American Airlines status

[heironymouspasparagus]

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.

[Conan71]

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.

[heironymouspasparagus]

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.

[nathanm]

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.

[Conan71]

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.    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.

[DolfanBob]

It looks more like if you don't have a City, State or Government job, your screwed on a pension plan.

[Conan71]

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.

[nathanm]

Nathan, you are so hard wired to disagree with any point I make, I'm not sure why I even try anymore.    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.

[shadows]

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

[Conan71]

Shadows!

Where have you been hiding for the last year?

[shadows]

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.     

[nathanm]

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.

[shadows]

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.   

[nathanm]

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.

[Breadburner]

The fat has been needed to be cut at this company for a long time...Its to bad it wont be on job performance......