess everyone else can decide which sources to believe.

alfaromeo

They are in bankruptcy to:

1. Get rid of small aircraft 30-40 seats that lose money hand over fist
2. Accelerate MD-80 retirements
3. Fix productivity issues that weren't addressed in 2003
4. Freeze or terminate pensions
5. Hit labor one more time
6. Reduce debt as much as practical
7. Take a shot as vendors, airports, etc. to negotiate better contracts
8. Redo leases on aircraft they want to retain

Most of AA's aircraft and debt are in EETC's. Bundles of aircraft are secured by one EETC which is split in tranches and each tranche is sold to multiple buyers in varying amounts. It is impossible to unwind those EETC unless they give up all the aircraft. No airline has been able to crack the EETC problem in bankruptcy and I don't expect AA to be the first. They are designed that way to protect creditors, that is why the interest rates are lower.

As I said to Carl, the underlying issue for them is not costs but revenue. Sure they can in the short term push costs down to a level that will help them out, but in the end they are too small a player in a market that is increasingly getting crowded with Delta and United.

If you were a corporate travel manager for a global business, whom would sign a contract with? Look at where you can go with Delta and United and then look at American. They don't compete. We are everywhere in the world and American has gaping holes in their network. This is not theory, it is happening every day as Delta steals more and more high value customers away from American and US Airways. Airways survives only because their labor force has gone completely insane and they are now operating on essentially regional airline wages. At some point the merry go round stops for Airways too. Why else has Doug Parker put on his high heeled boots and low cut dress and hung out on every street corner saying "Buy me, please. Come on big fella, don't you want to get in bed with me." There is no long term future there.

The problem that both airlines have is that if they merge 1+1 = about 1.4. After you eliminate duplication, there is not enough left there to compete with Delta and United. Where do either of those airlines go west of the international date line? How about Africa? Middle East? Wait Airways goes to Cancun so they have that booming business market to fall back on.

So American will scrape some costs off in bankruptcy, but if that is all they do then they still have serious long term problems. Their network doesn't compete and they are getting their butts kicked every day by Delta and United. They need to get to bigger, they need to expand their network, they need to recapture high value business travelers that are the life blood of an international network carrier.

scambo1

Alfa;

I am not one to give much credence to the talking heads, but his quotes were Associated Press re-printed in other papers.

I guess you posting on an anonymous web-board doesn't require any level of press reliability, but since most of us know your real world identity, this does smack of deflection.

Carl backed up his assertions as challenged by you. If this is all you got, the round goes to Carl.

Scambo (unbiased judge)

BTW, Carl says the problem is debt, you say the problem is revenue. What's the difference? Debits dont equal credits. If this is just a Johnson measuring contest please let me slip out of the way and you two just keep on comparing.

acl65pilot

Alfa, as usual I agree with your data. A revenue problem that I am not sure CH11 fill fix.

FWIW, I recall DAL having a PRASM of 95-98% the industry average and AMR having a 102% PRASM back in 2005. We are now at 104-107%

acl65pilot

The FWST and AP are not people I would use to judge what AMR's issues are. PRASM is the metric that is the best indicator and AMR has had a declining trend line.