In the business section of the World today, there is an article about the dire status of Delta, US Airways, and United.
Does anyone have any "insider information" as to the health of American Airlines? Could we be seeing more job cuts/salary reductions/other cust? Or is AA in better shape than the three mentioned above?
Well it took 7 years to respond but here what is reported on Channel 6's site:
American Airlines Bankruptcy Fears Rock Wall Street
QuoteNEW YORK -- The stock of American Airlines parent company AMR Corporation tumbled Monday, at one point falling nearly 40 percent, on renewed concerns that the carrier could be headed for bankruptcy protection.
Shares lost 84 cents, or 28 percent, to trade around $2.12 in early afternoon trade after plummeting to their lowest point in 8 years. The stock has not closed below $2 since 2003.
A major airline trade group, The International Air Transport Association, said Monday that the industry may be headed for a downturn. American Airlines is considered to be in the most vulnerable financial position of major U.S. carriers.
Morningstar analyst Basili Alukos said Monday he believes AMR implemented "its last-ditch effort to return to profitability" when it spun-off its regional carrier and said it would place a record order to buy 460 planes to quickly address its aging fleet.
American Airlines is the only major airline that has not filed for bankruptcy protection in the last decade, leaving it saddled with higher costs for everything from labor to financing. American is the only major airline that has lost money this year.
Fort Worth, Texas-based AMR. lost $286 million in the second quarter alone.
An AMR spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for a comment on the bankruptcy talk.
American Airlines is one of Tulsa's largest employers with more than 5,600 people on the payroll.
QuoteAmerican Airlines is the only major airline that has not filed for bankruptcy protection in the last decade,
Almost makes it sound as if bankruptcy is fashionable. "Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah your airline hasn't filed for bankruptcy".
Quote from: Conan71 on October 03, 2011, 02:00:52 PM
Almost makes it sound as if bankruptcy is fashionable. "Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah your airline hasn't filed for bankruptcy".
Yeah, this part sounds like the story author thinks they screwed up by not BK'ing.
Quoteleaving it saddled with higher costs for everything from labor to financing. American is the only major airline that has lost money this year.
They still have some hope (not that I am going to run out and by a ton of shares). Price of oil is going down, and they are supposedly spinning off American Eagle. Plus, they are currently in negotiations with employees so there is a chance, American can hold out without having to go the way of bankruptcy.
Quote from: stageidea on October 03, 2011, 03:05:59 PM
They still have some hope (not that I am going to run out and by a ton of shares). Price of oil is going down, and they are supposedly spinning off American Eagle. Plus, they are currently in negotiations with employees so there is a chance, American can hold out without having to go the way of bankruptcy.
That's just great, another 25 percent paycut on the horizon? I know many AA employees (my best friend being one for 15 years now) and he's hoppin' mad. Not just at AA upper management, but at the union...
A couple of points.
Some Wall Street analysts are saying that AA can no longer blame the unions for the lack of profit. All the unionized groups gave the company concessions in the previous 'negotiations' and those costs haven't changed significantly for nearly 9 years. And I say 'negotiation' because AA basically held a gun to their heads.
The pilots have been negotiating a new contract for 5 years. When the stock market took a nose dive this summer, many of them started planning to retire. AA lost 110 in August and another 129 in September. By leaving now, they lock in their pensions at the previous 90 day level, but if they waited to retire, they'd have to work years to make up the difference. The pilots are frustrated and angry.
The flight attendants have been negotiating for years too. The federal mediator refused to allow them to start a 30 day cooling off period, instead recommending that AA and the union continue negotiating without the mediator. The flight attendants are frustrated and angry.
(An aside: navigating the Byzantine structure of the Railway Labor Act is almost an exercise in Kabuki theater. Nothing happens quickly, and the steps are laid out to prevent any wildcat strikes or lockouts, hopefully maintaining a dependable transportation system. Yet it seems obvious that this condones management stalling and drawing out negotiations for interminable periods if only as a means to contain costs.)
The TWU is composed primarily of two groups: a large number of fleet service people and a much smaller number of mechanics and technicians. When the fleet service contract was sent for ratification last year, it was rejected overwhelmingly. AA refused to negotiate further. I don't know if that situation has changed.
Meanwhile, we're being told that AA wants concessions in any new contract. They're losing money, but they still managed to pay bonuses to top executives. The logic is that if they didn't, those executives would leave. Now, I ask you, if those are the people responsible for the company's lousy performance, shouldn't we let them go?
You learn two things working for AA. First, always cover your butt. That's why we're top heavy with management. No one person is directly responsible for a poor decision. Second, always assume that when a member of management is talking, he's lying. That way there are fewer unpleasant surprises.
As for the bankruptcy talk, remember that second rule. AA paid out bonuses. It arranged for a huge new fleet of aircraft. Pay attention to what they do, not what they say. And remember that one of my bosses said there are two kinds of accountants - honest ones and really good ones. AA has really good ones.
I'm not cynical. I'm just very well trained.
They also pointed out on CNBC that the industry is down across the board. Think that less people are traveling because of all the 'fees' they charge? If I were to travel now, and could fly SW I would in a heartbeat to save $120+ on a round trip in fees.
The economy is down. We still have a 911 hangover and people just aren't flying as much. Doesn't seem too hard to understand why the industry is hurting.
This is all starting to feel like "deja vu all over again"...(thanks Yogi B. for a classic).
I've driven at least 20,000 miles so far this year on trips for which I could have flown except flying has become such a complete PITA, that I'd almost rather have a root canal without novocaine than to deal with all the security hassles, inconveniences, and extra fees.
^^^ +1
George Will used to quote a statistic that the entire aviation industry in this country has lost money since Orvill and Wilber took off at Kitty Hawk (total up all the profits and losses of every airline and it is a negataive number, by a wide margin). That was prior to 9-11, so I doubt that number has turned around. With its aging fleet and pilots, and antagonistic labor/management relations, AA is in a tough spot in a tough industry in a tough economy.
Quote from: DTowner on October 03, 2011, 05:02:06 PM
George Will used to quote a statistic that the entire aviation industry in this country has lost money since Orvill and Wilber took off at Kitty Hawk (total up all the profits and losses of every airline and it is a negataive number, by a wide margin). That was prior to 9-11, so I doubt that number has turned around. With its aging fleet and pilots, and antagonistic labor/management relations, AA is in a tough spot in a tough industry in a tough economy.
It would seem to give credibility to the old saying that to make a small fortune in aviation, start with a large fortune.
And yet, Southwest just keeps on making money and being successful.
Ya gotta wonder why the others don't just use Southwest as their business model? Well, that would be too much like right!
Have flown over a half dozen times this year, most on Southwest and 3 on Delta. Business select on Southwest is the only way to go. Delta is a joke. A very bad joke.
Haven't had to fly AA for a few years, which suits me fine right now. At one time they were the only ones I would choose (at one time had a few hundred thousand points and got some free flights!! And a carry on bag, long since worn out.) It is horrendous what the recent management has done to that airline. As well as several of the others.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 03, 2011, 10:49:38 PM
And yet, Southwest just keeps on making money and being successful.
Ya gotta wonder why the others don't just use Southwest as their business model? Well, that would be too much like right!
Have flown over a half dozen times this year, most on Southwest and 3 on Delta. Business select on Southwest is the only way to go. Delta is a joke. A very bad joke.
Haven't had to fly AA for a few years, which suits me fine right now. At one time they were the only ones I would choose (at one time had a few hundred thousand points and got some free flights!! And a carry on bag, long since worn out.) It is horrendous what the recent management has done to that airline. As well as several of the others.
Although a great idea, unfortunately, short hop and a singular platform (i.e. 737 only) fleet don't fit the travel needs of all people.
One thing SWA has tapped into that others could follow is quick gate turns. That plane is still costing you money sitting on the ground and when it's on the ground, it's not earning revenue. I've been told SWA has some really keen fuel buyers, but I can't imagine other majors don't have some of their own.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 03, 2011, 11:10:22 PM
Although a great idea, unfortunately, short hop and a singular platform (i.e. 737 only) fleet don't fit the travel needs of all people.
One thing SWA has tapped into that others could follow is quick gate turns. That plane is still costing you money sitting on the ground and when it's on the ground, it's not earning revenue. I've been told SWA has some really keen fuel buyers, but I can't imagine other majors don't have some of their own.
Another thing SW pilots do in Tulsa (not sure about how they'd go about it in other airports) is that during the fall/winter months, whenever they can, they ask for runway 8 or 26 for landing (which isn't a typical landing runway in TUL, as it's a crosswind runway and it's also non-precision, so it would be dictated by visibility). What is the effect here? If you were to look at a taxi map for TUL, the main landing runway is 18L/36R. If you land to the north, as is common in the winter, you have a 1.5 mile taxi back to the gates. Landing on the crosswind runway negates the majority of that. Guess where the worst economy fuelwise is during flight? You guessed it. The taxi phase.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 03, 2011, 11:10:22 PM
Although a great idea, unfortunately, short hop and a singular platform (i.e. 737 only) fleet don't fit the travel needs of all people.
One thing SWA has tapped into that others could follow is quick gate turns. That plane is still costing you money sitting on the ground and when it's on the ground, it's not earning revenue. I've been told SWA has some really keen fuel buyers, but I can't imagine other majors don't have some of their own.
I've flown direct from TUL and OKC to southern CA with no stops. One stop to Seattle. Neither of those are short hop to me.
AA, Delta, and United are all putting people on those little Embraer type jets for longer legs than a lot of SWA flights, too. Pure stupid. Always full enough to justify a 737 - most of the time with waiting lists and a second flight fairly soon after the first. They are working on the same old unchanged BS plan they have used for decades and dumping on the passengers (customers!) to try to make up the difference for their lack of planning, foresight and managerial ability to run an airline.
AA keeps saying that everything is ok, but the workers and union are un-happy campers and have been for years. There might be something to this bankruptcy thing they keep talking about it on the news and the stocks are down. We lost alot of airline companies during the past few decades.
Quote from: sauerkraut on October 04, 2011, 02:49:33 PM
AA keeps saying that everything is ok, but the workers and union are un-happy campers and have been for years. There might be something to this bankruptcy thing they keep talking about it on the news and the stocks are down. We lost alot of airline companies during the past few decades.
Wow, did you think that up all on your own?
Continental has perfected the business of going out of business - they have been bankrupt a half dozen times in the last 30 years or so.
In the 70's, they were a decent airline. Now, I wouldn't fly with them on a bet.
And now, their ex-CEO has joined the board of Boeing. What a great way to ruin another company in a totally different industry!!!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 04, 2011, 08:22:15 PM
Continental has perfected the business of going out of business - they have been bankrupt a half dozen times in the last 30 years or so.
In the 70's, they were a decent airline. Now, I wouldn't fly with them on a bet.
And now, their ex-CEO has joined the board of Boeing. What a great way to ruin another company in a totally different industry!!!
Twice in 30 years doesn't equal 1/2 a dozen.
They've actually impressed me from a customer service stand-point far better than American, United, or Delta in the last 10 years.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 04, 2011, 10:14:38 PM
Twice in 30 years doesn't equal 1/2 a dozen.
They've actually impressed me from a customer service stand-point far better than American, United, or Delta in the last 10 years.
Continental doesn't exist anymore. United bought them a couple of years ago and is in the process of getting rid of the brand.
Flying them can be a complete cluster right now.
Quote from: swake on October 05, 2011, 08:16:24 AM
Continental doesn't exist anymore. United bought them a couple of years ago and is in the process of getting rid of the brand.
Flying them can be a complete cluster right now.
That had slipped my mind until yesterday when I researched Heir's claim.
Why the big mess? Are they not still using the old Continental hubs like IAH and EWR for the routes they served?
I know that this is going to pi** on someones morning toasties but really, What is the population of Tulsa and the surrounding areas ?
And what amount of people does American employ ?
How come they are Tulsa's little darling and this city almost shuts down everytime American has a problem.
Will we really become Michael Moore's Flint Michigan if they go away ?
I know that you guy's know other industries here that have struggled and get way less fanfare as they crumble and go out of business.
I have no ax to grind against American. I dont even fly. Cant afford too. Being the middle class, taxed to death Father with to many kids to feed. It just burns my muffins that any day my boss can just shut down and my checks go away like thousands of others. And because I didnt get that job at a Company that employs a few Thousand. There will be no Tax breaks or Tax money thrown at my bosses business to keep me employed.
And I'm sorry. If I had a high paying job with benefits waiting for me in Dallas. I'm going to brush up on my Texican and move.
Quote from: DolfanBob on October 05, 2011, 09:17:40 AM
I know that this is going to pi** on someones morning toasties but really, What is the population of Tulsa and the surrounding areas ?
And what amount of people does American employ ?
How come they are Tulsa's little darling and this city almost shuts down everytime American has a problem.
Will we really become Michael Moore's Flint Michigan if they go away ?
I know that you guy's know other industries here that have struggled and get way less fanfare as they crumble and go out of business.
I have no ax to grind against American. I dont even fly. Cant afford too. Being the middle class, taxed to death Father with to many kids to feed. It just burns my muffins that any day my boss can just shut down and my checks go away like thousands of others. And because I didnt get that job at a Company that employs a few Thousand. There will be no Tax breaks or Tax money thrown at my bosses business to keep me employed.
And I'm sorry. If I had a high paying job with benefits waiting for me in Dallas. I'm going to brush up on my Texican and move.
I think AA employs 8000 to 9000 in it's Tulsa operations and I believe is the largest private employer in NE Oklahoma. Anyone else know for sure?
Quote from: Conan71 on October 05, 2011, 03:14:46 PM
I think AA employs 8000 to 9000 in it's Tulsa operations and I believe is the largest private employer in NE Oklahoma. Anyone else know for sure?
I remember lower numbers but the same stat.
Quote from: swake on October 05, 2011, 08:16:24 AM
Continental doesn't exist anymore. United bought them a couple of years ago and is in the process of getting rid of the brand.
Flying them can be a complete cluster right now.
Yeah, they are just a brand name now. Lot of that going on.
Maybe that just SHOULD have gone bankrupt a half dozen times!! How about that - you guys were listening! Will try to scale back on the exaggeration. But not by much. Gotta keep my hand in the game and try to keep up with "you-know-who".
I flew Continental quite a bit in the 70's - mostly to Denver....maybe it was always to Denver?? And I really LIKED that airline a lot! At the time, was also starting to fly AA a lot and while AA was very good, I took Continental over them every chance I got. Both very good then.
Remember Muse Airlines??
Quote from: Townsend on October 05, 2011, 03:35:25 PM
I remember lower numbers but the same stat.
It's about 7000 right now according to my friend that works there.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 05, 2011, 04:13:22 PM
Yeah, they are just a brand name now. Lot of that going on.
Maybe that just SHOULD have gone bankrupt a half dozen times!! How about that - you guys were listening! Will try to scale back on the exaggeration. But not by much. Gotta keep my hand in the game and try to keep up with "you-know-who".
I flew Continental quite a bit in the 70's - mostly to Denver....maybe it was always to Denver?? And I really LIKED that airline a lot! At the time, was also starting to fly AA a lot and while AA was very good, I took Continental over them every chance I got. Both very good then.
Remember Muse Airlines??
Muse, there's a name I hadn't heard in awhile. Went the way of Braniff.
I used to love to watch the planes literally take off over I-70 at the old Stapleton Airport. Remember the runway overpasses?
Quote from: Conan71 on October 05, 2011, 04:28:42 PM
Muse, there's a name I hadn't heard in awhile. Went the way of Braniff.
I used to love to watch the planes literally take off over I-70 at the old Stapleton Airport. Remember the runway overpasses?
Never heard of them.
http://www.museair.com/ (http://www.museair.com/)
Check the slideshow
Can you imagine being a pilot for an airline, and getting this message from a control tower?
Quote
Captain Bob Gilchrist, the pilot of what possibly was history's final Braniff flight, 902 from Buenos Aires to Miami, heard the message from the Miami tower over his radio: "Whether you know it or not, you have just been terminated. You have been flying for free."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,953515,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,953515,00.html)
The other issue is if, god forbid, AA closed all of the other aviation related businesses in Tulsa would take a hit because the vast majority do business with AA. I worked briefly for Pryor Machine Tool and they do a lot of work for AA, as well as Nordam and others. They all do some kind of contract work for AA.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 05, 2011, 04:28:42 PM
Muse, there's a name I hadn't heard in awhile. Went the way of Braniff.
I used to love to watch the planes literally take off over I-70 at the old Stapleton Airport. Remember the runway overpasses?
I do. I remember driving through them. Looking at Google Maps it looks like they've just about completely cleared out the old airport and the overpasses appear to be gone.
Quote from: DolfanBob on October 05, 2011, 09:17:40 AM
And what amount of people does American employ ?
How come they are Tulsa's little darling and this city almost shuts down everytime American has a problem.
Will we really become Michael Moore's Flint Michigan if they go away ?
When the steel mills closed down in Pittsburgh, job losses and other business closings rolled across the region like a tidal wave. The mills closed and their payrolls went away. All the related businesses that supplied the mills folded and their payrolls went away. Local supermarkets, clothing stores, and other retailers saw their business diminish and many of them folded too. Local governments watched as their tax bases shrank as people moved away and businesses failed. In the case of McKeesport, there wasn't enough money to repair the water treatment plant when it was infested with giardia. National Guard troops had to truck potable water into city neighborhoods. It was like being in the third world.
The point is that trouble with any large employer can spread like ripples on a pond, and bring that trouble to people who think they're well above it.
What I don't understand is.. just four weeks ago on my last flight on AA, I read the letter from the CEO in American Way talking about how they were ordering hundreds of new planes? In fact, just the other day there was an article in the Chicago Sun:
http://www.suntimes.com/business/6608833-417/american-airlines-orders-460-new-planes-from-boeing-and-airbus.html (http://www.suntimes.com/business/6608833-417/american-airlines-orders-460-new-planes-from-boeing-and-airbus.html)
Would a company on the verge of bankruptcy do that? I don't get the logic.
Quote from: tulsa1603 on October 05, 2011, 09:31:19 PM
What I don't understand is.. just four weeks ago on my last flight on AA, I read the letter from the CEO in American Way talking about how they were ordering hundreds of new planes? In fact, just the other day there was an article in the Chicago Sun:
http://www.suntimes.com/business/6608833-417/american-airlines-orders-460-new-planes-from-boeing-and-airbus.html (http://www.suntimes.com/business/6608833-417/american-airlines-orders-460-new-planes-from-boeing-and-airbus.html)
Would a company on the verge of bankruptcy do that? I don't get the logic.
Ordering new, more fuel efficient, planes to help lower operational costs.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 05, 2011, 10:43:42 PM
Ordering new, more fuel efficient, planes to help lower operational costs.
I get that, but if you're about to file bankruptcy, do you go out and buy a new car to save money? Maybe I'm applying consumer logic that is not taking into account the complexities of corporate finance, but I don't understand how they would pay for it if they're going bankrupt.
Quote from: tulsa1603 on October 05, 2011, 11:29:03 PM
I get that, but if you're about to file bankruptcy, do you go out and buy a new car to save money? Maybe I'm applying consumer logic that is not taking into account the complexities of corporate finance, but I don't understand how they would pay for it if they're going bankrupt.
Sometimes it works. You have to think cash flow. In the 80s, my brother had a car that needed several hundred $ worth of maintenance (tires and some other stuff I don't remember). He didn't have the cash and couldn't afford payments for an additional loan. The present car was close but not close enough to being paid off. He was able to buy a new car for about the same monthly payments he was already making by using his trade-in as a down payment. Instead of having a free and clear old car in less than a year, he was making payments for another 5 years or so but the cash flow was about the same and he had a new car. (New, not used but new to him.)
Quote from: tulsa1603 on October 05, 2011, 11:29:03 PM
I get that, but if you're about to file bankruptcy, do you go out and buy a new car to save money? Maybe I'm applying consumer logic that is not taking into account the complexities of corporate finance, but I don't understand how they would pay for it if they're going bankrupt.
Along the lines of what Red is saying, IIRC, most airlines lease their planes. It's not as if they were going to write Boeing or Airbus a $20 bln check. It's a cash flow matter. If they replace older, less efficient aircraft which they are leasing with a like number of new aircraft and the lease payments on the fleet don't increase more than the fuel and maintenance savings, that's the logic behind it.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 06, 2011, 08:48:57 AM
Along the lines of what Red is saying, IIRC, most airlines lease their planes. It's not as if they were going to write Boeing or Airbus a $20 bln check. It's a cash flow matter. If they replace older, less efficient aircraft which they are leasing with a like number of new aircraft and the lease payments on the fleet don't increase more than the fuel and maintenance savings, that's the logic behind it.
Perhaps writing down depreciation on the new purchases over the years they have them is working out for them as well.
An old saying is: "the best time to buy a car is before you declare bankruptcy."
Quote from: Conan71 on October 05, 2011, 04:28:42 PM
Muse, there's a name I hadn't heard in awhile. Went the way of Braniff.
I used to love to watch the planes literally take off over I-70 at the old Stapleton Airport. Remember the runway overpasses?
Got bought by Southwest Airlines. Lamar Muse was President of Southwest for a while - helped build it up big time, then got canned - Rolland (other Southwest founder) didn't like him. Started his own airline. Kelleher bought them a few years later. They were going bankrupt.
Runway Overpasses?? Is that a rap group?
Yeah, I remember them at Stapleton. Drove through there a few weeks ago (out and back) and they are all gone now. Has been so long since I was there, I didn't recognize much. Couldn't even tell where Stapleton is/was - don't even know if it is still operating. Ahhh....Wiki says it it industrial area now. I drove right by it and saw all the industrial development, just didn't realize what I was seeing.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 06, 2011, 10:30:33 AM
Got bought by Southwest Airlines. Lamar Muse was President of Southwest for a while - helped build it up big time, then got canned - Rolland (other Southwest founder) didn't like him. Started his own airline. Kelleher bought them a few years later. They were going bankrupt.
Runway Overpasses?? Is that a rap group?
Yeah, I remember them at Stapleton. Drove through there a few weeks ago (out and back) and they are all gone now. Has been so long since I was there, I didn't recognize much. Couldn't even tell where Stapleton is/was - don't even know if it is still operating. Ahhh....Wiki says it it industrial area now. I drove right by it and saw all the industrial development, just didn't realize what I was seeing.
Kelleher and King co-founded SWA. At least according to SWA's own website.
American has a lot of the old MD-80 style of aircraft (over 200). They are hugely inefficient, burning around 200 more gallons per hour than a 737 NG. When you have 200 planes flying X hours per day burning 200 more gallons and carrying up to 80 passengers less than the 737, you are wasting a huge amount of money. While I know each plane is not used ever day, let's look at this. 200 planes buring 200 gallons more an hour and they are in flight for 10 hours a day and fuel is @ $3.00 per gallon. That is 1.2Million in wasted money PER DAY, not even including the loss in tickets for the additional passengers that could be. So going for 365 days a year at 1.2million is around $438,000,000 in wasted fuel alone. And for giggles, lets say that you can sell 50 more seats per flight on those 200 aircraft for 5 flights a day at $125 per flight for 365 days... additional revenue of $2,281,250,000 per year. So your brand new fleet of 737's could be paid for in approx 7-8 years, by savings and additional revenue. Not to mention you decrease the large dollar maintenance on these aircraft.
Of course, this is all just throwing numbers around and would probably be in, as my physics teacher used to say, "a frictionless environment".
Quote from: Conan71 on October 06, 2011, 12:45:02 PM
Kelleher and King co-founded SWA. At least according to SWA's own website.
My word (as opposed to letter) dyslexia kicked in - and spelling was wrong, too. Rollin King.
Quote from: JCnOwasso on October 06, 2011, 01:18:30 PM
American has a lot of the old MD-80 style of aircraft (over 200). They are hugely inefficient, burning around 200 more gallons per hour than a 737 NG. When you have 200 planes flying X hours per day burning 200 more gallons and carrying up to 80 passengers less than the 737, you are wasting a huge amount of money. While I know each plane is not used ever day, let's look at this. 200 planes buring 200 gallons more an hour and they are in flight for 10 hours a day and fuel is @ $3.00 per gallon. That is 1.2Million in wasted money PER DAY, not even including the loss in tickets for the additional passengers that could be. So going for 365 days a year at 1.2million is around $438,000,000 in wasted fuel alone. And for giggles, lets say that you can sell 50 more seats per flight on those 200 aircraft for 5 flights a day at $125 per flight for 365 days... additional revenue of $2,281,250,000 per year. So your brand new fleet of 737's could be paid for in approx 7-8 years, by savings and additional revenue. Not to mention you decrease the large dollar maintenance on these aircraft.
Of course, this is all just throwing numbers around and would probably be in, as my physics teacher used to say, "a frictionless environment".
And AA has had 30+ years to learn their lesson. And yet, here they are....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 06, 2011, 03:06:45 PM
And AA has had 30+ years to learn their lesson. And yet, here they are....
Very true, but to be fair, I don't think the 737 was a viable replacement to the MD-80 until the introduction of the NG which was around 97-98. And fuel costs have probably increased over 300% since then. and to be even more fair, up until 911, it probably wasn't a reasonable business move, it was about that point that the airline industry crashed as well as the fuel price increase. Add to that Katrina, which put the final dagger in the era of "cheap" gas.
American did try to do some creative things with their repair unit by bidding on contracts to repair other airlines aircraft.
Quote from: JCnOwasso on October 06, 2011, 03:15:09 PM
Very true, but to be fair, I don't think the 737 was a viable replacement to the MD-80 until the introduction of the NG which was around 97-98. And fuel costs have probably increased over 300% since then. and to be even more fair, up until 911, it probably wasn't a reasonable business move, it was about that point that the airline industry crashed as well as the fuel price increase. Add to that Katrina, which put the final dagger in the era of "cheap" gas.
American did try to do some creative things with their repair unit by bidding on contracts to repair other airlines aircraft.
All the airlines have used the fuel prices as an excuse for 30 years (or more).
Don't know about 737 vs MD-80, but the fuel has always been better. I suspect that the savings on parts stocking, training of mechanics and flight crew would be greatly simplified with one platform. (There absolutely MUST be big savings there.)
And do a lease program. There are lease programs in electronic industrial equipment where you can lease for a term, then buy at end of lease (like a car lease) that I suspect are used in airlines, too. I have been told that is always a viable financial approach versus direct buy for large ticket items like an airplane. 'Course, it may not be so...
But they still have had crap for management since at least Crandall (sp?).
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 06, 2011, 03:25:08 PM
All the airlines have used the fuel prices as an excuse for 30 years (or more).
Don't know about 737 vs MD-80, but the fuel has always been better. I suspect that the savings on parts stocking, training of mechanics and flight crew would be greatly simplified with one platform. (There absolutely MUST be big savings there.)
And do a lease program. There are lease programs in electronic industrial equipment where you can lease for a term, then buy at end of lease (like a car lease) that I suspect are used in airlines, too. I have been told that is always a viable financial approach versus direct buy for large ticket items like an airplane. 'Course, it may not be so...
But they still have had crap for management since at least Crandall (sp?).
I can't really disagree with you. A one platform approach is the best as the commonality in parts will provide for tremendous reduction, not only in spare parts, but their is a huge reduction in buying in bulk. If all NG's use the same "widget", you can merely spare out enough widgets to meet your MTBF requirements for the entire fleet, rather than to meet the MTBF for 10 planes here, 7 there, 35 over there. You would be amazed to find that on some items, you may only need 3 spares, whether for 20 or 200 planes in the fleet. Whereas if you 10 different groups of 20 and they each required 3 spares per group, you would be required to buy 30, if they are not interchangable with eachother that is.
And leasing for aircraft is the way to go. the UK leases C-17's from Boeing (or last that I heard they did)
Quote from: JCnOwasso on October 06, 2011, 01:18:30 PM
200 planes buring 200 gallons more an hour and they are in flight for 10 hours a day and fuel is @ $3.00 per gallon.
I'm sure AA gets a better price but the range of jet fuel at Tulsa International for the little guys is $4.52 to $6.03 depending on which FBO you go to.
http://www.airnav.com/fuel/local.html
type KTUL in the spot for the airport. It wouldn't link to the specific page. (KTUL is the 4 letter code for Tulsa International Airport)
Quote from: JCnOwasso on October 06, 2011, 03:48:46 PM
I can't really disagree with you. A one platform approach is the best as the commonality in parts will provide for tremendous reduction, not only in spare parts, but their is a huge reduction in buying in bulk. If all NG's use the same "widget", you can merely spare out enough widgets to meet your MTBF requirements for the entire fleet, rather than to meet the MTBF for 10 planes here, 7 there, 35 over there. You would be amazed to find that on some items, you may only need 3 spares, whether for 20 or 200 planes in the fleet. Whereas if you 10 different groups of 20 and they each required 3 spares per group, you would be required to buy 30, if they are not interchangable with eachother that is.
And leasing for aircraft is the way to go. the UK leases C-17's from Boeing (or last that I heard they did)
Not surprised at all...that is the kind of thing I have dealt with for several dozen years in the different industries I have been in - from very low volume equipment in the dozens per year to low volume of several thousands per year to medium volume products of hundreds of thousands per year (current endeavor). There are ways AA could have been profitable for all these years instead of losing their butt and blaming everything except the root cause - bad management. They could still pull it out, but am afraid they won't.
A lot like GM and Chrysler compared to Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, Subaru, etc.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 07, 2011, 08:34:18 AM
Not surprised at all...that is the kind of thing I have dealt with for several dozen years in the different industries I have been in - from very low volume equipment in the dozens per year to low volume of several thousands per year to medium volume products of hundreds of thousands per year (current endeavor). There are ways AA could have been profitable for all these years instead of losing their butt and blaming everything except the root cause - bad management. They could still pull it out, but am afraid they won't.
A lot like GM and Chrysler compared to Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, Subaru, etc.
Interesting comparison. What do GM, Shysler, and AA have that those other car companies you mentioned don't?
The airline industry is a strange beast. They operate on thin margins to try and retain market share, because empty seats cost them money.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 07, 2011, 08:39:12 AM
Interesting comparison. What do GM, Shysler, and AA have that those other car companies you mentioned don't?
The airline industry is a strange beast. They operate on thin margins to try and retain market share, because empty seats cost them money.
Talking about management. Poor versus at least competent, if not good.
Thin margins seem to be the rule in my current industry - I agonize every day about adding 10 cents to cost of a board or assembly. VASTLY different from oil and gas where spent a lot of previous time.
Lot higher volumes, so 10 cents adds up to hundreds of thousands if not millions per year (depending on component and usage per unit). Had one part last year that went from 18.3 cents each up to 23 cents. Ended up costing about $300,000 more per year total. Some of that for the part cost on several million per year usage, some for an increase in assembly/handling cost (unjustified, but charged). Accompanied by much screaming, wailing, pulling of hair, and gnashing of teeth, but in the end, what can you do??
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 07, 2011, 08:52:11 AM
Talking about management. Poor versus at least competent, if not good.
Thin margins seem to be the rule in my current industry - I agonize every day about adding 10 cents to cost of a board or assembly. VASTLY different from oil and gas where spent a lot of previous time.
Lot higher volumes, so 10 cents adds up to hundreds of thousands if not millions per year (depending on component and usage per unit). Had one part last year that went from 18.3 cents each up to 23 cents. Ended up costing about $300,000 more per year total. Some of that for the part cost on several million per year usage, some for an increase in assembly/handling cost (unjustified, but charged). Accompanied by much screaming, wailing, pulling of hair, and gnashing of teeth, but in the end, what can you do??
Brings up an important point: We demand cheap goods at our own peril when it comes to shipping jobs overseas.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 07, 2011, 10:03:09 AM
Brings up an important point: We demand cheap goods at our own peril when it comes to shipping jobs overseas.
I always look for Made in USA. And never worry about the extra cost. Elaboration; in my frame of reference - money levels, the difference will never be big enough to worry about. If I were buying a machine tool that cost 2 million here and 1 million for Japanese, well that is a different thing - would be looking at it very closely. But I seldom here about those kind of differences...usually few percent differences rather than 100 %.
Too often, cannot find Made in USA.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 07, 2011, 12:30:46 PM
I always look for Made in USA. And never worry about the extra cost. Elaboration; in my frame of reference - money levels, the difference will never be big enough to worry about. If I were buying a machine tool that cost 2 million here and 1 million for Japanese, well that is a different thing - would be looking at it very closely. But I seldom here about those kind of differences...usually few percent differences rather than 100 %.
Too often, cannot find Made in USA.
The reason you can't find made in the USA is because a lot of consumer products you could buy for, say, $300 20 to 30 years ago are still $300 sometimes even less. Those products
were built in the U.S. back then. Of course the reason the price is the same or less now is due to the reduced labor costs of manufacturing items in Mexico or overseas.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 07, 2011, 04:13:03 PM
The reason you can't find made in the USA is because a lot of consumer products you could buy for, say, $300 20 to 30 years ago are still $300 sometimes even less. Those products were built in the U.S. back then. Of course the reason the price is the same or less now is due to the reduced labor costs of manufacturing items in Mexico or overseas.
Just bought a water heater. Said it was made in USA. Label said Whirlpool, but made by American Water Heater company.
Just bought $1,000 of car parts that said they were USA. MOOG.
Don't know for sure, but am hoping they did not lie.
Bought some GoodYear tires (4) that said made in Thailand, I think - not USA! Didn't like it even a little bit, but was in a time crunch and couldn't wait three days for tirerack.com to get the right ones sent. (Since no one in this state saw fit to stock them - Tulsa, OKC, Muskogee, Edmond, Norman, Moore.)
As far as lower cost to end user? Didn't happen. With Wranglers, Zebco, Thermos. All that DID happen was that now it says Made in China - or some other Pacific rim country, the price held steady, and any savings did NOT accrue to the American Consumer. Classic example is a one quart thermos vacuum bottle sold by Thermos at Wally World for about 20. While the same vacuum bottle with their private brand is a little over 10. Extra 10 for the name. And yes, I did buy both to compare - one for me, one for SWMBO. No noticeable difference in construction or operation. Just a little cosmetic change.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 10, 2011, 12:10:19 PM
Don't know for sure, but am hoping they did not lie.
I can't speak to the stuff you bought but sometimes putting a Made in the USA label just requires some finishing touches.
At one time, putting a Made in the USA label on a personal computer only required that the computer be shipped to the US in a non-operational condition. For example, leaving out the video card was enough. The US final assembly plant installed a video card from a different source and legally applied a Made in the USA sticker on the outside for all to see.
Just a thought. How much do you think the Third World Countries despise American made products as we act and say that we do theirs ?
Or do you think they still clammer to pay high dollar for Levis or Nike products ?
And how bout their Air industry. Do they do it smaller, cheaper and faster ?
Quote from: DolfanBob on October 10, 2011, 01:03:43 PM
Just a thought. How much do you think the Third World Countries despise American made products as we act and say that we do theirs ?
Or do you think they still clammer to pay high dollar for Levis or Nike products ?
And how bout their Air industry. Do they do it smaller, cheaper and faster ?
China can't buy Buicks fast enough. GM is huge there. There are some imports that I definitely prefer to domestic - chocolate! And tea. And black pepper. Saffron I can make here - don't need imported.
Levis and Nike are made in China (plus other places), so it should be cheap for the third world... Not really, 'cause they gotta pay for the name, too. Here is Levi's supplier list - interesting how they make that public. Nice touch.
http://www.levistrauss.com/sites/default/files/librarydocument/2011/5/lsco-factory-list-may-2011.pdf
Air industry - Embraer is mostly made in Brazil, I think (??). Good planes, just WAY too small for me to be interested in riding in. Airbus? Not when we got Boeing. Boeing - well they are getting lost in the weeds of 'outsourcing' to cheap labor markets.
Products like water heaters, washers, power saws etc. are mature industries. There is very little difference in the technology of the product from 30 years ago. Really, up to 50 years ago. They should have costs, resource aquisition, management and demand cycles pretty well under control. Those type products generally do not increase in price quickly unless manipulated to do so. We manipulate the prices because we condensed a lot of industries in the last decade. IOW, we allowed them to buy their competitors and control pricing. Now many products that should have had level prices (mostly influenced by inflation, resource fluctuation, labor costs) have instead risen faster than any of those components. It is administrative pricing rather than supply and demand. Stockholders love it, corporates can't seem to operate without it, and the buyer is simply screwed.
Trendy, style, fashion components aside, foreign products operate under different systems though the outcome may be the same. They may love the Levi's brand, but I would imagine that our products, being outsourced to China and the Philippines are no better quality or better priced than the ones they outsource to China, Mexico and the Philippines. Prices are now driven by the margins and profits demanded by corporations who slavishly shine on their stockholders, not as many of you insist, by the market place.
Now comes the name-calling. I'm not a socialist, liberal, anti-capitalist, occupier, t-partier, poor, envious, wealth hating %*@$!! Just the way its going down right now. Well, I am kinda poor.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 10, 2011, 03:26:32 PM
China can't buy Buicks fast enough. GM is huge there.
GM makes Buicks there. I read somewhere that was one of the reasons Buick stayed and Pontiac died.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 10, 2011, 03:26:32 PM
Levis and Nike are made in China (plus other places),
The Levis I bought last Saturday at Penny's were made in Mexico.
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 10, 2011, 06:20:58 PM
The Levis I bought last Saturday at Penny's were made in Mexico.
No wonder my 550s wear out so fast now...wait, maybe it could be my big fat keister...what?
Quote from: Hoss on October 10, 2011, 06:41:10 PM
No wonder my 550s wear out so fast now...wait, maybe it could be my big fat keister...what?
Some varieties of Levis are made of thinner material than they used to be. I've seen the material weights but don't remember them at the moment.
Quote from: AquaMan on October 10, 2011, 03:39:04 PM
Products like water heaters, washers, power saws etc. are mature industries. There is very little difference in the technology of the product from 30 years ago. Really, up to 50 years ago. They should have costs, resource aquisition, management and demand cycles pretty well under control. Those type products generally do not increase in price quickly unless manipulated to do so. We manipulate the prices because we condensed a lot of industries in the last decade. IOW, we allowed them to buy their competitors and control pricing. Now many products that should have had level prices (mostly influenced by inflation, resource fluctuation, labor costs) have instead risen faster than any of those components. It is administrative pricing rather than supply and demand. Stockholders love it, corporates can't seem to operate without it, and the buyer is simply screwed.
Trendy, style, fashion components aside, foreign products operate under different systems though the outcome may be the same. They may love the Levi's brand, but I would imagine that our products, being outsourced to China and the Philippines are no better quality or better priced than the ones they outsource to China, Mexico and the Philippines. Prices are now driven by the margins and profits demanded by corporations who slavishly shine on their stockholders, not as many of you insist, by the market place.
Now comes the name-calling. I'm not a socialist, liberal, anti-capitalist, occupier, t-partier, poor, envious, wealth hating %*@$!! Just the way its going down right now. Well, I am kinda poor.
You are right on with essentially all of that. Pricing is based on "what the market will bear" rather than what provides a good return. Harvard MBA stuff, right down the line. Sam's Club used to have a poster (Sam was still alive) that had 13 principals of business they followed. Haven't seen those in a while...but one went to the idea that pricing was not based on what the market would bear, but what would be good for both parties.
As for difference in technology, yeah, the basics are essentially the same. What has changed a lot is the efficiency of most of the 'white goods' type items. Water heaters have better insulation - the trade off being they can now predict very closely how thick to make the tank walls to rust out soon after the warranty expires. Pilot lights are on the way out - electronic ignition is coming, actually here now, if you so choose. I chose pilot light. No match, though - there is a clicker ignitor.
Washers - progress in efficiency is dramatic. Motor controls have reduced that energy usage quite a bit. And much less water in some configurations, so less hot water....
A/C and furnaces - massive increases in efficiency. My 1970's A/C is probably about 1/3 as efficient as what will replace it someday soon. SEER 5 versus today's SEER 13 to 24. Mostly using bigger coils all around. New gas furnaces at 94% efficiency versus my 55 to 60% furnace. They are SO good that they use PVC exhaust now. Will save me a ton of money when change, but it will still take several years to reach break even - probably about 4 to 5. And what I know about what is possible with HVAC using the proper electronics and some changes to the compressor and coil systems would make you want one REAL bad.
And the ONLY reason we get any of these improvements is because the government has mandated that they happen! And it always STARTS in California!! For all the CA haters out there...
And the same thing has happened in airplanes - engines are more powerful, use less fuel, and are noticeably quieter than ever. All due to that pesky "unwarranted government intrusion" by way of regulation. At least until Reagan and Bush's started dismantling so much of it.
And here is an interesting little compare/contrast Sam's Club to Costco;
http://www.ou.edu/russell/UGcomp/Cascio.pdf
Here's a thought. Stew on it for a minute before looking to see who said it. Pretty well sums up the entire nature of the problems we have today. Just like the same time 100 years ago, when we were dealing with very similar issues.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is the fruit of labor and could not exist if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of
capital and deserves much the higher consideration"
Gee, I wonder what the RWRE would have to say about that? (Sorry, Conan, but there just isn't another phrase that is so concise or succinct in describing the people I am referring to on the far right - the 1%ers.)
From above note;
Although it is heresy to today's Wall Street analysts, Abraham Lincoln said that in his First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861,
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 11, 2011, 12:57:50 PM
Water heaters have better insulation - the trade off being they can now predict very closely how thick to make the tank walls to rust out soon after the warranty expires.
A water heater is a pressure vessel. There's strict guidelines they have to adhere to in design safety criteria or it could literally blow up and kill someone. That's why they are equipped with pressure relief valves. The shell thickness hasn't changed. They may go with cheaper corrosion-resistant lining or no lining, but there's not been a new technology in metals in the last 60 years which would allow for them to use thinner wall material.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 11, 2011, 01:52:07 PM
A water heater is a pressure vessel. There's strict guidelines they have to adhere to in design safety criteria or it could literally blow up and kill someone. That's why they are equipped with pressure relief valves. The shell thickness hasn't changed. They may go with cheaper corrosion-resistant lining or no lining, but there's not been a new technology in metals in the last 60 years which would allow for them to use thinner wall material.
There is a lining made of some kind of epoxy type material.
There have been tremendous changes in metal in the last 60 years! But if your talking just a plain jane A56 as kind of the standard of a nice workable general purpose good all around carbon steel, yeah, it is about the same...around 55,000 psi tensile.
As far as water heaters - the steel has gotten thinner over the years. One I changed in 1969 had walls that were probably close to 1/8" - maybe a little thicker. The most recent was noticeably thinner. The wall thickness has previously been based on strength to hold itself up - the steel has never been the limiting factor in domestic hot water heater - the walls could be much thinner to hold just the pressure (0.05" would do, close to 18 ga. - good for 275 psi, which might be a little lite for domestic water design.) - don't think they could hold themselves up that thin.
Red, you ever designed a hot water tank?? Would you go any thinner than about 0.1" for the weight and pressure?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 11, 2011, 03:14:14 PM
Red, you ever designed a hot water tank?? Would you go any thinner than about 0.1" for the weight and pressure?
Nope. I never did heat exchangers or pressure vessels. My brother did for a while. He said you followed ASME code which was conservative, sometimes way conservative.
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 11, 2011, 04:21:26 PM
Nope. I never did heat exchangers or pressure vessels. My brother did for a while. He said you followed ASME code which was conservative, sometimes way conservative.
As we like to say around my office ASME stands for "Always, Sometimes, Maybe, Except"
Heir, when you are working with a vessel at atmospheric pressure, you are correct, your primary concerns are structural integrity (i.e. the unit doesn't collapse under it's own weight) and durability. Home water heaters are pressurized. Different set of rules, but go right ahead and build your own water heater from 18 gauge material. Oh and use flat heads while you are at it too.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 11, 2011, 04:25:46 PM
Heir, when you are working with a vessel at atmospheric pressure, you are correct, your primary concerns are structural integrity (i.e. the unit doesn't collapse under it's own weight) and durability. Home water heaters are pressurized. Different set of rules, but go right ahead and build your own water heater from 18 gauge material. Oh and use flat heads while you are at it too.
I thought there were additional rules when the vessel was heated/fired too.
Tank-less is the way to go for water hears if its about energy efficiency, for the most part they just work better too.Wish I could afford to make the upgrade.
Quote from: godboko71 on October 11, 2011, 05:42:10 PM
Tank-less is the way to go for water hears if its about energy efficiency, for the most part they just work better too.Wish I could afford to make the upgrade.
I've heard they frequently don't get the water warm enough. That may be a function of being undersized for the demand though. The floor plan of our house makes it inconvenient to run either gas or 220V to the bathroom locations and the utility room. It would work OK for the kitchen.
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 11, 2011, 06:06:14 PM
I've heard they frequently don't get the water warm enough. That may be a function of being undersized for the demand though. The floor plan of our house makes it inconvenient to run either gas or 220V to the bathroom locations and the utility room. It would work OK for the kitchen.
In a sense, you are correct on them being under-sized. Most are only designed for a 20 to 40 degree rise per pass (at least on the commercial scale I work with not as up on the home units), so, unless you reduce the flow rate, increase your firing rate (BTU's) or recirculate through a small storage tank, you can wind up with a luke warm shower in the middle of winter when you need a delta T of 60 or 70 degrees.
And yes, temperature is part of the calcs for certifying and hydrostatically testing pressure vessels.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 11, 2011, 07:22:58 PM
In a sense, you are correct on them being under-sized. Most are only designed for a 20 to 40 degree rise per pass (at least on the commercial scale I work with not as up on the home units), so, unless you reduce the flow rate, increase your firing rate (BTU's) or recirculate through a small storage tank, you can wind up with a luke warm shower in the middle of winter when you need a delta T of 60 or 70 degrees.
And yes, temperature is part of the calcs for certifying and hydrostatically testing pressure vessels.
I did a brief search on electric tankless water heaters. The Bosch unit I found has a pretty hefty electric requirement. The AE125 unit needs 120 amp service at 240/208 V. This is the larger of the two units shown. Careful water use would allow use of the smaller unit which only requires 80 Amp service.
The link has some flow rate vs temperature rise info and some typical flow rates for sinks, showers, etc.
http://www.boschhotwater.com/BoschHotWatercomHome/ElectricProducts/PowerStarAE115AE125/FeaturesandSpecs/tabid/397/Default.aspx
Quote from: Conan71 on October 11, 2011, 04:25:46 PM
As we like to say around my office ASME stands for "Always, Sometimes, Maybe, Except"
Heir, when you are working with a vessel at atmospheric pressure, you are correct, your primary concerns are structural integrity (i.e. the unit doesn't collapse under it's own weight) and durability. Home water heaters are pressurized. Different set of rules, but go right ahead and build your own water heater from 18 gauge material. Oh and use flat heads while you are at it too.
No way! (Water tanks are pretty thin - kind of like an air compressor tank - same magnitude of pressures - 100 to 250 psi - 'ish). Anything worth doing is worth overdoing. Probably use 24" schedule 40 pipe (22.63" ID). Round end caps. Got a great welder friend who does a lot of welding for a local company - pressure vessel welding.
Tank;
22.63" dia
72" long
carbon steel @ 55000 psi tensile strength
.69 thick
epoxy line the inside
Will get collapse pressure about 3200 psi. (External collapse pressure of 1200 psi, without internal gusseting, so part of the house could fall on it without adverse effect).
18 gauge tank would be good for probably 300 psi, but I want massive thermonuclear overkill!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 12, 2011, 01:59:22 PM
No way! (Water tanks are pretty thin - kind of like an air compressor tank - same magnitude of pressures - 100 to 250 psi - 'ish). Anything worth doing is worth overdoing. Probably use 24" schedule 40 pipe (22.63" ID). Round end caps. Got a great welder friend who does a lot of welding for a local company - pressure vessel welding.
Tank;
22.63" dia
72" long
carbon steel @ 55000 psi tensile strength
.69 thick
epoxy line the inside
Will get collapse pressure about 3200 psi. (External collapse pressure of 1200 psi, without internal gusseting, so part of the house could fall on it without adverse effect).
18 gauge tank would be good for probably 300 psi, but I want massive thermonuclear overkill!
You apparently didn't see my tongue sticking through my cheek on the suggestion for flat heads. Use SA516-70 for your material, FYI.
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 12, 2011, 02:07:31 PM
It'll make your water taste funny.
Does epoxy contain dioxins or BPA?
Quote from: Conan71 on October 11, 2011, 07:22:58 PM
In a sense, you are correct on them being under-sized. Most are only designed for a 20 to 40 degree rise per pass (at least on the commercial scale I work with not as up on the home units), so, unless you reduce the flow rate, increase your firing rate (BTU's) or recirculate through a small storage tank, you can wind up with a luke warm shower in the middle of winter when you need a delta T of 60 or 70 degrees.
And yes, temperature is part of the calcs for certifying and hydrostatically testing pressure vessels.
godboko mentioned efficiency - I
n residential, that could make a difference rather than having a tank full of water sitting hot, but I'm kind of thinking a commercial application would see less benefit just because of the duty cycle. The big savings would/should be for intermittent use - sitting around all day waiting for someone to take a shower versus doing 500 loads of laundry in an 8 hour shift, or washing 1,000 cars per day, or whatever... I would think a commercial installation would not see much improvement in efficiency over tankless, if no other reason than just because the throughput would be more continuous. Still gotta 'burn' so many BTU's to get that temperature up.
??
I'm gonna put a solar collector on the roof, too, to give a boost to the tank.
Not sure what liner the water heater people use...they mention the word epoxy, but it could be a kind of ceramic ??. I guess I could use fiberglass resin. I don't drink the shower, dishwasher, or washing machine water - at least not most of the time. Although I have been known to get a wild hair and start making tea with hot water from the tap...just not often.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 12, 2011, 02:03:36 PM
You apparently didn't see my tongue sticking through my cheek on the suggestion for flat heads. Use SA516-70 for your material, FYI.
I knew you were kidding. Have worked with flat heads on a tank type application before, but that tank I described would require probably 8 to 10" of steel for each end. Plus BIG flanges! Just use the thin little rounded end caps - no muss, no fuss, it's all good.
FYI, I don't design commercial tanks for anything - that tank I described would be for my own use at normal household water pressure (hopefully well under 200 psi). Like I said - overkill is your friend!!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 12, 2011, 02:13:02 PM
Not sure what liner the water heater people use...they mention the word epoxy, but it could be a kind of ceramic ??.
We haven't had to buy one for a while but we've always bought glass lined water heaters.
Commercial storage tanks for dorms and gang showers, etc. is a type of concrete lining. Makes a heavy tank really heavy.
American Airlines To Relocate Hundreds Of Jobs Out Of Tulsa
http://www.newson6.com/story/15679381/american-airlines-to-relocate-hundreds-of-jobs-out-of-tulsa (http://www.newson6.com/story/15679381/american-airlines-to-relocate-hundreds-of-jobs-out-of-tulsa)
QuoteTULSA, Oklahoma -- American Airlines announced Wednesday that they will be moving approximately 230 jobs from Tulsa to the Dallas/Fort Worth area.
An airline spokesperson said the move will take place within the next year.
"We believe locating the MOC with the SOC will help make American a stronger, more efficient airline and that's good for all of our employees," said Andrea Huguely, American Airlines Spokesperson.
Local union leaders have said the Tulsa economy would take a $14 million hit if employees relocate.
The airline operates the world's largest maintenance base in Tulsa, with nearly 7,000 employees.
Hasn't AA added a couple hundred employees at the Tulsa base in the last year or so in a different division? It sucks for the city that 200+ good jobs are leaving but it's really a wash with the other jobs added, or maybe still a positive for the city (just not a huge positive as it would be if the MOC jobs remained)..
Quote from: Conan71 on October 12, 2011, 03:01:38 PM
Commercial storage tanks for dorms and gang showers, etc. is a type of concrete lining. Makes a heavy tank really heavy.
Glad I didn't have to lift one of those into the attic space - the one I got was bad enough!
Glass lined would be good. Maybe a porcelain process??
Quote from: Townsend on October 12, 2011, 04:15:24 PM
American Airlines To Relocate Hundreds Of Jobs Out Of Tulsa
http://www.newson6.com/story/15679381/american-airlines-to-relocate-hundreds-of-jobs-out-of-tulsa (http://www.newson6.com/story/15679381/american-airlines-to-relocate-hundreds-of-jobs-out-of-tulsa)
I saw that last night on the news. And point still being. They are relocating your high paying job to Ft Worth, Texas. It's not like they are sending you to Flea Speck, Mississippi. The status could be laid off and tough luck. Is living in Tulsa really worth picketing outside the BOK ? Truth be known. The cost of living in Texas is probably higher so they might just get a raise. And get this. No sales Tax......Bam ! Brush up on the Texican and buy a Cowboys shirt, all is good.
Quote from: DolfanBob on October 13, 2011, 10:26:47 AM
I saw that last night on the news. And point still being. They are relocating your high paying job to Ft Worth, Texas. It's not like they are sending you to Flea Speck, Mississippi. The status could be laid off and tough luck. Is living in Tulsa really worth picketing outside the BOK ? Truth be known. The cost of living in Texas is probably higher so they might just get a raise. And get this. No sales Tax......Bam ! Brush up on the Texican and buy a Cowboys shirt, all is good.
But they tax the hell out of you to compensate. I know, I lived there long enough. Property taxes will kick your donkey there.
Quote from: Hoss on October 13, 2011, 10:59:41 AM
But they tax the hell out of you to compensate. I know, I lived there long enough. Property taxes will kick your donkey there.
Are car tag's as high there as they are here. And our property Tax in Wagoner County just went up so Im not sure if Oklahoma is catching on to that trick also. Oh and. Real Beer there also. Trust me. I dont like Texas. But my Birth state of Oklahoma is really starting to wear thin with me.
Quote from: Hoss on October 13, 2011, 10:59:41 AM
But they tax the hell out of you to compensate. I know, I lived there long enough. Property taxes will kick your donkey there.
Car tags aren't fun there either.
Quote from: DolfanBob on October 13, 2011, 10:26:47 AM
I saw that last night on the news. And point still being. They are relocating your high paying job to Ft Worth, Texas. It's not like they are sending you to Flea Speck, Mississippi. The status could be laid off and tough luck. Is living in Tulsa really worth picketing outside the BOK ? Truth be known. The cost of living in Texas is probably higher so they might just get a raise. And get this. No sales Tax......Bam ! Brush up on the Texican and buy a Cowboys shirt, all is good.
I was posting from an outsider's POV. I'd like jobs to stay in my town.
Everywhere I have shopped in Texas has sales tax besides on food. As for cost of living yes its higher in Texas then in Tulsa or OKC, but outside of the metros and you start to get on even ground.
Quote from: SXSW on October 12, 2011, 04:29:23 PM
Hasn't AA added a couple hundred employees at the Tulsa base in the last year or so in a different division? It sucks for the city that 200+ good jobs are leaving but it's really a wash with the other jobs added, or maybe still a positive for the city (just not a huge positive as it would be if the MOC jobs remained).
I think it's a wash. While AA may have added XXX jobs, they've also seen YYY retirements. Until the new seniority list comes out, we won't know how many union jobs were impacted.
As for the MOC, the majority of those jobs are management rather than union.
With the retirements of 240 pilots in the last two months, AA has cut back on flights. There's still no definite word on how many aircraft will go to the desert, and there's some talk about a few coming back from there. The rule of thumb calls for 100 jobs per aircraft, but that includes flight crew, maintenance, ticketing, ground support, and more.
May you live in interesting times.
Ok, let's see now...
Oklahoma has cut taxes again and again.
Passed the alleged "Right to Work".
Has liquor by the drink.
Got plenty of people willing to work for very low wages.
All the casinos anyone could want.
Created a "business friendly" environment.
Cooler average temperatures than Texas.
Pretty new ballpark.
Rejuvenated old buildings.
Great college football - that only costs millions of dollars per year.
Free college tuition to talented students that promise to stay after graduation for X number of years. Oooppss! Sorry - I forgot - we don't do Progressive! Just as well, the jobs aren't there; they're heading to Texas.
And yet, companies are still making a beeline for the border. Gee, I guess the people running the show in this state really do know what they are doing. Not.
Ya can't blame this one (or any of them really) on a union or government or anything else except Okie-ism.
Now I'm wondering when Whirlpool and Kimberly Clark will pull out? Obviously nothing here for them after all that free tax money we gave them.
Maybe we should be looking at some "quality of life issues" - some of the things we talked about in the street lighting topic. Things that make a place more comfortable, intellectual, interesting, and possibly even exciting to live. It's so much more than just playing the tape stuck on the "cut taxes", "deregulate business" loop.
'Cause something ain't working somewhere.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 13, 2011, 05:19:47 PM
Ok, let's see now...
Oklahoma has cut taxes again and again.
Passed the alleged "Right to Work".
Has liquor by the drink.
Got plenty of people willing to work for very low wages.
All the casinos anyone could want.
Created a "business friendly" environment.
Cooler average temperatures than Texas.
Pretty new ballpark.
Rejuvenated old buildings.
Great college football - that only costs millions of dollars per year.
Free college tuition to talented students that promise to stay after graduation for X number of years. Oooppss! Sorry - I forgot - we don't do Progressive! Just as well, the jobs aren't there; they're heading to Texas.
And yet, companies are still making a beeline for the border. Gee, I guess the people running the show in this state really do know what they are doing. Not.
Ya can't blame this one (or any of them really) on a union or government or anything else except Okie-ism.
Now I'm wondering when Whirlpool and Kimberly Clark will pull out? Obviously nothing here for them after all that free tax money we gave them.
Maybe we should be looking at some "quality of life issues" - some of the things we talked about in the street lighting topic. Things that make a place more comfortable, intellectual, interesting, and possibly even exciting to live. It's so much more than just playing the tape stuck on the "cut taxes", "deregulate business" loop.
'Cause something ain't working somewhere.
Ding, Ding, Ding ! We have a winner. Very well said.
Quote from: DolfanBob on October 13, 2011, 05:51:22 PM
Ding, Ding, Ding ! We have a winner. Very well said.
And it is so very, very sad.... we have such a beautiful state, good people (mostly), and SO much additional potential that is just not being realized. If I ever cried, it would make me want to cry.
But I won't. I will continue to rage against the machine!
What the US needs is More Free Speech!!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 13, 2011, 05:19:47 PM
Ok, let's see now...
So we should...
Quote
Oklahoma has cut taxes again and again.
Raise our taxes to the highest in the nation?
Quote
Passed the alleged "Right to Work".
Require all business with 2 or more employees to be a union shop, regardless of the desires of the workers?
Quote
Has liquor by the drink.
Go back to prohibition? Prohibition like at statehood? No legal beer, wine, booze?
Quote
Got plenty of people willing to work for very low wages.
Raise the minimum wage to $30/hr?
Quote
All the casinos anyone could want.
Get rid of all casinos? Go back to having the Native Americans totally dependent on the US Gov for support?
Quote
Created a "business friendly" environment.
Strive to be the most business unfriendly state? Pass onerous regulations concerning pay, layoffs....?
Quote
Cooler average temperatures than Texas.
I'm not so sure after this last summer.
Quote
Pretty new ballpark.
Tear down the ballpark? While we're at it, tear down the BOK center?
Quote
Rejuvenated old buildings.
Tear them down? Get rid of any character and history Tulsa has left?
Quote
Great college football - that only costs millions of dollars per year.
The story I usually am told is that college football pays for itself and then some. Maybe you have different info.
Quote
Free college tuition to talented students that promise to stay after graduation for X number of years. Oooppss! Sorry - I forgot - we don't do Progressive! Just as well, the jobs aren't there; they're heading to Texas.
Start a program that requires any wanting to work in Oklahoma after graduating from college to pay extra tuition?
Quote
And yet, companies are still making a beeline for the border. Gee, I guess the people running the show in this state really do know what they are doing. Not.
I know that the opposites that I presented are a bit silly but the things you presented as useless are like buying a lottery ticket, enabling the miracle.
Quote
Maybe we should be looking at some "quality of life issues" - some of the things we talked about in the street lighting topic. Things that make a place more comfortable, intellectual, interesting, and possibly even exciting to live.
I can agree there are other things that should be addressed, but they should be in addition to the efforts already expended.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 13, 2011, 05:19:47 PM
Ok, let's see now...
Oklahoma has cut taxes again and again.
Passed the alleged "Right to Work".
Has liquor by the drink.
Got plenty of people willing to work for very low wages.
All the casinos anyone could want.
Created a "business friendly" environment.
Cooler average temperatures than Texas.
Pretty new ballpark.
Rejuvenated old buildings.
Great college football - that only costs millions of dollars per year.
Free college tuition to talented students that promise to stay after graduation for X number of years. Oooppss! Sorry - I forgot - we don't do Progressive! Just as well, the jobs aren't there; they're heading to Texas.
And yet, companies are still making a beeline for the border. Gee, I guess the people running the show in this state really do know what they are doing. Not.
Ya can't blame this one (or any of them really) on a union or government or anything else except Okie-ism.
Now I'm wondering when Whirlpool and Kimberly Clark will pull out? Obviously nothing here for them after all that free tax money we gave them.
Maybe we should be looking at some "quality of life issues" - some of the things we talked about in the street lighting topic. Things that make a place more comfortable, intellectual, interesting, and possibly even exciting to live. It's so much more than just playing the tape stuck on the "cut taxes", "deregulate business" loop.
'Cause something ain't working somewhere.
Tulsa loses 230 jobs and you use that as an opportunity to doosh up the entire state? Your myopia is disturbing.
An interesting debate would be what's our return on investment when we panic and dole out major tax incentives or downright payments from tax funds to supposedly retain or create jobs for a major existing employer like AA vs. taking that same money and incubating small businesses which could potentially add more jobs than the behemoth down the block?
A lot of people thought AA had specific requirements to retain or add x amount of jobs as a result of V-2025 funds and more funds in, I think, 2007. At least that's the way it was sold to tax payers. Now we find out that was never the case, AA was never
contractually obligated to create jobs or to keep x amount here for a given period in return for our investment in AA.
Shouldn't there be a contracted amount of net jobs and not a proposed amount before tax dollars are spent?
Quote from: godboko71 on October 13, 2011, 04:17:48 PM
Everywhere I have shopped in Texas has sales tax besides on food. As for cost of living yes its higher in Texas then in Tulsa or OKC, but outside of the metros and you start to get on even ground.
Actually the cost of living isn't really higher. It may be higher on average, on paper, but comparing apples to apples it isn't. For instance, rent for an apartment. Had thought of moving to Dallas for a time so went apartment hunting there. Found nicer apartments there than you could find here, for the same price. What skews the averages up is the fact that there are also a LOT more expensive apartments there than you can find here. Looking at all the apartments "on average" it appears that they cost more there, but if say you were looking for an average "Tulsa quality" (which sucks btw) apt. you could easily find nicer there for less cost than here.
Quote from: TheArtist on October 14, 2011, 06:42:39 AM
Actually the cost of living isn't really higher. It may be higher on average, on paper, but comparing apples to apples it isn't. For instance, rent for an apartment. Had thought of moving to Dallas for a time so went apartment hunting there. Found nicer apartments there than you could find here, for the same price. What skews the averages up is the fact that there are also a LOT more expensive apartments there than you can find here. Looking at all the apartments "on average" it appears that they cost more there, but if say you were looking for an average "Tulsa quality" (which sucks btw) apt. you could easily find nicer there for less cost than here.
Try owning a vehicle and carrying insurance in either of the two largest Texas metro areas (DFW which includes Dallas, Collin, Delta, Denton, Ellis, Hunt, Johnson, Kaufmann, Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant and Wise counties; and the Houston Metro which includes Harris, Ft Bend, Montgomery, Brazoria, Galveston, Liberty, Waller, Chambers, Austin and San Jacinto counties). M costs alone nearly tripled when I moved there, and that was for the most inexpensive rates. I understand you are a mass transit guy, and I love mass transit if it fits into a metro area. Places like NY, SF, even the DC metro, it does. But not either of those two, even though they have good mass transit, it usually centers around a park-and-ride.
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 13, 2011, 06:27:26 PM
I know that the opposites that I presented are a bit silly but the things you presented as useless are like buying a lottery ticket, enabling the miracle.
I can agree there are other things that should be addressed, but they should be in addition to the efforts already expended.
I guess it was a little bit too subtle without a little more explanation. It's not that those things are completely useless - right to work is a complete bust - the campaign promised many more jobs and 20% higher wages - neither of which happened. Lowering taxes until our infrastructure has gotten to the point it has is another bust - and no one said anything about going to the highest taxes in the nation - but we certainly should not have cut them to the point where they do physical damage to us.
It's that they are obviously NOT the key provisions that are required to develop an economy. At best they are third or fourth order effects.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 14, 2011, 08:41:36 AM
It's that they are obviously NOT the key provisions that are required to develop an economy. At best they are third or fourth order effects.
I'll give you 2nd to 3rd order but no lower.
And, just as Obama claims the stimulus has prevented loss of even more jobs than has occured, I think the items you listed have helped to some degree although I
might give you that some were overdone.
As far as right to work - what's with N. Carolina. Since no one believes they just wanted to build a plant there because of the Smokey Mountains and other natural attributes, it might just be right to work.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 14, 2011, 12:55:23 AM
Tulsa loses 230 jobs and you use that as an opportunity to doosh up the entire state? Your myopia is disturbing.
An interesting debate would be what's our return on investment when we panic and dole out major tax incentives or downright payments from tax funds to supposedly retain or create jobs for a major existing employer like AA vs. taking that same money and incubating small businesses which could potentially add more jobs than the behemoth down the block?
A lot of people thought AA had specific requirements to retain or add x amount of jobs as a result of V-2025 funds and more funds in, I think, 2007. At least that's the way it was sold to tax payers. Now we find out that was never the case, AA was never contractually obligated to create jobs or to keep x amount here for a given period in return for our investment in AA.
Shouldn't there be a contracted amount of net jobs and not a proposed amount before tax dollars are spent?
Doosh the entire state? Not a chance. (Now that is a reactionary comment!) Dooshing the stupid stuff we do sometimes?? Absolutely!! 'Cause we fall into the trap of believing too many people with hidden agendas that are NOT in our best interest.
Should have read the post immediately following that one. As reminder;
And it is so very, very sad.... we have such a beautiful state, good people (mostly), and SO much additional potential that is just not being realized. If I ever cried, it would make me want to cry.
We are on exactly the same page about tax incentives to companies. Incubators are a much better approach. As would be investing seriously in education. Rather than making it more difficult to go to college or tech school, we should be making it easier. There have been several posts here deriding people currently in the news who are talking about lower cost college (free tuition). Advanced education has been convincingly proven for eternity (my reactionary comment) to add many times its cost to the economy and its return in increased tax revenues - not just paid back in full, but with multiples of its cost as interest! MUCH more than ANY straight out tax cut has ever done.
So why do we keep up the drum beat about that stupid crap - tax cuts?? You know why. It benefits the 1%. And does not benefit the 99%.
2025 - typical "pork" in many ways. The comment "sold to the taxpayers" is right. Bill of goods. Made nice for us already here. How does it bring in more industry?
One area you missed - infrastructure! We have such a mess in the state in so many ways. You drive the turnpike - get off sometime and drive under some of those bridges. I bet it will make you a little nervous.
A corollary to that is the turnpike itself. IF we are SO concerned about bringing "new" into the state, getting people to be interested in moving here and bringing their companies with them, then why would we use turnpikes as the discouragement it is. Especially getting in and out of Tulsa! There is NO four lane interstate level road coming in/out of town that doesn't cost. Even truckers consciously go out of their way to avoid this state JUST BECAUSE of the turnpikes.
This entity has always, since the very beginning been nothing more than a slush fund to allow a channel for BOTH parties to pay back favors with political patronage. And allow a TON of debt to be incurred outside of the Constitutional requirement of a balanced budget. Last annual report I looked at - several years ago - showed over $2 billion in debt. And just try to buy one of those turnpike bonds as investment - it is "invitation only" as a reward for something done for someone.
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 14, 2011, 09:00:35 AM
I'll give you 2nd to 3rd order but no lower.
And, just as Obama claims the stimulus has prevented loss of even more jobs than has occured, I think the items you listed have helped to some degree although I might give you that some were overdone.
As far as right to work - what's with N. Carolina. Since no one believes they just wanted to build a plant there because of the Smokey Mountains and other natural attributes, it might just be right to work.
2nd to 3rd?? LOL!! Really...I chuckled out loud when I read that. I love it - very cool. (If I had said 5th or 6th, would you have said 3rd or 4th? I know how you love being contrary with me!)
I will grant you that - maybe some of that list has saved some, but we are still hemorrhaging. Companies are leaving and/or de-emphasizing their northeast OK operations. (The latest AA 200+ is just a small part of it.)
Right to Work is one where there is no doubt that it makes no difference, and may well make the problem worse. As shown in Oklahoma. Not only did wages not go up, nor companies come to town based on right to work, but the exact opposite has been occurring ever since - even before the last recession. Don't matter what pronouncements are made by people about not coming here because we didn't have it before - well, we got it now, so what is their most recent excuse for not coming here?
Bringing up something new - I have heard my entire life about "growing the economy", creating new jobs, bringing in new companies - the mantra. This has always seemed to be very generic - no real focus on what kind of companies or jobs we should be trying to attract. We have taken a shotgun approach to throwing money at anyone that comes along to try to get them to come here, but it has lead to a rather 'scattered' approach.
I suspect (and submit) that we would be more effective if there were a thought out direction to our efforts. We don't seem to be able to do that here in Tulsa OR Oklahoma City.
One apparently successful example of this is Mid-America Industrial Park in Pryor. I know that being a "public trust" is considered a bad thing in many of the circles here, but it really does work well. Their goal now has to become - one of the leading centers for manufacturing, processing and distribution in the United States. They didn't get there overnight, but there is continuous thought given to the process. Probably because of their structure as a public trust so they DON'T have to worry so much about next quarters results. Looks to me like a very good example of public versus private collaboration.
http://www.maip.com/overview.php
One more thing - perhaps we could use tax incentives, if we were smarter about it. How about private companies started here, successful for years, but then sold off to out of state entities when the founder/heirs decide they are done with it and want to cash out? We have had a LOT of that happen during my lifetime and invariably the people of this state come out on the short end of that stick. (This would be a good thing for Federal level, too.)
Structure the tax code such that if the owner cashes out, that's ok, they just pay the capital gains that would be due. BUT - if they "sell" it out to an employee ownership structure, they pay NO capital gains. Maybe even pay a tax incentive (10%?) to encourage this approach. Keep the company here, keep the jobs here, keep the economic activity benefits here. Owner gets the same amount - or more - just doesn't pay taxes on it. If the employees don't want to deal with it, ok. Sell out as normal.
And the cheapest government funded tax incentive.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 14, 2011, 09:12:44 AM
Doosh the entire state? Not a chance. (Now that is a reactionary comment!) Dooshing the stupid stuff we do sometimes?? Absolutely!! 'Cause we fall into the trap of believing too many people with hidden agendas that are NOT in our best interest.
Should have read the post immediately following that one. As reminder;
And it is so very, very sad.... we have such a beautiful state, good people (mostly), and SO much additional potential that is just not being realized. If I ever cried, it would make me want to cry.
We are on exactly the same page about tax incentives to companies. Incubators are a much better approach. As would be investing seriously in education. Rather than making it more difficult to go to college or tech school, we should be making it easier. There have been several posts here deriding people currently in the news who are talking about lower cost college (free tuition). Advanced education has been convincingly proven for eternity (my reactionary comment) to add many times its cost to the economy and its return in increased tax revenues - not just paid back in full, but with multiples of its cost as interest! MUCH more than ANY straight out tax cut has ever done.
So why do we keep up the drum beat about that stupid crap - tax cuts?? You know why. It benefits the 1%. And does not benefit the 99%.
2025 - typical "pork" in many ways. The comment "sold to the taxpayers" is right. Bill of goods. Made nice for us already here. How does it bring in more industry?
One area you missed - infrastructure! We have such a mess in the state in so many ways. You drive the turnpike - get off sometime and drive under some of those bridges. I bet it will make you a little nervous.
A corollary to that is the turnpike itself. IF we are SO concerned about bringing "new" into the state, getting people to be interested in moving here and bringing their companies with them, then why would we use turnpikes as the discouragement it is. Especially getting in and out of Tulsa! There is NO four lane interstate level road coming in/out of town that doesn't cost. Even truckers consciously go out of their way to avoid this state JUST BECAUSE of the turnpikes.
This entity has always, since the very beginning been nothing more than a slush fund to allow a channel for BOTH parties to pay back favors with political patronage. And allow a TON of debt to be incurred outside of the Constitutional requirement of a balanced budget. Last annual report I looked at - several years ago - showed over $2 billion in debt. And just try to buy one of those turnpike bonds as investment - it is "invitation only" as a reward for something done for someone.
I cringe to think what our turnpikes would look like if they weren't toll roads.
I'm in full agreement that free college tuition is a far better investment than long-term social program benefits for the undereducated.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 14, 2011, 09:52:07 AM
I cringe to think what our turnpikes would look like if they weren't toll roads.
I'm in full agreement that free college tuition is a far better investment than long-term social program benefits for the undereducated.
Turnpike topic goes to a point I have harped on for decades - QUIT ELECTING THESE CLOWNS!!!!
There was an insurance agent in Locust Grove in the 60's who campaigned a lot to fix highway 33 east of Tulsa. Made too much sense - for decades, the OK legislature intentionally refused to help that mess of a road, despite it being a death trap and being a good idea to fix it. After he died, they turned the turnpike people loose on it, so now you can go to AR easily. On a toll road.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 14, 2011, 09:47:54 AM
2nd to 3rd?? LOL!! Really...I chuckled out loud when I read that. I love it - very cool. (If I had said 5th or 6th, would you have said 3rd or 4th? I know how you love being contrary with me!)
No, I would have held out for for 2nd & 3rd. You love being contrary too.
Quote
Right to Work is one where there is no doubt that it makes no difference, and may well make the problem worse.
You and I disagree about unions. That is not going to change.
Quote
One apparently successful example of this is Mid-America Industrial Park in Pryor.
I used to work for a company at Pryor. MAIP is overall OK but not without its problems. I do not wish to discuss them on a public forum.
Quote
One more thing - perhaps we could use tax incentives, if we were smarter about it. How about private companies started here, successful for years, but then sold off to out of state entities when the founder/heirs decide they are done with it and want to cash out? We have had a LOT of that happen during my lifetime and invariably the people of this state come out on the short end of that stick. (This would be a good thing for Federal level, too.)
Structure the tax code such that if the owner cashes out, that's ok, they just pay the capital gains that would be due. BUT - if they "sell" it out to an employee ownership structure, they pay NO capital gains. Maybe even pay a tax incentive (10%?) to encourage this approach. Keep the company here, keep the jobs here, keep the economic activity benefits here. Owner gets the same amount - or more - just doesn't pay taxes on it. If the employees don't want to deal with it, ok. Sell out as normal.
That sounds like a tax break for the rich to me. When did you become a Republican?
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 14, 2011, 10:13:03 AM
No, I would have held out for for 2nd & 3rd. You love being contrary too.
You and I disagree about unions. That is not going to change.
I used to work for a company at Pryor. MAIP is overall OK but not without its problems. I do not wish to discuss them on a public forum.
That sounds like a tax break for the rich to me. When did you become a Republican?
Absolutely. It is a case of "take a side, I'll take the other..."
Unions have been a non-event in this country for decades. Kind of makes it tough to blame an entity that has so little true power.
MAIP is far from perfect, I know. There does seem to be some general theme, though. Not like Austin, TX. And Dallas. Technology, semiconductors, software.
Tax break for the rich...?? well, it IS a WIN-WIN situation instead of the kind of crap that goes on today. Can you tell me any other tax break that benefits everyone as much as that would? (Rhetorical question - I know the answer; there isn't one.) Have you ever had a company sold out from under you?
How many 'home-grown' companies - and the jobs they represent - have gone away?? Over the years, there have been a lot. Lowrance. Bed-Check. Coburn Optical in Muskogee. FW Murphy is getting weird with their merger - not sure how that will play out - hope it stays here. REDA pump in Bartlesville has been 'de-emphasizing' local operations for years - was sold out decades ago. Baker Hughes wants to move Centrilift, but hasn't yet - another local start that sold out of state. Oil Dynamics - sold to big guy (Centrilift). United Parts in OKC - large auto parts rebuilder gone - not sure of their exact history, but will get more info today if interested. There is a lot of this stuff going on all the time. Shouldn't happen if the people who built the company want to try to keep it going. PSO being sold out over and over. AEP has sure been an improvement... NOT!!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 17, 2011, 07:24:28 AM
Unions have been a non-event in this country for decades. Kind of makes it tough to blame an entity that has so little true power.
Their power has been diminished somewhat but some of them can still swing a pretty big stick.
Quote
Tax break for the rich...?? well, it IS a WIN-WIN situation instead of the kind of crap that goes on today. Can you tell me any other tax break that benefits everyone as much as that would? (Rhetorical question - I know the answer; there isn't one.)
Not a bad idea. I was just surprised that even though it would be good for the employees you would allow a break for the rich guy even if the only motivation was to keep a business local. I also think selling a business to your heirs should be a bit easier.
Quote
Have you ever had a company sold out from under you?
Not directly. One was a successful company that underwent a "merger" that ultimately allowed it to go under. The other was a small company that ultimately did not survive an embezzlement problem.
The other place I worked is still in business, hanging on in the present economy the last I heard. I've only been 4 places since late 1979.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 17, 2011, 07:24:28 AM
Unions have been a non-event in this country for decades. Kind of makes it tough to blame an entity that has so little true power.
Who are you trying to kid with that? Any diminished power would be the result of jobs and less union dues American union workers formerly performed (and contributed) which are now overseas or in RTW states.
UAW, anyone? Aren't they one of the larger share-holders in Genital Motors now? Unions still have plenty of stroke, and they leave companies looking for less expensive ways to manufacture these days.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 17, 2011, 11:22:16 AM
Who are you trying to kid with that? Any diminished power would be the result of jobs and less union dues American union workers formerly performed (and contributed) which are now overseas or in RTW states.
UAW, anyone? Aren't they one of the larger share-holders in Genital Motors now? Unions still have plenty of stroke, and they leave companies looking for less expensive ways to manufacture these days.
Down around 6 to 9% of the workforce, depending on source. About the same as this time one century ago. Way before the best times this country has ever seen.
Reached a peak near 30% and has been downhill ever since then. About 1981. See the connecting thread there?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 17, 2011, 12:16:03 PM
See the connecting thread there?
Yes, you like to confuse correlation with cause & effect.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 17, 2011, 12:16:03 PM
Down around 6 to 9% of the workforce, depending on source. About the same as this time one century ago. Way before the best times this country has ever seen.
Reached a peak near 30% and has been downhill ever since then. About 1981. See the connecting thread there?
I really dont have a dog in this fight since I have never had the opportunity to work with a Union based job.
But when I worked a Tulsa Cable. A few higher up Managers wanted to bring in a Union. Of course a certain amount of signatures had to be gotten before it would go to a vote. That amount was never reached and I remember the treatment that was received to those who signed the petition by those who didnt. It affected some employees promotions. If it had passed, Who knows. I might still be working there. You never know.
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 17, 2011, 12:39:58 PM
Yes, you like to confuse correlation with cause & effect.
In your dreams!!
Quote from: DolfanBob on October 17, 2011, 12:50:46 PM
I really dont have a dog in this fight since I have never had the opportunity to work with a Union based job.
But when I worked a Tulsa Cable. A few higher up Managers wanted to bring in a Union. Of course a certain amount of signatures had to be gotten before it would go to a vote. That amount was never reached and I remember the treatment that was received to those who signed the petition by those who didnt. It affected some employees promotions. If it had passed, Who knows. I might still be working there. You never know.
Only been in one (The Brotherhood) for a short while, but have had to work with many, particularly in the north and east. Can be an adventure.
I don't want to join one, but I can certainly appreciate the benefits that I have accrued over my lifetime from the efforts of the union people. So many things that so many of us take for granted. The current rage is to dismiss the value of a union - "they had a place once, but not necessarily in these 'modern times'" - well, I think we are living the results of that attitude right now. Ain't it's gonna get uglier before it gets better. And not because of union actions.
KTUL tweet:
QuoteWFAA reporter saying AMR, parent company of American Airlines is cutting 24-thousand jobs
I have no idea if that's a chicken little or not.
Quote from: Townsend on February 01, 2012, 10:21:24 AM
KTUL tweet:
I have no idea if that's a chicken little or not.
Holy smile! I would assume they must be cutting routes and fleet size drastically then. Either that or they've been paying for a lot of dead wood all these years.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 01, 2012, 10:29:25 AM
Holy smile! I would assume they must be cutting routes and fleet size drastically then. Either that or they've been paying for a lot of dead wood all these years.
I've never looked. Is AMR mostly AA or is there more to it?
Quote from: Townsend on February 01, 2012, 10:31:31 AM
I've never looked. Is AMR mostly AA or is there more to it?
I think it's primarily AA.
http://www.ktul.com/story/16650097/report-american-cutting-24-thousand-jobs?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.ktul.com/story/16650097/report-american-cutting-24-thousand-jobs?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)
QuoteTulsa - AMR, the parent of American Airlines, is expected to release its plans to reorganize under Chapter 11 bankruptcy and a reporter out of Dallas says it's expected to include cutting 24-thousand of its employees.
Shelly Slater, a reporter for WFAA-TV, the ABC affiliate in Dallas, posted the news on her Twitter feed: @wfaashelly "24k American Airlines employees are being let go."
Slater says a news conference is expected later today.
The Transport Workers Union Local 514 in Tulsa posted on its website that it expects the Alliance maintenance base in Fort Worth to close and to "significantly reduce" other maintenance personnel and ground workers, as pilots and flight attendants to work more hours and to outsource a lot of maintenance and ground work.
The company filed for bankruptcy in late November and Chairman and CEO Gerard Arpey resigned. He was replaced by Thomas Horton, who warned there would likely be jobs lost. AMR reports it lost 904-million dollars in December, more than was lost during the first three quarters of 2011 combined.
Since 2001, the company has lost 11-billion dollars.
The cuts being reported would reflect about 10-20 percent of the airline's worldwide employees. KXAS-TV in Dallas reports that its sources say one-thousand job cuts will come at the company's Fort Worth maintenance base.
While AMR is set to release its plan, it will not be final until it negotiates with the unions involved, KXAS reports. It's unknown how long that process could take.
American has more than six thousand employees in Tulsa, most of them at its maintenance base. Earlier this week, the Transport Workers Union Local 514 announced a website, www.isupportamericanjobs.com, a place where people can pledge their support for Tulsa's jobs.
While it's unclear where the layoffs would be, a large layoff of employees here in Tulsa would be a huge blow to Tulsa's economy.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 01, 2012, 10:46:50 AM
I think it's primarily AA.
And American Eagle, or did they sell that?
Quote from: swake on February 01, 2012, 11:53:17 AM
And American Eagle, or did they sell that?
I've never been able to figure out the ownership of AE. When I've flown an Eagle flight it's been "American Eagle operated by Simmons Airways" or some such thing.
Okay, according to this, AMR is parent to AA and AE:
http://www.aa.com/i18n/amrcorp/corporateInformation/facts/structure.jsp
Quote from: swake on February 01, 2012, 11:53:17 AM
And American Eagle, or did they sell that?
This is either horrible news in that AMR is going to outsource all maintenance and close or sell the Tulsa base, or the work that was done in Ft Worth is coming here.
I know a number of people that work for American in Tulsa and Ft Worth. I hope they are all ok.
Quote from: swake on February 01, 2012, 11:59:52 AM
This is either horrible news in that AMR is going to outsource all maintenance and close or sell the Tulsa base, or the work that was done in Ft Worth is coming here.
I know a number of people that work for American in Tulsa and Ft Worth. I hope they are all ok.
That's what makes potential cuts like this so disturbing. You'd be hard pressed NOT to know someone who works for AA.
TW tweeted:
QuoteAMR announces restructuring plan: Company says it needs to cut 13,000 jobs
Well now maybe the Tulsa Chamber will get off its A$$ and start doing what it needs to do which is ATTRACTING new companies here so all our fish isn't in one bucket....
Now various reports are saying Tulsa may lose from 2,100 to 2,850 jobs :o
http://www.newson6.com/story/16652549/american-airlines-ceo-wants-to-cut-13000-jobs
The company is calling for 20% cost reductions from all employee groups. Naturally, the only things we know are the broad strokes, not the devilish details. They want to close AFW, eliminate defined benefit pensions in favor of 401K plans with some company matching, eliminate employee medical benefits, and change work rules to gain productivity.
As I understand the process, this is the company position going into further negotiations with the unions. It starts a clock running over 20 or 30 days. If a consensual agreement isn't forthcoming, AA can go to the bankruptcy judge and ask that their proposals be implemented, abrogating any collective bargaining agreements. Certain stipulations must be met before this can happen, including bargaining in bad faith by either party. It makes me wonder why we've been negotiating for the last four years.
AA was trying to control the flow of information earlier today. No one was to speak to the press, despite the news media being given unprecedented access to the maintenance base. Also, the unions were not putting out information from their meetings. Everything came from AA.
Late in the day, an email came out saying that employees would probably see modest pay increases and profit sharing. Yeah, profit sharing from a company that hasn't made a profit for...how long? I'd expect any pay increase to be more than offset by medical insurance premiums, and for Mary and me, it may be impossible to obtain insurance in the first place given our pre-existing conditions. Remember that "Affordable Health Care Act" that has some of our Republican friends howling? It just may save our a$$.
More information will likely be available over the next couple of days. In the meantime, don't pay attention to rumors, and don't pay much attention to what AA management says. Do pay careful attention to what they do.
Quote from: zstyles on February 01, 2012, 03:42:02 PM
Well now maybe the Tulsa Chamber will get off its A$$ and start doing what it needs to do which is ATTRACTING new companies here so all our fish isn't in one bucket....
Dont forget about the job gettin'ist mayor tulsa has ever seen...
Quote from: jne on February 01, 2012, 04:57:48 PM
Dont forget about the job gettin'ist mayor tulsa has ever seen...
City Leaders Say Tulsa, State Can Absorb Laid Off American Workers
http://www.newson6.com/story/16654729/city-leaders-say-tulsa-state-can-absorb-laid-off-american-workers?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
QuoteTULSA, Oklahoma - Community leaders are responding to the layoffs, but already say there are other opportunities for American employees. The Chamber of Commerce is meeting to talk strategy.
As they've been expecting this announcement, the chamber and city have been more closely monitoring the job opportunities outside American - and they say - things actually look pretty good.
All of those machinists and mechanics at American Airlines have very good jobs - but if they lose them - they shouldn't be unemployed for long. Aerospace industry experts say many companies besides American are hiring.
"Most of the aerospace companies that are part of the aerospace alliance in Tulsa are growing," said Mary Smith.
Mary Smith leads the Oklahoma Aerospace Alliance and she's confident American's layoffs will be someone else's new employees.
"I know there's a place for them in the state. One of the concerns we should have in Tulsa is that we want to keep them here. Boeing is growing in Oklahoma City and Tinker is constantly saying they can't get the talent they need. So they'll stay in Oklahoma, just not in Tulsa," Smith said.
Without firm numbers on American layoffs in Tulsa, it's hard for even experts to predict the impact. Some American workers will need retraining to get jobs outside of aerospace - but their chances there too are good - but likely at lower salaries.
"It may require a shift in skills, but most of the American Airlines employees are such talented, skilled people, that the chances for them to stay local and shift into something new I think is an opportunity for us to hold our own," said Dr. Kara Gae Neal of the Tulsa Technology Center.
Tulsa Mayor Dewey Bartlett says between changing jobs - and careers - the city is confident Tulsa's economy can absorb the layoffs from American.
"The aviation aerospace industry is actually generally doing pretty well. Now we'll see how American shakes out with what they talk about in the next few days, but the aviation industry is good," Bartlett said.
One of the bigger questions as employees try to make the transition is when - and how fast the layoffs will come.
The way this is shaping up it is not looking good at all.
Quote from: ZYX on February 01, 2012, 05:25:53 PM
The way this is shaping up it is not looking good at all.
Not in the short term but AA closing the Alliance base is good for the Tulsa base in the long-term when AA recovers from bankruptcy. The Tulsa base could be hiring in the next few years if AA can right itself and doesn't decide to outsource all its maintenance work.
I think Tulsa will be able to absorb a lot of the losses through early retirements and people getting jobs at other aerospace/manufacturing companies that are growing here. Some will also go to OKC where Boeing and Tinker are hiring. I don't think that many will just up and leave.
Quote from: SXSW on February 01, 2012, 05:59:36 PM
Not in the short term but AA closing the Alliance base is good for the Tulsa base in the long-term when AA recovers from bankruptcy. The Tulsa base could be hiring in the next few years if AA can right itself and doesn't decide to outsource all its maintenance work.
I think Tulsa will be able to absorb a lot of the losses through early retirements and people getting jobs at other aerospace/manufacturing companies that are growing here. Some will also go to OKC where Boeing and Tinker are hiring. I don't think that many will just up and leave.
Oh I don't think it's the end of the world or anything, but losing this many jobs is just never a good thing. However, I do agree that it is good (for Tulsa) that they are closing Alliance. Hopefully they ar able to begin re-expanding in the nex five years or so.
Here's a possibility: furloughed employees with some great skill sets ends up attracting a large MRO presence in Tulsa to not only do some functions previously done by AA mechanics and machinists, but they might well attract more maintenance and overhaul business to Tulsa. We are somewhat unique with Nordam, AA, LMI Finishing, Helicomb, and a few others here in Tulsa. We are kind of like a smaller Long Beach or St. Louis back in the heyday of McDonnel Douglas, Lockheed, etc. Our entire net worth of direct air jobs is probably close to 10,000 in the Tulsa MSA.
I'm optimistic that those jobs won't disappear but will end up with a firm who is better positioned to make aircraft maintenance a profit center instead of a cost center. That is something AA has attempted to do over the last decade with contracts with the government Fedex and others, but apparently, not enough of a profit center to avoid bankruptcy.
Ed, I'm truly concerned for you and many others I know at the base and those on AA pensions. Wishing you all the best.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 01, 2012, 10:01:35 PM
Here's a possibility: furloughed employees with some great skill sets ends up attracting a large MRO presence in Tulsa to not only do some functions previously done by AA mechanics and machinists, but they might well attract more maintenance and overhaul business to Tulsa. We are somewhat unique with Nordam, AA, LMI Finishing, Helicomb, and a few others here in Tulsa. We are kind of like a smaller Long Beach or St. Louis back in the heyday of McDonnel Douglas, Lockheed, etc. Our entire net worth of direct air jobs is probably close to 10,000 in the Tulsa MSA.
I'm optimistic that those jobs won't disappear but will end up with a firm who is better positioned to make aircraft maintenance a profit center instead of a cost center. That is something AA has attempted to do over the last decade with contracts with the government Fedex and others, but apparently, not enough of a profit center to avoid bankruptcy.
Ed, I'm truly concerned for you and many others I know at the base and those on AA pensions. Wishing you all the best.
Same here Ed; my best friend and two other close friends work out there (although one is extremely close to retirement). One has been out there for about 12 years, the other about 10.
Quote from: zstyles on February 01, 2012, 03:42:02 PM
Well now maybe the Tulsa Chamber will get off its A$$ and start doing what it needs to do which is ATTRACTING new companies here so all our fish isn't in one bucket....
Funny! Thanks for the laugh...the Chamber doing what it is ostensibly formed to do... LOL!
Quote from: Townsend on February 01, 2012, 05:05:53 PM
City Leaders Say Tulsa, State Can Absorb Laid Off American Workers
http://www.newson6.com/story/16654729/city-leaders-say-tulsa-state-can-absorb-laid-off-american-workers?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
The big lie behind all the city spewed stuff about finding-jobs-quickly-crap is the fact that the jobs will be at half price. With dramatically reduced benefits. The workers are skilled, but this country has devalued skill for decades, in favor of having Chinese and Indian workers do the job.
I wish you well, Ed!!! And everyone else at American!
Quote from: SXSW on February 01, 2012, 05:59:36 PM
I think Tulsa will be able to absorb a lot of the losses through early retirements and people getting jobs at other aerospace/manufacturing companies that are growing here. Some will also go to OKC where Boeing and Tinker are hiring. I don't think that many will just up and leave.
Keeping in mind how those new Boeing jobs suddenly appeared...
By the company screwing the city of Wichita.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 02, 2012, 08:45:14 AM
Keeping in mind how those new Boeing jobs suddenly appeared...
By the company screwing the city of Wichita.
Not a finer city to be screwed, either.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 02, 2012, 08:45:14 AM
Keeping in mind how those new Boeing jobs suddenly appeared...
By the company screwing the city of Wichita.
With the current economy, the unfortunate reality is that job creation seems to be of a cannibalistic nature right now. And you and I are in agreement on how badly the American worker has been hosed by free trade pacts.
Aside from the obvious need for tariffs and penalties for U.S. companies moving jobs overseas, do you have any ideas on what we could do to generate new jobs rather than re-locate jobs from one MSA to another?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 02, 2012, 08:42:50 AM
The big lie behind all the city spewed stuff about finding-jobs-quickly-crap is the fact that the jobs will be at half price. With dramatically reduced benefits. The workers are skilled, but this country has devalued skill for decades, in favor of having Chinese and Indian workers do the job.
Would it be better for city/Chamber leaders to run around screaming the sky is falling? There appears to be truth to what they are saying, but likely also a fair amount of positive spin. Perhaps they are trying to paint a positive picture as part of their efforts to attrack companies to the area to take advantage of this newly available talent and to encourage those laid off to look for work here before looking in another city. That is what I expect out of our leaders.
On the macro level, the "creative destruction" of the bankruptcy process will hopefully allow AA to pare down some debt and be competitive. If so, that could bring some stability and prosperity to the company it has lacked for a long time. It may also give existing and new companies in the area access to talented and experienced workers that will allow those companies to grow and prosper in unforeseen ways.
On the micro level, it is painful for the AA workers and will cause great anxiety and uncertainty for many of our friends and neighbors.
It will be interesting to see how this affects development in the local economy. Will developers, builders, retailers, bankers, etc pucker up at this news? Or, will they move as if nothing is happening?
IMO, that's why the Chamber is taking the position they are. They can't let a doomsday scenario set in and set us back another 3-5 years in developing what we as a collective community have worked so hard to develop in our downtown, midtown, suburban areas and river. We've got a great momentum in our community and it's up to the citizens and the business community through their "trade organization", the Chamber, to keep pushing forward and growing our economy.
All that said, if I was in economic development in Owasso I'd be scared. Huge numbers of AA employees live in that community. The "Owasso Triangle" hasn't been the success the former ED director predicted and they've already seen a massive cooling in retail development. They are the community I see most affected by a significant job reduction.
Quote from: Hoss on February 02, 2012, 08:51:40 AM
Not a finer city to be screwed, either.
Be nice! Wichita isn't ALL Koch Brothers...
Quote from: Conan71 on February 02, 2012, 08:54:21 AM
Aside from the obvious need for tariffs and penalties for U.S. companies moving jobs overseas, do you have any ideas on what we could do to generate new jobs rather than re-locate jobs from one MSA to another?
Short answer - no. I do recognize the fact that it is not in the best interest of anyone, with the possible exception of the CEO and board. Boeing has been a classic example of what not to do. Move from Seattle to Chicago? Anyone thinks that was in anyone's best interest?
And now shifting from Wichita to OKC. It's a shell game to allow a claim of "cost reduction" or whatever excuse du jour to justify writing themselves big bonus options for the "job well done".
Cannibalism is a reality in product markets - if a company does not cannibalize their own product line with new/improved, then someone else will. (That's why they need people like Red and me.) It should not be a tool of corporate policy against cities/states/nations.
In the final analysis, it can be traced to the dependencies our economic pattern has evolved - economic activity/expansion/growth depends on increasing population (for "slave" labor wages) and exploitation of "new" natural resources. When population growth slows, or cheap resources become scarce, then our model becomes frayed around the edges and starts to have problems.
In the future, barring catastrophic collapses of the population, a "steady-state" economic model will likely be needed - at least as a major component. Examples in the past have all seemed to be tribal in nature consisting of small groups. I cannot imagine a large scale version unless some sort of "utopian" fantasy comes true, like fusion reactors for unlimited power, allowing everyone the time to pursue their individual interests in an ongoing way. Not likely.
But the steady state model is something that should be at least discussed. Or we could just have another world war conflagration to knock the population down by 20 to 30%, so the current model gets new life breathed into it....
Quote from: Conan71 on February 02, 2012, 08:54:21 AM
With the current economy, the unfortunate reality is that job creation seems to be of a cannibalistic nature right now. And you and I are in agreement on how badly the American worker has been hosed by free trade pacts right to work.
Aside from the obvious need for tariffs and penalties for U.S. companies moving jobs overseas, do you have any ideas on what we could do to generate new jobs rather than re-locate jobs from one MSA to another?
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/01/25/what-is-right-to-work-law/ It didn't help here....
Maybe the airline bizness s/b modeled on socialism. Airport security is already fascist so why not?
Quote from: Teatownclown on February 02, 2012, 10:48:28 AM
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/01/25/what-is-right-to-work-law/ It didn't help here....
Maybe the airline bizness s/b modeled on socialism. Airport security is already fascist so why not?
I fail to see how the airline industry has been hosed by right to work when it's virtually impossible to find an airline job which is not unionized. If you think the industry isn't already a model of socialism, consider all the federal dollars which pay for air traffic control, airports, the FAA, professional gropers, etc. The only thing missing is direct ownership of the airlines by the government. Also consider how strongly organized labor fits into the picture.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 02, 2012, 09:51:22 AM
Be nice! Wichita isn't ALL Koch Brothers...
That really has nothing to do with it, but...ok.
Quote from: Hoss on February 02, 2012, 11:45:01 AM
That really has nothing to do with it, but...ok.
You don't like Wichita on it own merits, huh?
I can see that...
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 02, 2012, 11:52:36 AM
You don't like Wichita on it own merits, huh?
I can see that...
Considering that the Arkansas River that runs through it smells horrible (way worse than anything here) then yes. And then the open concrete river for the length of I-135 that reminds one of either a moat or an open sewer.....
Sent from my Atrix4G with fat fingers
Quote from: Conan71 on February 02, 2012, 11:29:58 AM
I fail to see how the airline industry has been hosed by right to work when it's virtually impossible to find an airline job which is not unionized. If you think the industry isn't already a model of socialism, consider all the federal dollars which pay for air traffic control, airports, the FAA, professional gropers, etc. The only thing missing is direct ownership of the airlines by the government. Also consider how strongly organized labor fits into the picture.
You could make essentially the same argument about any industry, FWIW.
This whole competitive bankruptcy thing has got to go, though. If the airlines had done what normal businesses do when they find that they are selling the only product they can make at below cost (raise prices), the wave of bankruptcies wouldn't have happened. (USAir would probably be done for though..) Yeah, it sucks for the rest of us that it actually costs nearly $300 to fly anywhere these days, but that's
what it costs the airlines. (yes, I understand the magic of yield management..AA used to be the best at it; apparently it wasn't enough)
grumble, moan, whine, and complain all you want about that price, but it ain't getting any cheaper except on the backs of airline workers. Aircraft are more expensive, parts are more expensive, fuel is more expensive, just about everything is more expensive. Except we somehow expect workers to take a freakin' pay cut. God forbid the ones that make it to a big airline manage to make enough to live a comfortable middle class lifestyle. Instead let's refuse to pay them everything they earned and stiff the creditors because we're collectively too bucking cheap to even pay for the fuel.
This selfish self-destructiveness is rotting our country to the core. The self-same mindset has helped to push us into the worst economy since the Great Depression and driven the financialization of our economy. We're no longer dependent on car companies, airlines, manufacturers, and the like. No, we'd rather go on a gambling binge. Maybe one day we'll actually leave the casino and things will turn around. Nothing will change until we get our donkey up and walk away from the blackjack table. Maybe we could just wander over to the bar for a little while.
Quote from: nathanm on February 02, 2012, 12:28:37 PM
If the airlines had done what normal businesses do when they find that they are selling the only product they can make at below cost (raise prices), the wave of bankruptcies wouldn't have happened.
Raising prices would not necessarily prevented bankruptcies. There may not be enough business at higher prices to sustain the number of airlines and flights we presently have.
Whoa. Hold on just a moment.
I never fly. Haven't flown since the late 80's. Somehow, I have managed to make do with cars, trucks, ships, busses, trains and...a bike. And both of us are old enough to remember when flying was something special. Something you dressed up for and paid quite a bit to experience. The problem that besets the country now is that so many things we once saw as luxuries are now considered as basic necessities. Cell phones, computers, TV's, air travel, miracle pharmaceuticals, education, huge homes, and multiple cars. The population is simply indulgent, undisciplined and spoiled.
We have seen the enemy.....and he is us. Now we have to retrench and refigure our options. Adjust to new realities. Remember, all that greatness we admire from "the greatest generation" occurred with a much smaller world population, a much lower education level and a vastly lower standard of living for most folks. I still maintain that the baby boom having passed through its consumer stage is causing most of this disturbance.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 02, 2012, 12:40:58 PM
Raising prices would not necessarily prevented bankruptcies. There may not be enough business at higher prices to sustain the number of airlines and flights we presently have.
Here's the thing: It doesn't actually matter. The BKs will turn out to be completely pointless in a few years when fuel has doubled again and they're at the point where they've squeezed everything they can out of workers and are again circling the drain. They'll just be back in the same old position because they still refuse to charge (on average) at least what it costs to fly. A serious attitude change is the only thing that will fix the airline industry, and unfortunately, we have seen zero of that in the turmoil of the last decade.
I don't blame people for being pissed at high ticket prices, by the way. The airlines have been cutting service and raising prices for over a decade now. $200 used to get me a flight to California with meals and checked luggage was free. Now it costs $350 and they want to charge me an extra $8 to eat a shitty little sandwich and a bunch of extra money to check a bag, resulting in boarding chaos rivaling the olden days of Southwest. I suspect that if they had gone the route of raising prices
before they cut service to the bone, people would grumble and pay rather than be pissed off about it like they generally are today.
At least after deregulation they were cutting service after cutting prices, so yeah, you weren't getting as much, but nor were you paying as much.
Quote from: AquaMan on February 02, 2012, 12:48:01 PM
I never fly. Haven't flown since the late 80's. Somehow, I have managed to make do with cars, trucks, ships, busses, trains and...a bike. And both of us are old enough to remember when flying was something special. Something you dressed up for and paid quite a bit to experience.
The first time I flew commercial was to Navy Bootcamp, courtesy of Uncle Sam. I paid to fly home on leave and then to my next duty station (electronics school in Millington, TN; NAS Memphis) in 1972/3. Since then, I think I have bought maybe a half dozen trips with my own money. I used to fly on business once or twice a month in the early 80s. I was glad when the "dress code" for flying was relaxed. I never went in tattered or dirty clothes but was glad to not need a coat and tie. I carried a coat and tie for when I got to my destination. Flying in the 500 mph bus was kind of fun then but I wouldn't say it was special enough to warrant getting dressed up and paying quite a bit of my own money.
Quote from: nathanm on February 02, 2012, 01:04:35 PM
Here's the thing: It doesn't actually matter.
Eventually the price will rise to the point where people will choose not to fly because of the price if another option is available.
Airline tickets are not taxes. You cannot throw people in jail if they choose not to participate.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 02, 2012, 01:39:59 PM
Eventually the price will rise to the point where people will choose not to fly because of the price if another option is available.
Airline tickets are not taxes. You cannot throw people in jail if they choose not to participate.
Nobody said we could. However, I'm pretty sure there's more price elasticity in airline tickets than the airlines think. With only two weeks' vacation, most families can't afford the time involved in driving across the country to see grandma. For my part, it literally doesn't matter what they charge. They could give me a ticket to fly to Florida for free and I wouldn't use it. I have no interest in their service as along as dealing with TSA is a requirement. I only fly when someone else is buying and they're making me.
There's no secret unions drive up the cost of doing business for a corporation. Both from a wage and administrative stand-point.
However, taking a good look at cross-town rival Southwest Airlines, they are heavily unionized as well and continue to turn a profit while offering lower fares. I seriously doubt their only advantage is a "one type" aircraft policy which keeps maintenance costs lower. They still operate, I believe, around 550 aircraft compared to AA's 600 or so. I truly believe Southwest's rapid gate turns have a lot to do with this, as well as (far as I know) not brokering out ticket sales. You can't buy a SW ticket anywhere but their own web site so they aren't paying travel agent or travel site commissions on ticket sales.
Here's an article from 2008 outlining seven reasons they are successful when others are cutting fleets, cutting service, & flights, as well as filing bankruptcy.
http://www.wired.com/cars/futuretransport/news/2008/07/portfolio_0708
I honestly don't know why every other airline hasn't taken a closer look at Southwest's financial success and tried to model what SW is doing. One of the things airlines could probably do is eliminate first class on domestic flights anyhow. It's typically little more than an upgrade option for frequent fliers and I don't believe it adds significantly to the bottom line. SW has made it for years on customer loyalty without first class and without costly perks programs.
It's a lot easier to make money when you decide you just aren't going to serve most of the commercial airports in the US and you don't have pension costs going back 70 years. Also, if everyone else decides to act like Southwest, why would I not just go ahead and fly Southwest?
FWIW, the frequent flier programs a profit center for all the majors. They sell miles to credit card companies and whoever for 2c or so per mile. Most of those miles are redeemed (if they're even redeemed at all) for 1.5c or less. Only a few crazy people like me won't use miles unless they can be redeemed at least 5c apiece. ;)
Quote from: Conan71 on February 02, 2012, 11:29:58 AM
I fail to see how the airline industry has been hosed by right to work when it's virtually impossible to find an airline job which is not unionized. If you think the industry isn't already a model of socialism, consider all the federal dollars which pay for air traffic control, airports, the FAA, professional gropers, etc. The only thing missing is direct ownership of the airlines by the government. Also consider how strongly organized labor fits into the picture.
Airlines are under the federal Railway Labor Act, and right to work laws do not apply. The RLA prevents wild cat strikes and company lockouts that would disrupt transportation. Labor agreements do not expire. They become amendable. There's a long process that involves negotiation and mediation before any action can be taken. Even then, whe a union waits out the cooling off period, there's a good chance the President will order them back to work anyway. Clinton did that with the pilots. I think they were on strike for almost 4 minutes.
The problem with the RLA is that it gives the company no incentive to settle. If they draw out negotiations, the union cannot strike and the company gets the same labor rates they've had all along. Several AA unions asked to be released from negotiations, but the mediator always said no. We've 'negotiated' for 4 years. I was told that the company repudiated positions they had already agreed to, but I don't know if that's true or not.
Gotta go, the power is about to go off....more later
Quote from: nathanm on February 02, 2012, 02:35:28 PM
It's a lot easier to make money when you decide you just aren't going to serve most of the commercial airports in the US and you don't have pension costs going back 70 years. Also, if everyone else decides to act like Southwest, why would I not just go ahead and fly Southwest?
FWIW, the frequent flier programs a profit center for all the majors. They sell miles to credit card companies and whoever for 2c or so per mile. Most of those miles are redeemed (if they're even redeemed at all) for 1.5c or less. Only a few crazy people like me won't use miles unless they can be redeemed at least 5c apiece. ;)
Actually, they are serving more of the main airports. Other than Miami, Houston, Chicago, or Dallas those are the only markets I can find on their web site where they avoid a major international airport. They serve the main airport in SFO, SAN, PHX, LAX, DEN, LGA, EWK, SEA, BOS, BWI, IAD, ATL, etc.
http://travel.southwest.com/travel/destinationDetails.html?cityName=New+York
If an airline isn't following the Southwest model, then they are following the United/Delta/AA/USAir model. What incentive is there to choose one of those carriers over another in the same group? I think other airlines could follow that model and retain their passengers. If one airline wanted to remain as a more full service and passengers would pay for it then great. But that model has proven to be a money loser over time. I don't recall where I read the stat but with the cumulative ups and downs of the airline industry that as a whole, it's been a break even to net loss industry over time. SW is able to do what they do well, pay their employees well, and make money for 38 consecutive years. It's just amazing no one seems interested in doing what they are.
And you are right, pension plans are a problem. I suspect that in another 20 to 30 years, other than government jobs you won't hear the word pension in terms of employee benefits, it will all be IRA or 401K. Even still, the government may end up going that route as well when you consider that pensions seem to be right in the middle of the USPO's financial issues.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 02, 2012, 03:13:23 PM
Even still, the government may end up going that route as well when you consider that pensions seem to be right in the middle of the USPO's financial issues.
You mean their manufactured financial issues? They are being forced to prefund pension obligations in a way that no private company (or actual government agency) is. It was one of the last turds of the outgoing Republican majority in Congress, seemingly designed to destroy universal mail.
Quote from: nathanm on February 02, 2012, 03:19:00 PM
You mean their manufactured financial issues? They are being forced to prefund pension obligations in a way that no private company (or actual government agency) is. It was one of the last turds of the outgoing Republican majority in Congress, seemingly designed to destroy universal mail.
Does it matter the manner in which it happened? The bottom line is, they got fed a pile and will have to deal with it since no one stepped in to "un-legislate" this.
You don't think another Congress might not do this to other federal agencies?
Quote from: TheArtist on February 01, 2012, 04:35:13 PM
Now various reports are saying Tulsa may lose from 2,100 to 2,850 jobs
The Tulsa numbers are more like 2,100 union workers, plus roughly 700 non-union members.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 02, 2012, 02:20:47 PM
There's no secret unions drive up the cost of doing business for a corporation. Both from a wage and administrative stand-point.
However, taking a good look at cross-town rival Southwest Airlines, they are heavily unionized as well and continue to turn a profit while offering lower fares. I seriously doubt their only advantage is a "one type" aircraft policy which keeps maintenance costs lower. They still operate, I believe, around 550 aircraft compared to AA's 600 or so. I truly believe Southwest's rapid gate turns have a lot to do with this, as well as (far as I know) not brokering out ticket sales. You can't buy a SW ticket anywhere but their own web site so they aren't paying travel agent or travel site commissions on ticket sales.
Here's an article from 2008 outlining seven reasons they are successful when others are cutting fleets, cutting service, & flights, as well as filing bankruptcy.
http://www.wired.com/cars/futuretransport/news/2008/07/portfolio_0708
I honestly don't know why every other airline hasn't taken a closer look at Southwest's financial success and tried to model what SW is doing. One of the things airlines could probably do is eliminate first class on domestic flights anyhow. It's typically little more than an upgrade option for frequent fliers and I don't believe it adds significantly to the bottom line. SW has made it for years on customer loyalty without first class and without costly perks programs.
Rapid gate turn....I talk to a controller at TUL (tower/ground controler) who tells me that a LOT of the SWA pilots ask for the crosswind runway (8/26) out there. It's almost never in use unless the wind is so strong from the east or west AND the visibility is within minimums because that runway has no precision guidance (ILS/GS etc).
Reason they do this? Especially in the winter, it takes the average jet about 5 minutes to taxi back to the terminal if they've landed on 18L/36R because once they've shut it down, they're typically about 1.5 miles past the terminal. Landing on 8/26..especially on 8, allows them to rollout and turn right on to the ramp pad.
Oh, it's an immutable fact: you have to make the same lease payment and payroll whether you do 6 operations a day or 8 along similar routes, and you have x-amount of fuel burn per hour while the APU idles.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 02, 2012, 11:29:58 AM
I fail to see how the airline industry has been hosed by right to work when it's virtually impossible to find an airline job which is not unionized. If you think the industry isn't already a model of socialism, consider all the federal dollars which pay for air traffic control, airports, the FAA, professional gropers, etc. The only thing missing is direct ownership of the airlines by the government. Also consider how strongly organized labor fits into the picture.
Unions are made up of mostly good hard working people. I know this seems obvious but it escapes you what goes into the concept of Unions. They are the whipping boys and they are a necessary evil for the working man against oppressive corporate bosses. It's always "labor costs" and never "bad business decisions."
Amtrak should buy American. :o
btw, SW Air got in at a good time....their timing was good, their game plan was good, and their execution was smart. American Airlines has been living off several municipalities which have provided welfare for their stockholders. But it's run it's course. I imagine the lawyers will clean them up, hammer labor, cut pensions, write off debts, and spin it off to British Airways.
Quote from: Teatownclown on February 02, 2012, 04:05:14 PM
Unions are made up of mostly good hard working people. I know this seems obvious but it escapes you what goes into the concept of Unions. They are the whipping boys and they are a necessary evil for the working man against oppressive corporate bosses. It's always "labor costs" and never "bad business decisions."
Amtrak should buy American. :o
btw, SW Air got in at a good time....their timing was good, their game plan was good, and their execution was smart. American Airlines has been living off several municipalities which have provided welfare for their stockholders. But it's run it's course. I imagine the lawyers will clean them up, hammer labor, cut pensions, write off debts, and spin it off to British Airways.
You just contradicted yourself. You say unions fight against oppressive corporate bosses, yet they can't do much other than stand around and watch as their members benefits, pensions, and wages get cut when it comes to the nut cutting. TWU members made concession after concession to "save" American for how long in Tulsa? Then what happens? Job loss and further concessions. If I were a TWU member I'd be pissed as hell not just at AA management but union leaders who capitulated to every whim and demand of AA and the company still went broke.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 02, 2012, 03:25:58 PM
Does it matter the manner in which it happened? The bottom line is, they got fed a pile and will have to deal with it since no one stepped in to "un-legislate" this.
The point was that it's not that the pensions are somehow so expensive that it's driving the Post Office into bankruptcy, it's that they are being forced into bankruptcy by a stupid law that only applies to them.
The business climate in the US is so fundamentally foobared that we can't see the real con, instead blaming unions, pensions, and all the other "socialist" programs for driving all our companies into the ground when in reality it's largely at the hands of high finance and foreign dumping. (although the latter does not apply as much to airlines)
Quote from: nathanm on February 02, 2012, 05:54:10 PM
The point was that it's not that the pensions are somehow so expensive that it's driving the Post Office into bankruptcy, it's that they are being forced into bankruptcy by a stupid law that only applies to them.
The business climate in the US is so fundamentally foobared that we can't see the real con, instead blaming unions, pensions, and all the other "socialist" programs for driving all our companies into the ground when in reality it's largely at the hands of high finance and foreign dumping. (although the latter does not apply as much to airlines)
It all goes back to the "pension reform" that Reagan pushed and got passed. Couple that with the bankruptcy law that passed under Bush, and ya got the situation where it is easier for a company to go bankrupt and rape the pension, and harder for an individual to get clear of debt. Another Bush legacy action.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 02, 2012, 04:26:54 PM
You just contradicted yourself. You say unions fight against oppressive corporate bosses, yet they can't do much other than stand around and watch as their members benefits, pensions, and wages get cut when it comes to the nut cutting bad executive planning. TWU members made concession after concession to "save" American for how long in Tulsa? Then what happens? Job loss and further concessions. If I were a TWU member I'd be pissed as hell not just at AA management but union leaders who capitulated to every whim and demand of AA and the company still went broke.
Perhaps, the Union should have placed themselves in the right priority position for bankruptcy. Wouldn't it be something if the workers owned the company coming out of bankruptcy...
Quote from: Teatownclown on February 02, 2012, 09:55:49 PM
Perhaps, the Union should have placed themselves in the right priority position for bankruptcy. Wouldn't it be something if the workers owned the company coming out of bankruptcy...
If it were to happen, it would be even more interesting to see what would happen with wages and benefits.
I believe there have been some companies where the workers/union did buy a bankrupt company but I cannot remember any examples at the moment.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 02, 2012, 08:48:47 PM
It all goes back to the "pension reform" that Reagan pushed and got passed. Couple that with the bankruptcy law that passed under Bush, and ya got the situation where it is easier for a company to go bankrupt and rape the pension, and harder for an individual to get clear of debt. Another Bush legacy action.
The Bush era BK reform did not make it any easier for companies to file bankruptcy. It made it more difficult for individuals to discharge unsecured revolving debt (i.e. credix cards) in an obvious nod to the banks to help stem losses, yet the banks still went tits up.
Quote from: nathanm on February 02, 2012, 05:54:10 PM
The point was that it's not that the pensions are somehow so expensive that it's driving the Post Office into bankruptcy, it's that they are being forced into bankruptcy by a stupid law that only applies to them.
The business climate in the US is so fundamentally foobared that we can't see the real con, instead blaming unions, pensions, and all the other "socialist" programs for driving all our companies into the ground when in reality it's largely at the hands of high finance and foreign dumping. (although the latter does not apply as much to airlines)
Far as I'm concerned, a deal is a deal and a contract is a contract. If a company promised to pay someone a pension and other benefits in their retirement years they should have to keep that contract. However, it seems that is one common lynch pin in many corporate bankruptcies.
Apparently no amount of sound financial logic is going to get you and some of your brethren to understand that a company simply cannot afford for 30 to 40% of their payroll costs to go to people who no longer work for the company. You can't possibly pay that much for zero productivity and expect your company to survive over the long haul, especially when you have to compete with companies which don't have such a burden.
Let me put this in a different light and see if it makes sense: If you started a new company tomorrow with a great idea that would hit really big, how enthused would your potential investors be if you came to them with a business plan that proposed to employ 600 people full time and proposed to pay an additional 400 people 2/3 the working person's salary plus full benefits at an advanced age where health care costs are higher, yet those people did not have to contribute a single hour of productivity a year to the on going operations of the company? Would you invest in such a business plan if you were a potential investor?
Companies simply cannot afford to pay for a workforce which no longer produces anything for the company. Bankruptcy after bankruptcy is bearing this out. People blame incompetent management. Did it ever dawn on them that part of the incompetence was promising pay and great benefits after retirement?
It's not a matter of people seeing that as a socialist mentality, Nathan, it's simple business logic. Pensions were well-intentioned, but due to too many programs which allow for being fully vested in 20-30 years, it's left a huge burden on companies to pay those benefits to a workforce which can retire, in many cases in their mid '50's and siphon pension and benefits for another 30-35 years.
Conan, do you know how close you were to posting at 12:34:56? Ahhhhhh, so close.
:D
Quote from: ZYX on February 03, 2012, 06:18:51 AM
Conan, do you know how close you were to posting at 12:34:56? Ahhhhhh, so close.
:D
Just a little less wind and I would have done it...
BAM ! Give that man a See-Gar. Exactly what I have been thinking but my Jethro Bodine ciphering couldnt quite put it into words. Kudos Conan + 1
Quote from: Conan71 on February 03, 2012, 12:34:57 AM
Far as I'm concerned, a deal is a deal and a contract is a contract. If a company promised to pay someone a pension and other benefits in their retirement years they should have to keep that contract. However, it seems that is one common lynch pin in many corporate bankruptcies.
Apparently no amount of sound financial logic is going to get you and some of your brethren to understand that a company simply cannot afford for 30 to 40% of their payroll costs to go to people who no longer work for the company. You can't possibly pay that much for zero productivity and expect your company to survive over the long haul, especially when you have to compete with companies which don't have such a burden.
Let me put this in a different light and see if it makes sense: If you started a new company tomorrow with a great idea that would hit really big, how enthused would your potential investors be if you came to them with a business plan that proposed to employ 600 people full time and proposed to pay an additional 400 people 2/3 the working person's salary plus full benefits at an advanced age where health care costs are higher, yet those people did not have to contribute a single hour of productivity a year to the on going operations of the company? Would you invest in such a business plan if you were a potential investor?
Companies simply cannot afford to pay for a workforce which no longer produces anything for the company. Bankruptcy after bankruptcy is bearing this out. People blame incompetent management. Did it ever dawn on them that part of the incompetence was promising pay and great benefits after retirement?
It's not a matter of people seeing that as a socialist mentality, Nathan, it's simple business logic. Pensions were well-intentioned, but due to too many programs which allow for being fully vested in 20-30 years, it's left a huge burden on companies to pay those benefits to a workforce which can retire, in many cases in their mid '50's and siphon pension and benefits for another 30-35 years.
It was the pension "reform" during the Reagan years that enabled the companies to raid the pensions, drain them of cash, use company stock as the "payment" to the pension plan.
Previously, they were funded and required to maintain an arms length relationship - this is NOT a company payroll event, it is a separate item, more like an annuity or 401K. And over a long period of time, it worked well until the companies were allowed unfettered access to the money in the plan.
It is/was exactly the same as if your company could now reach into your 401k and "change" the terms, take money out and put in their stock, without you having a say in the matter - the company was allowed to take the money back from the pension plan. I'm a little bit surprised that hasn't happened yet - it will. How do you not remember/know this?? You are old enough to have been there!
That is when bankruptcy became an economic policy event.
There are a few companies out there that have maintained a decent, honorable approach to their pension plans. Locally, TD Williamson is one of those. Not sure the new hires have same pension as in past, but I know several who work there and the company is exceptional.
Care to cite an article on that? Only thing I can find related to pension reform and Reagan was a 1984 bill which made it easier for women to earn their own pension or participate in their spouse's plan.
EDIT: Only other thing related to pensions and Reagan was his administration demanding higher pension insurance premiums from companies who were raiding pension funds. I think your disdain for Reagan borders on the neurotic at times. Unless you can come up with some sort of fact based article, I'm going to assume your claim is completely bunk.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1917&dat=19870407&id=tBAhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=oHIFAAAAIBAJ&pg=969,1607901
Quote from: Conan71 on February 03, 2012, 09:55:36 AM
I think your disdain for Reagan borders on the neurotic at times.
Not at all. What I rail against is the deification of Reagan. He did some good things - tax cuts followed by tax hikes at appropriately timed intervals to actually sustain a recovery, even if the overall deficits started us down the road to major fiscal problems. And he was a master propagandist and did help with the 'self image' problems we were having at the time. (But do you really think that would have lasted very long regardless, given how full of ourselves we are?)
And the fact that even though his administration was at least as corrupt as average, and the people he 'hand picked' committed various felonies - with no personal consequences for the participants. (Remember how Ollie North is considered a "great American hero" in some quarters?)
And the probability that he did know about the criminal acts being committed under his leadership.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 03, 2012, 01:04:50 PM
Not at all. What I rail against is the deification of Reagan. He did some good things - tax cuts followed by tax hikes at appropriately timed intervals to actually sustain a recovery, even if the overall deficits started us down the road to major fiscal problems. And he was a master propagandist and did help with the 'self image' problems we were having at the time. (But do you really think that would have lasted very long regardless, given how full of ourselves we are?)
And the fact that even though his administration was at least as corrupt as average, and the people he 'hand picked' committed various felonies - with no personal consequences for the participants. (Remember how Ollie North is considered a "great American hero" in some quarters?)
And the probability that he did know about the criminal acts being committed under his leadership.
Actually, they say that very wealthy people who helped fund his campaigns came away very angry when he started closing loop holes with the '86 tax reform as he utterly ignored their pleadings. I feel like out of the last 40 years or so, Reagan was the president who was least "for sale". Every president hand-picks his team, there's nothing nefarious there. Most definitely, though, 1%'ers weren't marching into his office and walking out with hundreds of millions in government loans for risky business ventures. Certainly, no one overlooks Iran-Contra when it comes to Reagan, nor other episodes happening with the CIA around the globe like Afghanistan.
I've read that Reagan was very conflicted and conscientious about the deficits and they bothered him. Certainly, he didn't intend for later administrations to spend so recklessly and drive deficits further, and quite certainly, he's not to blame for the miscues of later administrations.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 03, 2012, 01:33:11 PM
I've read that Reagan was very conflicted and conscientious about the deficits and they bothered him. Certainly, he didn't intend for later administrations to spend so recklessly and drive deficits further, and quite certainly, he's not to blame for the miscues of later administrations.
He talked about deficits on occasion and what it essentially boiled down to was "do what I say, not what I do". He couldn't control that once he started it any more than Blobama can control the ones he has today. There are some basic laws of nature and finance that cannot be ignored.
Gravity works.
Don't piss into the wind.
Don't spend more than you bring in.
Which brings us full circle again to the fact that we cannot cut spending enough to solve the problem. There must be more revenue - which means the Bush cuts must expire. And capital gains must go back to 25%. Nothing else will work.
And no matter how shrilly or repetitiously the RWRE read The Script - cutting taxes more is definitely not the answer. Just ask Ronald Reagan....he understood. As did George H W Bush. It's Baby Bush and his cronies that are the idiots.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 03, 2012, 12:34:57 AM
Far as I'm concerned, a deal is a deal and a contract is a contract. If a company promised to pay someone a pension and other benefits in their retirement years they should have to keep that contract. However, it seems that is one common lynch pin in many corporate bankruptcies.
Apparently no amount of sound financial logic is going to get you and some of your brethren to understand that a company simply cannot afford for 30 to 40% of their payroll costs to go to people who no longer work for the company. You can't possibly pay that much for zero productivity and expect your company to survive over the long haul, especially when you have to compete with companies which don't have such a burden.
Here's the thing about the 30 to 40% of payroll figure: It's only that high because companies have been outsourcing production and reducing headcount through automation. Yes, retirement costs are rather high as a percentage of total payroll. If they weren't, it would mean that the company in question was so stupid that it wasn't taking advantage of advances in technology or they were so concerned about the health of the US economy that they weren't shipping production overseas.
It's an artifact of the arithmetic, not evidence that companies are, in the main, forced into bankruptcy by retirement costs. More often, they're forced into bankruptcy by PE firms loading the company up on debt so they can pay themselves big dividends. I don't see you railing against that, though.
Quote from: nathanm on February 03, 2012, 03:51:22 PM
Here's the thing about the 30 to 40% of payroll figure: It's only that high because companies have been outsourcing production and reducing headcount through automation. Yes, retirement costs are rather high as a percentage of total payroll. If they weren't, it would mean that the company in question was so stupid that it wasn't taking advantage of advances in technology or they were so concerned about the health of the US economy that they weren't shipping production overseas.
It's an artifact of the arithmetic, not evidence that companies are, in the main, forced into bankruptcy by retirement costs. More often, they're forced into bankruptcy by PE firms loading the company up on debt so they can pay themselves big dividends. I don't see you railing against that, though.
Nathan, you are so hard wired to disagree with any point I make, I'm not sure why I even try anymore. ;D Agreed about why
some companies have
some people prematurely on retirement, though I'd be happy to look at any solid stats you can provide. If said companies had been using 401K's rather than traditional pension programs, they would find themselves in much better shape.
The traditional pension is going the way of the condor and T-Rex in the public sector.
It looks more like if you don't have a City, State or Government job, your screwed on a pension plan.
Quote from: DolfanBob on February 03, 2012, 04:17:32 PM
It looks more like if you don't have a City, State or Government job, your screwed on a pension plan.
I guess the way I view it is you can pay me less and assume I'm not responsible enough to save for retirement and provide me a pension or you can pay me more and give me the incentive and option to save for my retirement in a vehicle that I know will exist in another 20 years.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 03, 2012, 04:07:24 PM
Nathan, you are so hard wired to disagree with any point I make, I'm not sure why I even try anymore. ;D Agreed about why some companies have some people prematurely on retirement, though I'd be happy to look at any solid stats you can provide.
It's arithmetic, not statistics. A smaller workforce will make pension costs appear high just because the direct payroll is smaller. It would be interesting to see how pension costs compare to the company's direct and indirect payroll, though. That would be a perfectly reasonable way of looking at it, IMO. Saying that "pension costs are 40% of [direct] payroll," on the other hand, isn't a terribly meaningful statement in the business climate we've been experiencing for the past 25 years.
To use Apple as an example, they have around 35,000 direct employees, but around 700,000 if you count the portion of their suppliers' payroll dedicated to building Apple products. If they were like airlines, steel mills, automakers, or other manufacturers who previously had 500,000 people on the direct payroll, it would seem absurd that they were paying pensions and healthcare for 400,000 retirees with only 35,000 employees.
I'll see if I can dig anything up on retirement benefit costs relative to "real" current payroll. The airlines may turn out to be a special case. It'll be interesting to see, anyway.
BTW, I don't disagree with your point, I disagree that the obvious interpretation of the statistic is a meaningful one in terms of its ramifications on policy.
The pension plans/retirements were established when the minimum wage was 25 cents an hour. Most of the plans and benefits were established when gold was pegged at 20 dollars an ounce which showed stability in establishing a barrier to runaway inflation. Today that pension s an perks offered by the steel industry have gone away. We ask ourselves what steel industry. Capitalism is working to today as it is exercised in outsourcing our industry in foreign countries.
The cutback of employees of AA will have little effect on the sweetheart contract with the city but one could easily surmise that like city employees, up to one half of AA's employees possibility live outside the city of Tulsa and the city picks up the city services tab.
As we follow the short episode of Rome, under Mercenaries' and are able to pay the out sourcing of our labor with unsecured dollars, where we can print a trillion dollars on a couple hundred pounds of paper, it would be most foolish, to like Rome, mix lead with our gold
Shadows!
Where have you been hiding for the last year?
Hidings in the shadows with a bite of house cat that effected the nerve system with a flesh eating virus that don't exist. Would not miss the opinions of a cross section of this nation so been just listening.
Speaking of steel, isn't it hilarious that the Governator went to China to thank the millworkers there for helping to rebuild the Bay Bridge? (This did actually happen, BTW)
Weird that our politicians are apparently now making stump speeches in China.
No; it is not hilarious to realize that China is the only nation that has existed as a third world nation while for centuries it has relied on it's development long before we were even a nation. In taking a part in the bridge they were only protecting their investments of the future. Our balance of payment to China exceeds 3 trillion dollars.
AA is asking to outsource up to 40% of their maintenance labor cost. China can buy AA's total assets in a balance of payment transaction whereas in their balance of payments the amount they would consider as chicken feed. (30 some billion dollars)
China. with the world's largest population, should not be overlooked as a potential bidder in the work done at AA Tulsa, aircraft or maintenance shop center.
The days of glory may be over as we face one world competition where the nations populations struggle for existence on the plateau of 7 mile high mountains that project from a planet covered with water.
The employees of AA should bite the bullet and prepare make concession to compete in a one world environment. Ripley's marching Chinese; he estimated they by their birth rate, could march at six abreast over a cliff forever.
China is as likely to ever realize the entire value of our trade deficit as Germany is to allow themselves to run a trade deficit to save the Euro. That is to say it ain't happening. If we can wrest control of our country from the crony capitalists anyway.
The fat has been needed to be cut at this company for a long time...Its to bad it wont be on job performance......
Quote from: Breadburner on February 05, 2012, 03:15:37 PM
The fat has been needed to be cut at this company for a long time...Its to bad it wont be on job performance......
And even worse won't be at a high enough level to be meaningful.
Quote from: Breadburner on February 05, 2012, 03:15:37 PM
The fat has been needed to be cut at this company for a long time...Its to bad it wont be on job performance......
The AA’s, ride along bankruptcy, is no more than corporate America that has taken over capitalism in a one world environment. As the government of the people, because non-voters, the bureaucrats have become servants of corporate America, with the top heavy management who gloats over the inflating of the employees salaries in order justify the creating of their own family nest eggs.
True one countrys liability is another countrys assets. By using this formula of paper juggling, assets in a nation, as a non-productive service nation, is able to show they have the world greatest economy as many writers are trying to point out. It is the working class that create the money to buy the product that is to be serviced. The outsourcing of the labor forces jobs will cause any services paper economy to collapse.
There is a point where the manufacturers of the product will demand payment from the merchant that stimulates the service economy. Thus the reduction and outsourcing of the product buying employees of AA will possible have many echo’s in the Tulsa economy So be it.
FAA approved duct tape
(http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/428227_4215932595656_1205331780_102556235_1488400774_n.jpg)
Quote from: Townsend on March 02, 2012, 02:39:01 PM
FAA approved duct tape
(http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/428227_4215932595656_1205331780_102556235_1488400774_n.jpg)
That's not duct tape or even duck tape. It's special aviation thousand mile per hour tape. :D
A little bondo, some tape and paint. Good as old.
AAR nonunion with 2 billion profits, AA closed in with union and pension and 11 billion debts. Might be Picking the elite of business to transfer debt to tax write-off. Large company comes to town to check on workforce and conditions. Could it be that sign painters will be needed to add an R to a passel of signs? Hmmmmm
Quote from: shadows on March 03, 2012, 11:41:19 AM
AAR nonunion with 2 billion profits, AA closed in with union and pension and 11 billion debts. Picking the elite of business to transfer debt to tax write-off. Large company comes to town to check on workforce and conditions. Could it be that sign painters will be needed to add an R to a passel of signs? Hmmmmm
Nah, a couple people with Magic Markers or Sharpies can take care of it.
:D
The stock market today will possibly give a bunch of trader's ulcers after the judge acted like they was doing ok by duplicating the governments budget.
American could lay off 400 workers at Tulsa maintenance base next year
Read more here: http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk/2013/09/american-could-lay-off-400-workers-at-tulsa-maintenance-base-next-year.html#storylink=cpy
Quote from: Oil Capital on September 23, 2013, 12:25:53 PM
American could lay off 400 workers at Tulsa maintenance base next year
Read more here: http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk/2013/09/american-could-lay-off-400-workers-at-tulsa-maintenance-base-next-year.html#storylink=cpy
That was last weeks' news. I have more than my fair share of friends who are nervous about this.
Is the thought that AA will outsource all of its Airbus (A319) work when it retires the MD80? That would mean a bulk of the Tulsa workforce would be out of a job. I wonder will AA do any maintenance in-house or farm it all out?
Quote from: SXSW on September 23, 2013, 04:42:02 PM
Is the thought that AA will outsource all of its Airbus (A319) work when it retires the MD80? That would mean a bulk of the Tulsa workforce would be out of a job. I wonder will AA do any maintenance in-house or farm it all out?
AA does all the Boeing products in Tulsa, and that includes the new 737s.
Laying off 400 doesn't mean they'll cut that many jobs here. That's a system wide number. But it's particularly annoying because AA told Tulsa mechanics that eliminating overtime would save 200 jobs. They eliminated OT for all of two weeks, then announced that 400 number.
Quote from: Ed W on September 23, 2013, 04:53:11 PM
AA does all the Boeing products in Tulsa, and that includes the new 737s.
Laying off 400 doesn't mean they'll cut that many jobs here. That's a system wide number. But it's particularly annoying because AA told Tulsa mechanics that eliminating overtime would save 200 jobs. They eliminated OT for all of two weeks, then announced that 400 number.
Does that include the big jets also? I know a daily 757 flies out of here, but wasn't sure if they're equipped to handle the 47/67/77 series of Boeings. I've seen the occasional 747 in here, but not often. Last big jet I saw come to TUL was last week when that huge freakin' AN-124 landed while I was out to lunch and driving south on Memorial as it made it's run to 36R.
At present, all the 737, 757, 767, and 777 work is done here. I'm fairly sure of that. And the MD80s are done here as well, but they're aging aircraft and will be retired soon. The 737 is a replacement for them. The MD80 replaced the 727 some time back. The 727 burned about 12gal/min in cruise while the MD80 burned only 8 or 9. The 737 is supposed to be more efficient, but I don't know it's fuel consumption. Fuel and wages are the biggest part of the budget, I'm told.
AA hasn't had 747 for more than 25 years. The 747s you see could be Air Force or cargo operations. The Air Force used to do touch and goes with an old 707 here, training bomber and tanker pilots. They were conspicuous by the large plume of black exhaust.
Quote from: Hoss on September 23, 2013, 06:42:05 PM
Last big jet I saw come to TUL was last week when that huge freakin' AN-124 landed while I was out to lunch and driving south on Memorial as it made it's run to 36R.
I saw it take off. It looked like it was hardly moving. That's a BIG airplane.
Quote from: Ed W on September 23, 2013, 07:30:25 PM
At present, all the 737, 757, 767, and 777 work is done here. I'm fairly sure of that. And the MD80s are done here as well, but they're aging aircraft and will be retired soon. The 737 is a replacement for them. The MD80 replaced the 727 some time back. The 727 burned about 12gal/min in cruise while the MD80 burned only 8 or 9. The 737 is supposed to be more efficient, but I don't know it's fuel consumption. Fuel and wages are the biggest part of the budget, I'm told.
AA hasn't had 747 for more than 25 years. The 747s you see could be Air Force or cargo operations. The Air Force used to do touch and goes with an old 707 here, training bomber and tanker pilots. They were conspicuous by the large plume of black exhaust.
727s had that same telltale sign of black smoke. I know UPS still runs a few, as I've seen them out at the airport recently.
A truly atrociously loud aircraft was the 737-200s. Southwest had quite a few of them until they retrofitted them. Those long nacelled engines gave them away. They were almost as loud as A-10s.
And I wasn't sure if AA still have 747s. I know at one point after Boeing bought MD that they essentially folded the MD80 into the 717 as the third gen of the DC-9, which I believe Douglas called the MD-90. Not even sure if any of those are left.
Quote from: Hoss on September 23, 2013, 06:42:05 PM
Does that include the big jets also? I know a daily 757 flies out of here, but wasn't sure if they're equipped to handle the 47/67/77 series of Boeings. I've seen the occasional 747 in here, but not often. Last big jet I saw come to TUL was last week when that huge freakin' AN-124 landed while I was out to lunch and driving south on Memorial as it made it's run to 36R.
Is that the huge Russian freighter with the 8 wheel trucks under either wing?
Quote from: Conan71 on September 23, 2013, 10:23:23 PM
Is that the huge Russian freighter with the 8 wheel trucks under either wing?
Not under the wings..but big wheel cluster mid fuselage. From a distance it looks like a C-5 Galaxy until you see the vertical stabilizer and realize it can't be, since the horizontal stab sits on the fuse and not at the top of the tail.
(http://images.wikia.com/battlefield/images/e/e7/Antonov_An-124_EFHK.jpg)
That thing was here last fall, when I flew back from the frozen north. Huge. There were a couple guys hanging around the wheels...late night...I am guessing guards. Very cool to see.
Quote from: Hoss on September 23, 2013, 10:55:56 PM
Not under the wings..but big wheel cluster mid fuselage. From a distance it looks like a C-5 Galaxy until you see the vertical stabilizer and realize it can't be, since the horizontal stab sits on the fuse and not at the top of the tail.
(http://images.wikia.com/battlefield/images/e/e7/Antonov_An-124_EFHK.jpg)
That's it, five bogey's either side and two up front.
Quote from: Ed W on September 23, 2013, 04:53:11 PM
Laying off 400 doesn't mean they'll cut that many jobs here. That's a system wide number. But it's particularly annoying because AA told Tulsa mechanics that eliminating overtime would save 200 jobs. They eliminated OT for all of two weeks, then announced that 400 number.
Did the Tulsa World misstate the facts? They reported that the 400 jobs to be cut were at the Tulsa maintenance base, not "system-wide."
Quote from: Oil Capital on September 24, 2013, 10:26:12 AM
Did the Tulsa World misstate the facts? They reported that the 400 jobs to be cut were at the Tulsa maintenance base, not "system-wide."
I think I'd trust Ed, who actually works out there, to anyone else that doesn't.
Quote from: Oil Capital on September 24, 2013, 10:26:12 AM
Did the Tulsa World misstate the facts? They reported that the 400 jobs to be cut were at the Tulsa maintenance base, not "system-wide."
AA may indeed cut 400 at the base, though they say the number may be influenced by outside factors and isn't necessarily set in stone. But the way our rules work makes this system wide. A qualified aircraft tech can bump someone with less seniority in his own or a lesser capacity position. That may mean taking a job in another city or taking a lower paying job here. So while it does mean fewer jobs in Tulsa, the effects spread through the system like ripples on a pond. The same thing happened when they shut down Alliance.
Quote from: Ed W on September 24, 2013, 11:32:55 AM
AA may indeed cut 400 at the base, though they say the number may be influenced by outside factors and isn't necessarily set in stone. But the way our rules work makes this system wide. A qualified aircraft tech can bump someone with less seniority in his own or a lesser capacity position. That may mean taking a job in another city or taking a lower paying job here. So while it does mean fewer jobs in Tulsa, the effects spread through the system like ripples on a pond. The same thing happened when they shut down Alliance.
Gotcha. To be clear, the 400 jobs (if there are indeed that many jobs eliminated) will all be eliminated from Tulsa. Some of the people holding those particular jobs will be able to get other jobs in the American system by bumping less senior employees.
At the end of the day, Tulsa will have 400 fewer people working at American Airlines.
Tulsa American Jobs Headed Westhttp://kwgs.com/post/tulsa-american-jobs-headed-west (http://kwgs.com/post/tulsa-american-jobs-headed-west)
QuoteAmerican Airlines will be transferring accounting jobs from Tulsa to Arizona. About 130-jobs will relocate to the Phoenix area as the American and U-S Airways merge the accounting operations.
Tulsa Regional Chamber of Commerce Director Mike Neal reacted to the news:
MIKE NEAL: "While the Tulsa Regional Chamber never wants to see jobs relocated out of northeast Oklahoma, we are confident that many great Tulsa-region employers are seeking financial services and accounting professionals and that a number of career options are available to American Airlines employees who do not choose to relocate."
American Airlines says the relocation process should take about a year-and-a-half.
Quote from: Townsend on March 18, 2014, 03:50:14 PM
Tulsa American Jobs Headed West
http://kwgs.com/post/tulsa-american-jobs-headed-west (http://kwgs.com/post/tulsa-american-jobs-headed-west)
Ahh...yes... drawing more jobs to Oklahoma....
We are right on top of it here....
The accounting jobs were expected to be consolidated in Tempe with the rest of the new AA's accounting division. Most of the HQ jobs there are heading to Ft Worth but accounting is staying in Tempe with some of the higher level accountants also going to FTW. Of the 130 in Tulsa, who office in the Triad building at 61st & Memorial, 100 will be offered jobs in Tempe and 30 will be offered jobs in FTW at AA HQ. I imagine a decent number of those will stay in Tulsa and work elsewhere . Plenty of accounting jobs at the local energy companies and banks.
If we gave them another $10 - 20 - 30 million can we keep the jobs? Come on, AA is a good corporate citizen. They aren't just looking for handouts to pad their bottom line. They care!
Now let's put together a slush fund and give them more money!
The moving of accounting jobs from Tulsa to Tempe kind of makes sense, America West before they were taken over by US Airways had just built a new facility in Tempe around 2003. The one thing I am curious about is how this affects the maintenance facilities in Tulsa and Ft Worth. Sky Harbor became a major hub for AWA/US Airway, but the maintenance facility there is quite small, basically it's a hanger that could house two 757's at one time. Could it be that Tulsa will have a continued future because of the capabilities of that facility?
A side note to this was the change they had to go through at Sky Harbor in Phoenix. When the merger went into effect, they moved all gate, counter, ticket, and baggage operations from Terminal 3 to Terminal 4. This has changed the plans at Sky Harbor to build a new terminal and eliminate Terminal 2 which housed United, Alaska, Horizon, and Frontier. It looks like United will move into Terminal 3, and leave Terminal 2 (which is about the size of one of the concourse at Tulsa) to the smaller carriers.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/travel/2014/02/26/american-airlines-sky-harbor-move-goes-smoothly/5832653/ (http://www.azcentral.com/story/travel/2014/02/26/american-airlines-sky-harbor-move-goes-smoothly/5832653/)
Now the geek side of me wants to know, and I'm asking those that are pilots, when I fly on United and listen to the cockpit/ATC communications, will I no longer here flights referred to as "Cactus" which was AWA, then AWA/US Airways flights?
I think the main threat to the Tulsa base is AA outsourcing their maintenance instead of doing it in-house. If they keep doing their own they will likely keep the base open since they already have the facilities and the expertise is in Tulsa. AA has already closed the Kansas City and Ft Worth/Alliance mx bases, and USAir closed their Pittsburgh facility.
Maybe if they just put a bird on it.....
Conan's got one!
USAir executives toured the base several times. We heard they were impressed by the work, but that's no indication of whether they see it as a way to control costs or as a potentially valuable asset that can be sold. Experienced AA employees know to watch what management does rather than what it says.
Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Ed W on March 26, 2014, 06:27:39 PM
USAir executives toured the base several times. We heard they were impressed by the work, but that's no indication of whether they see it as a way to control costs or as a potentially valuable asset that can be sold. Experienced AA employees know to watch what management does rather than what it says.
Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk
Truer words were never spoken. It just seems to me that Tulsa would be a good choice to keep because of it's size, capabilities, and location for a maintenance facility and the other supporting companies like NORDAM. But I'm not a bean counter or an exec so what do I know.