CAL
Topic Author
Posts: 451
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 10:33 am

CO - $206 Million Fourth Quarter Net Loss

Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:52 pm

Continental Airlines reports $206 million fourth quarter net loss; $363 million net loss for the year.

HOUSTON, Jan. 20, 2005 -- Continental Airlines (NYSE: CAL) today reported a fourth quarter 2004 net loss of $206 million ($3.12 diluted loss per share). The net loss includes special items of $32 million ($14 million primarily due to the retirement of aircraft and $18 million related to a change in expected future costs for frequent flyer reward redemptions on alliance carriers). Excluding the special items, Continental recorded a net loss of $174 million ($2.62 diluted loss per share) for the quarter, which compares favorably to the First Call mean estimate of $3.29 loss per share.
For the full year 2004, Continental incurred a net loss of $363 million ($5.55 diluted loss per share) compared to net income of $38 million in 2003. The company’s 2004 results were adversely impacted by weak domestic yields and record breaking fuel prices. Excluding special items, Continental recorded a net loss of $255 million for 2004 ($3.91 diluted loss per share), compared to a net loss of $209 million ($3.20 diluted loss per share) in 2003.

[Edited 2005-01-20 15:01:14]
CAL........Continental Airlines....... Work Hard, Fly Right
 
CAL
Topic Author
Posts: 451
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 10:33 am

RE: CO - $206 Million Fourth Quarter Net Loss

Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:56 pm

Continental Airlines, Inc. will announce Fourth Quarter 2004 Earnings on Thursday January 20, 2005. A live audio webcast of Continental's quarterly briefing for investors will be held at 10:30 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time. The speakers will include:

Larry Kellner, Chairman & CEO
Jeff Smisek, President
Jeff Misner, Executive Vice President & CFO

See it here:

http://www.continental.com/company/investor/audio.asp

[Edited 2005-01-20 14:58:14]
CAL........Continental Airlines....... Work Hard, Fly Right
 
flyabunch
Posts: 443
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:42 am

RE: CO - $206 Million Fourth Quarter Net Loss

Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:58 pm

Weak domestic yields? I flew on over 80 Continental flights in 2004 and I never saw a plane with more than a few empty seats. I think that at on at least 30 of the flights I was on they had to ask for people to take a later flight. And, I would say that more that 75% of the flights were full up.

I still think that Continental does a great job and will be among the survivors. I also think that without the fuel price run up they would have been profitable.

I wonder where those low yield flights go?

Mike
 
FlyPNS1
Posts: 5272
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:12 am

RE: CO - $206 Million Fourth Quarter Net Loss

Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:02 pm

Full flights don't mean strong yields. How do you know the plane wasn't filled with people who bought $99 transcon tickets? Or $49 EWR-Florida tickets?

If full flights determined profitability, WN would probably be the least profitable airline among the majors since WN usually has lower loadfactors.
 
flyabunch
Posts: 443
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:42 am

RE: CO - $206 Million Fourth Quarter Net Loss

Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:19 pm

FlyPNS1,

Sorry, confusing yields with loads. You are right, I have to say that most of my tickets were cheaper than they should be too. I would like to see a modest increase by all and then we could quit worrying about these losses. From my own cursory review it doesn't look like it would take much more per ticket to turn this all around.

Mike
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: CO - $206 Million Fourth Quarter Net Loss

Fri Jan 21, 2005 2:32 am

Still waiting to hear from our erstwhile pilots, who say CO is still in great financial shape....ahem.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
ewr757
Posts: 354
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2000 8:47 am

RE: CO - $206 Million Fourth Quarter Net Loss

Fri Jan 21, 2005 3:24 am

>>Still waiting to hear from our erstwhile pilots, who say CO is still in great financial shape....ahem.<<

Still waiting for you to back up your foolish claims on the other thread.

While you're at it, point out where anyone said anything about the financial shape of the company vis a vis not taking concessions.
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 13502
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: CO - $206 Million Fourth Quarter Net Loss

Fri Jan 21, 2005 3:43 am

From my own cursory review it doesn't look like it would take much more per ticket to turn this all around.

The problem, unfortunately, is that as long as even one carrier undercuts you by as little as $5.00, the public will take their business there instead - and since airline CEOs are fixated on market share instead of actual money coming in the door, the insane desire to maintain market share means they'll slash fares to not let a competitor gain ground on them.

I can't say I understand this behavior - I believe there's no point in maintaining a good market share in a certain city pair if you're losing money while doing so. I'd much rather have just 10% of a profitable market than 18% of a losing one!

Unfortunately, as long as the execs continue to value "market share" as one of their gauges of success, airlines will continue to lose money.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18263
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: CO - $206 Million Fourth Quarter Net Loss

Fri Jan 21, 2005 3:51 am

EA_CO_AS:

That's two of us who don't believe market share is the true measure of airline business.

Now, if we could just get a few CEO's to believe it as well...  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

cheers

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
ewr757
Posts: 354
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2000 8:47 am

RE: CO - $206 Million Fourth Quarter Net Loss

Fri Jan 21, 2005 3:52 am

>>Unfortunately, as long as the execs continue to value "market share" as one of their gauges of success, airlines will continue to lose money. <<


Or stock price.
 
727LOVER
Posts: 6683
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

RE: CO - $206 Million Fourth Quarter Net Loss

Fri Jan 21, 2005 3:53 am

CO had a yearly profit in 2003? I know they had gov. aid in the 2nd quarter, but that offset a yearly loss?  Confused
Love Trumps Hate
 
airbazar
Posts: 6954
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: CO - $206 Million Fourth Quarter Net Loss

Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:25 am

EA_CO_AS, that's 3 of us  Smile
They can take their market share all the way to the their grave. Say goodbye to CO's 7E7's.
 
kl662
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 4:39 pm

RE: CO - $206 Million Fourth Quarter Net Loss

Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:53 am

Haven't past airlines (that are no longer around) tried shrinking to profitability?
 
CO2BGR
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2003 11:30 am

RE: CO - $206 Million Fourth Quarter Net Loss

Fri Jan 21, 2005 5:18 am

So they loose $255 mil for the year, then ask for $500mil in concessions, 40% from the pilots alone (200 mil).....I dont think so.....This is one more reason that the pilots wont vote for $200mil/year in concessions.
There are too many self indulgent weiners in this town with too much bloody money" Randal Raines- Gone in 60 Seconds
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 13502
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: CO - $206 Million Fourth Quarter Net Loss

Fri Jan 21, 2005 5:53 am

Or stock price.

Very true.

I can understand the BOD giving incentives based on stock performance, but not when doing so encourages CEOs to artificially manipulate stock prices to hit various targets preordained by the board. Decisions need to be based on the long-term viability of the business and not based on short-term stock performance.

Take care of your employees, and take care of them well. In turn, they'll take excellent care of your customers.

Ultimately, your customers will take care of your business - and your stock price in the process.

CEOs sometimes let their fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders cloud their vision and judgment.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
slider
Posts: 6814
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: CO - $206 Million Fourth Quarter Net Loss

Fri Jan 21, 2005 6:12 am

So they loose $255 mil for the year, then ask for $500mil in concessions, 40% from the pilots alone (200 mil).....I dont think so.....This is one more reason that the pilots wont vote for $200mil/year in concessions.

That's a misguided analysis entirely.

And that's exactly why the company has done briefings with EVERY employee in the company on the actual financials of CO.

In 2004, we had an operating loss. About the same projected for 2005 given a yield degradation and high fuel prices.

So if there isn't an operating gain, and you have a $230 incremental fixed cost YOY increase in 2005 to $648M, and a $230M hit for pension funding brings a total of $900M or so, almost a billion, in planned expenses for 2005.

Now assume our present $1.4B of cash on hand, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that even after CO has undertaken cost savings measures and controlled CASM as much as possible, you need labor to chip in too in order to maintain a sound cash balance.

Without it, we're screwed and it means shrinking, not growing.

And dipping below a certain cash balance triggers deb covenants which result in HIGHER cost of the debt already on the books. Self-fulfilling prophecy as it were.

The reason we're doing this now is so that we don't HAVE to face a last hour desperation move after losing money like the rest of the legacy carriers.
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: CO - $206 Million Fourth Quarter Net Loss

Fri Jan 21, 2005 11:58 am

Slider, you need to save the argument. The pilots apparently can fly, but can't do basic math. To them, losing money head over heals isn't a reason for THEM to give up some pay. They'd rather see the company go belly up, then to admit they were wrong.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
mopac
Posts: 196
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 12:05 am

RE: CO - $206 Million Fourth Quarter Net Loss

Fri Jan 21, 2005 12:52 pm

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet, but one of the Jeff's noted that while CO lost $200 million for the year they paid out over a billion to the Federal Government! The 1 billion is from what I understand just the federal taxes... not including the state/local/airport use taxes.

I've heard Gordon bitching about the taxes in previous calls ("Hell, we're taxed somewhere between booze and smokes") but I had absolutely no idea they coughed out a billion to the federal government while taking a $200 million loss. In one of the earlier '04 earnings calls I thought Gordon was being a smart a$$ when he said "oh yeah, Congress loves to talk about the $5 billion loan packages, but what they don't like talking about is the fact that the indus-tree (Gordo) paid out over $8 Billion (IIRC) to the federal government in taxes this year alone".

I have a hard time imagining that it cost a billion for the gov to administer CO's ops... maybe it did... but that's still a lot of 0's.

Oh, and why the hell doesn't gen av (especially turbine operators) contribute? At least to the administration of ATC???
 
expressjetphx
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 2:33 pm

RE: CO - $206 Million Fourth Quarter Net Loss

Fri Jan 21, 2005 1:14 pm

that sucks...and here i thought CO was making money all this time
 
ewr757
Posts: 354
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2000 8:47 am

RE: CO - $206 Million Falcon Fibber

Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:53 pm

>>Slider, you need to save the argument. The pilots apparently can fly, but can't do basic math.<<

Basic math? Like your inability to do basic math when execs. take a raise, then announce a paycut and the new scale is still in excess of their old salary? Or the salary of their predecessor? Shall I repost the figures for you?


>>To them, losing money head over heals isn't a reason for THEM to give up some pay.<<

Let's see Mr. Agent man. On an industry standard pay scale, how is your comparitive pay? The labor CASM at CO is what compared to the industry?
Your contract is how old? Was amendable when? Yes, that is right, you have no contract, nor are you a pilot. It is humorous how you complain about our issues. Not to mention how you attempt to sound and act like you're an expert on the factors facing the pilots and the reasons for their stance with management.

>>They'd rather see the company go belly up, then to admit they were wrong. <<

Is this like you not admitting you post complete lies and misinformation on this board about unions, company meetings and other information? Shall I bring the particular post back up? Obviously you can not back up your information since it doesn't exist.

Perhaps that is a benefit of your "first class" membership?

[Edited 2005-01-21 12:04:51]
 
ewr757
Posts: 354
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2000 8:47 am

RE: CO - $206 Million EA CO AS/MO PAC

Fri Jan 21, 2005 8:00 pm

>>I can understand the BOD giving incentives based on stock performance, but not when doing so encourages CEOs to artificially manipulate stock prices to hit various targets preordained by the board. Decisions need to be based on the long-term viability of the business and not based on short-term stock performance.<<


EA:

The above is a lesson lost on Wall Street, Business Schools and top management all over this country.

Your post is so accurate it should be required reading everywhere.

MO PAC

>>they paid out over a billion to the Federal Government<<

I believe that figure was reference security fees and taxes alone. Not to worry though, people like Falcon84 feel it is ok to fund that out of the employees pockets.

However, you're are correct. It is absurd.



[Edited 2005-01-21 12:02:54]
 
whiskeyhotel
Posts: 291
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 5:46 am

RE: CO - $206 Million Fourth Quarter Net Loss

Fri Jan 21, 2005 11:13 pm

It's a shame to see infighting in the CO camp. I hope labour and management can come to a solution that meets both parties' needs whilst keeping the airline afloat. I remember flying on CO in the early 90's, when flying on the proud bird with the golden tail kinda felt like being strapped to a duck's back during hunting season -- a sense of doom and gloom was rampant, as no one expected CO to successfully exit bankruptcy. It was not a pleasant time to be a CO fan. I wish CO and its employees all the best through this time of horrendous oil prices and absurdly low ticket prices (I fly mostly transatlantic though, mostly on B fares or higher...so I'd like to think I contribute to the bottom line inching towards the black). However, as a consumer who flies 100K+ miles/year, I must say that if labour disputes begin to affect customer service, I, like many other customers, will vote with my feet and choose one of the many other airlines out there that flies across the pond.
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: CO - $206 Million Fourth Quarter Net Loss

Sat Jan 22, 2005 1:04 am

Whiskeyhotel, I think you'll find that the the unions, despite the lack of rreality shown by ewr757, will make an agreement with the company.

I work for field services, we're non-union. Management came to us, told us how much our share of the $500 million wage concessions would be. Then our employee reps, and many employee themselves, gave suggestions to management about work rule changes that could be implimented to help cut down the amout of actual base pay tha would be taken from us. Our reps talked with management at least 4 or 5 times about these proposals, and worked very closely with them to impliment somethng that would be as painless as possible.

Well, on tuesday, CO announced that it had finalized the $99 million package that field services will be given. The press release said there were work rule changes that would minimize the actual pay cuts. I'm on vacation this week, so I haven't been privy to any info coming out of work. I would imagine that I'll get a letter telling me exactly what my compensation is, as that protect my privace a little more in this process.

I imagine, although I cannot speak for the unions, that their union leadership is doing much the same: looking at work rule changes that would lessen the impact of off-the-top paycuts. And, I think you'll find, that despite the lack of reality on the part of people like ewr757, and their refusal to realize what's going on in the industry, that the unions will make an agreement.

If they don't, they're cutting their own throats in the long run. I think you'll see them adjust to the new reality, and go forward from there. Like me, they may not like it, but they'll go along with it, in the earnest hopes that these wage concession will help CO return to profitability.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: CO - $206 Million Fourth Quarter Net Loss

Sat Jan 22, 2005 3:05 am

OK Falcon...How is this?

Much better. I thank you for realizing the uncivility of how you started the original one.

Lack of reality or your one sided opinion?

Not at all-on yours. You keep hitting management for bonuses that, in the long run, add up to peanuts as compared to overall finances in the company. I've ticked off to you, time and time again, the reality of this industry-realities that you seemingly ignore and dismiss out of hand:

-the dramatic rise in gas prices. Every time gas goes up $1 a barrel, it costs the company like $138 million.

-the continued decrease in ticket prices. Prices, adjusted for inflation, are where they were the year deregulation started, in 1978.

-the fact we pay over $1 billion a year in taxes to Uncle Sam.

-the fact that high-yield business travelers are staying away from the industry, and show no signs of coming back.

-the fact we have $1 billion in obligations this year in loan interest payments and in pension contributions.

Those are fact. They add up far more, and affect this company far more than the $49 million in bonuses you keep harping on. I don't consider that "one-sided opinion". I consider that reality. Why do you ignore these things?

Speaking of reality....are you ready to back up your blatent lies and mischaracterizations of past meetings?

If you're talking about the meetings we've had with management, you're the one who says they're blatant lies and mischaractizations, even though you weren't present, which I fine pretty amazing. You don't have a clue what went on there, so how can you, with a straight face, make such sweeping claims?

I do have a question for you. With Larry and Jeff hitting the road to the major stations, are pilots even allowed to go to their road shows, or does the union not permit you to attend these session? I wasn't able to attend the one here in CLE because it was too early in the day, and I had to get my kids off to school. But are you even allowed to go?

Why stop now? This hasn't stopped you from spewing your incorrect assumptions and statements before.

It wasn't an incorrect assumption, as far as I'm concerned. Are you telling me your union ISN'T doing the same? If they aren't, that's the height of irresponsibility on the part of your union. I cannot answer that. You can-why don't you? Is your union looking at work rule changes to offset the pay cuts? It's not a hard question, and I am just curious. To me, it makes sense for them to do so.

I realize that I will not fund their future out of my pay.

Actually, you will, in one way or another. Whether you like it or not, you will end up giving something back to help this company make it in the long run. It's a reality, whether you give up less now, or you give up more in a bankruptcy filing, when all bets are off. The reality is, you will give it up. I wish it wasn't the case, and I do not like the fact either of us has to give up anything, but again, your denial of the facts won't change the reality tha will happen sooner or later. For all involved, sooner is better.

Work Right, Fly Hard
 
ewr757
Posts: 354
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2000 8:47 am

RE: CO - $206 Million Falcon

Sat Jan 22, 2005 7:48 am



>>Much better. I thank you for realizing the uncivility of how you started the original one.<<

Such a thin skinned person. Hypocritical as well if you’re talking about “civility”

From one of your earlier posts:

>>http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/1900742/6/

you seem to want to follow in their example of fucking over everyone else for your own short-term benefit.<<

I guess civility only counts when you want to use it.

>>Not at all-on yours. You keep hitting management for bonuses that, in the long run, add up to peanuts as compared to overall finances in the company. <<

Peanuts? You call $49 million to 16 people peanuts? I’m sorry pal, but when you’re asking for pay cuts from the rank and file, you don’t reach into their pockets at the same time. There is a thing called leadership by example.

>>I've ticked off to you, time and time again, the reality of this industry-realities that you seemingly ignore and dismiss out of hand:<<

All you are doing is sounding like a parrot in a pet shop. Everything you speak of is a cost of doing business. Attacking an already low labor CASM does nothing to solve the long term problems. Unless the real problems are addressed like the peanuts for executive compensation for example, the problems do not go away. Labor cuts are a short term approach that in the end solves nothing. Given your example of say fuel..has management said they would refund the difference if it goes down? What if it goes up again? Are you willing to continue to subsidize costs of doing business?


>>If you're talking about the meetings we've had with management, you're the one who says they're blatant lies and mischaractizations, even though you weren't present, which I fine pretty amazing. You don't have a clue what went on there, so how can you, with a straight face, make such sweeping claims? <<

No, I am talking about your blantent lies about the meeting.

>>http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/1900742/6/<<
From this post again you wrote:

>>your union doesn't allow you to talk directly to management<<

Back up your claim. You can't because it is a complete lie.

>>Last time I checked, we were employees. Should I have said "gate and ramp"? Would that have made you happy. The fact you weren't invited<<

Names, date, management people in attendance who stated this.

>>I do have a question for you. With Larry and Jeff hitting the road to the major stations, are pilots even allowed to go to their road shows, or does the union not permit you to attend these session?<<

Now that is interesting given your statement from before and above. Do you see a bit of a your continued contradictions?

>>I wasn't able to attend the one here in CLE because it was too early in the day, and I had to get my kids off to school. But are you even allowed to go?<<

Yes. I take it that is the extent of your retraction from your earlier comments?

>>It wasn't an incorrect assumption, as far as I'm concerned. Are you telling me your union ISN'T doing the same? If they aren't, that's the height of irresponsibility on the part of your union. I cannot answer that. You can-why don't you? Is your union looking at work rule changes to offset the pay cuts? It's not a hard question, and I am just curious. To me, it makes sense for them to do so.<<

The union is classifying any give backs as a loan. Any concessions will be tied to a significant upside pay back for the pilots. I will not put specifics on the internet, but so far, what has been talked about has not been recieved well.


>>Actually, you will, in one way or another. Whether you like it or not, you will end up giving something back to help this company make it in the long run. It's a reality, whether you give up less now, or you give up more in a bankruptcy filing, when all bets are off. The reality is, you will give it up. I wish it wasn't the case, and I do not like the fact either of us has to give up anything, but again, your denial of the facts won't change the reality tha will happen sooner or later. For all involved, sooner is better.<<

I believe if things do not change within the industry (exclusive of labor CASM), the company will file bankruptcy anyway. No amount of concessions will fix the industry or CO’s problems. Further, any concessions will be voted on by the pilot group. At this point, I doubt it would pass. You are dealing with a pilot group that has not had raises in a significant amount of time, has already been earning far less than their peers and has a contract that is 29 months past it's amendable date.
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: CO - $206 Million Fourth Quarter Net Loss

Sat Jan 22, 2005 8:28 am

Such a thin skinned person. Hypocritical as well if you’re talking about “civility”

If you want to call me "think skinned" because you started a post saying to me "hello liar", then so be it. I thought, and the mods obviously agreed, that it was inappropriate.

Peanuts? You call $49 million to 16 people peanuts?

In the scope of BILLIONS, or hundreds of millions, yes, it's peanuts. Sorry, but I think, as typical of so many in unions, you're jealous that management gets bonues, but you don't. Guess what? That's just a perk of being in management, whether you like it or not. Bonus plans are meant to recruit and keep talented people in management. I don't have a problem with it, and, again, in the scope of the kind of money we're discussing, it's pretty insignificant, and won't make even a dent in the financial picture. All it will do is possibly lead to some good people jumping ship to a company that doesn't listen to the whining of a union member.

I’m sorry pal, but when you’re asking for pay cuts from the rank and file, you don’t reach into their pockets at the same time.

Maybe you should go back and look at the original press releases on pay cuts. Larry is taking a 25% paycut, and didn't take any bonuses last year. The other corporate officers are taking, I believe, about a 20% paycut. Those paycuts will be a higher percentage than either you and I take.

It's dramatic when you say such things, but it isn't the truth, sorry to say. And I think you said that if management took paycuts, you'd listen to what they have to say. Well, they are, and you're not. You don't even acknowledge those paycuts they're taking.

Everything you speak of is a cost of doing business.

Yes it is, but what part of this do you continue to not understand: costs, like fuel, wages, loan payments, pension, taxes are rising: revenues-mostly the tickets we sell, are falling. Fares are where they were, adjusted for inflation, at 1978 levels. The higher yield customers aren't flying-not just CO but airlines in general. Again, you end up with a gap between revenue coming in, and costs going out. I am, by your own admission, just a dumb gate agent, but even I understand that. When revenues keep falling, and your costs keep rising, something has to give. I just can't see why you don't understand that.

Labor cuts are a short term approach that in the end solves nothing.

Saving a half billion a year, over a few years, isn't short term. It will ease the pressure on the company to make a profit; to execute a sound business plan where we can get loans to move forward at favorable rates, and will help, we all hope, the company to grow, not shrink, in the long run.

No, I am talking about your blantent lies about the meeting.

ROTFL. Again, you weren't there, so how dare you say I was putting out false information. I wasn't. I even asked a followup question after the meeting to clairfy and to confirm what was said in the meeting. Everything I said was said in the meeting. Again, you calling someone a liar, when you weren't even present, is dramatic, but is far from the truth.

Back up your claim. You can't because it is a complete lie.

Is it? Then answer the question, if your union allows you to attend Larry's meeting with employees or not? I notice you didn't clairfy it for us? Straight up-are you allowed? I'm not too concerned about which way the answer is, but I'm curious to know if your allowed to go to these meetings that bypass union leadership.

Yes. I take it that is the extent of your retraction from your earlier comments?

If you look at my earlier statements, from a few weeks ago, that meeting was with LOCAL management. The meeting I missed with with CEO Larry Kellner. That meeting was last Thursday. So no, it is not a retraction. You just confiused the two meetings. They were separated by about two weeks.

The union is classifying any give backs as a loan. Any concessions will be tied to a significant upside pay back for the pilots.

Arrogance, I must say, and sorry, you won't get that. You won't get any snapbacks, and neither will we. You guys obviously are playing games, and think you're better than the rest of us. An interesting tack, but management will laugh in your face, if you think it's a "loan".  Laugh out loud

I will not put specifics on the internet..

Yet you bitched and moaned when I wouldn't put out specifics from that local management/employee meeting. Can you say "hypocrite"?  Smile

Again, the choice is yours-pay a little now, or a whole lot more later, when a judge tells the unions to stick it up their collective butts. I think you'll find-much to your chagrin-that your colleagues are talking a tough talk, but, in the end, they'll take the common sense approach, whether you, personally, aren't bright enough to do so yourself.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
ewr757
Posts: 354
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2000 8:47 am

RE: CO - $206 Million Fourth Quarter Net Loss

Sat Jan 22, 2005 11:56 am

>> you want to call me "think skinned" because you started a post saying to me "hello liar", then so be it. I thought, and the mods obviously agreed, that it was inappropriate.<<

But you are a liar and I proved it. Maybe Mommy can hold your hand next time when someone points that out. Or one of your other "first class members". ROTFLMAO. You actually pay $60 a year for that?

>>All it will do is possibly lead to some good people jumping ship to a company that doesn't listen to the whining of a union member<<

These good people that got us into this mess? LMAO. It is about leading by example. Like I said, enjoy watching your hard earned pay fund bonus plans.

>>Those paycuts will be a higher percentage than either you and I take.<<

Maybe you should go back and reread the SEC filings and 10q's showing pay before and after. Perhaps you just don't know how to add and subtract?

>>When revenues keep falling, and your costs keep rising, something has to give. I just can't see why you don't understand that.<<

You just don't understand that employees can not subsidize the cost of doing business. Where does it stop? I noticed you didn't answer the one example I gave about oil.

>>so how dare you say I was putting out false information<<
Easy. Your own words. Apparently you're not intelligent enough to even follow your own posts and wrods that I put for your convienece. You are denser than I previously thought.

>>I'm curious to know if your allowed to go to these meetings that bypass union leadership.<<

Now it is curious? Reread the post where you said we are not allowed to attend by the union. I again I posted it for you. Yes we can go to any meeting which is why I called you a blatent liar from the beggining.

>>You just confiused the two meetings. <<

No, I responded to what you claimed originally.

>>
Arrogance, I must say, and sorry, you won't get that. You won't get any snapbacks, and neither will we. You guys obviously are playing games, and think you're better than the rest of us. An interesting tack, but management will laugh in your face, if you think it's a "loan". <<

Let them laugh in our face. I will laugh all the way to bankruptcy then. You think it is arrogant that we do not wish to become an ATM for the company. I call it smart. And who the hell are you to say what we will and won't get?

>>Yet you bitched and moaned when I wouldn't put out specifics from that local management/employee meeting. Can you say "hypocrite"? <<

No, I said back up your opinions and facts.

>>a judge tells the unions to stick it up their collective butts. I think you'll find-much to your chagrin-that your colleagues are talking a tough talk, but, in the end, they'll take the common sense approach, whether you, personally, aren't bright enough to do so yourself.<<

Should it come to an 1113 filing. Those type of great labor relations should do real wonders for the company. It has proven to work so well at USAIR and UAL. Coming from Eastern as you claim, you of all people should understand to never upset the rank and file.

I guess you aren't bright enough to have learned your lesson the first time.

Incidently, speaking of my "brightness"...any time you want to compare credentials and qualifications of our respective resumes let me know.

P.S. Are the cartoon characters supposed to make you look more mature or something?




[Edited 2005-01-22 04:01:47]
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: CO - $206 Million Fourth Quarter Net Loss

Sat Jan 22, 2005 12:18 pm

But you are a liar and I proved it.

ROTFL. How did you prove it? Becuase I went to a local meeting with management, and not the one with Kellner? That hardly "proves" anything!

These good people that got us into this mess?

Gosh, but you just don't get it.

Here's what got us into this mess:

-rising fuel prices

-declining ticket prices

-rising tax burden

-declining ridership of high-yield customers

-increased costs in pension and loan obligations.

Again, you still have not answered to any of these. You just shrug them off. That is what got us into this mess-not the same management team that had us rolling in the doe during the good times. Again, what part of that do you not understand.

And if our management is so bad, why did we make such good profits in the lat 90's? Same management, same basic business plan. What's different? I'll tell you-everything I've named. You make it sound like only CO is going thorugh this. Look around you-the whole industry is going thorugh it. Why don't you understand that?

But I suspect you do, and you're playing your childish games, because you're not a team player, and are just a selfish individual. That's what it's about.

You just don't understand that employees can not subsidize the cost of doing business.

You said a while back here that all those things I mentioned are a cost of doing business. So are wages. And if you're revenues are falling, and costs are rising-and yo've already tried to slash costs over the last several years, wages will HAVE to be considered-by any company in this situation. But you, again, just don't get it. Or you do, and you're just playing dumb.

Now it is curious? Reread the post where you said we are not allowed to attend by the union. I again I posted it for you. Yes we can go to any meeting which is why I called you a blatent liar from the beggining.

Why won't you just answer the question? Are you, or are you not, allowed to attend these meetings? What is so difficult about that?

Easy. Your own words. Apparently you're not intelligent enough to even follow your own posts and wrods that I put for your convienece. You are denser than I previously thought.

What words? When I gave out information on what was presented? That wasn't a lie-that was in the presentation. You chose not to believe the information, and you turn that into a lie. Again, you weren't there, so I think it amusing you can jump to this conclusion.

No, I responded to what you claimed originally.

Actually, you weren't. You put in the quote about me not being able to go to the Kellner meeting, and put that out as somehow I was lying. Again, you confused the meeting, and tried to put out that I didn't go to ANY meeting.

Again, to spell it out: I went to a local meeting with local management, where information was disseminated to employees. I did not go to the Kellner meeting, because I could not, so you were mistaken.

. I will laugh all the way to bankruptcy then.

Remember when I said a little while ago, that you're the kind who would rather put the company on it's knees instead of compromising? Well, thank your for confirming my suspicion about you.

And guess what? You take us into bankruptcy, the $99 million we have to dole out won't go up, but I'll bet you guys in ALPA will have to fork over much more than the company is now asking for. Don't say I didn't warn you, and you'll have done it to yourself.

No, I said back up your opinions and facts.

I gave you the facts. You would prefer I get the overheads and post them on here-and get fired in the process. Sorry, but I can't do that, now can I? You chose not to believe. That's your perrogative, but don't say I didn't post facts. I posted them as they were presented to us. You, on the other hand haven't posted ANYTHING your union leaders have said to you. Not a thing.

Coming from Eastern as you claim.

See, you can't even get THAT right!  Laugh out loud

I never worked at EA. Go back and read my post when I brought up EA. I said I cut my teeth at CO when EA was picketing our ticket counters, threatening CO workers, making our life miserable becuase of their relationship with Lorenzo. That's what I said.

If you can't even get that right, then why should anyone take anything you say seriously?
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
ewr757
Posts: 354
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2000 8:47 am

RE: CO - $206 Million Fourth Quarter Net Loss

Sat Jan 22, 2005 12:45 pm

>>I never worked at EA. Go back and read my post when I brought up EA. I said I cut my teeth at CO when EA was picketing our ticket counters, threatening CO workers, making our life miserable becuase of their relationship with Lorenzo. That's what I said.<<



http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/1900742/6/

>>We saw it at EA<<

You sure made it sound like you were there.

>>you're the kind who would rather put the company on it's knees instead of compromising?<<

In the text and manner that you phrased it this would be my response. As may of us feel.

>>That hardly "proves" anything!<<

Reread the posts on this thread. Your own words betray you. I'd have a sliver of respect for you if you'd own up to the original comments. I must say your strategy of burying the issue in a deluge of diatribe is effective, but very transparent.

You made a claim the union does not allow us to attend meetings. I have reposted it here on this thread. Fess up.

>> I get the overheads and post them on here-and get fired in the process<<

LOL...public ionformation.

>>You, on the other hand haven't posted ANYTHING your union leaders have said to you. Not a thing.<<

Some of my info to date is from publications that are easily accessed. The real meat of the info is from P2P calls on audio files which are not able to be accessed by outside individuals. Too bad in your case. It would be very enlightening. Of course you'd just chaulk it up to arrogance.

As far as you laughing about the upside and my arrogance chew on this, specifically number 4

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such negotiations and any resulting tentative agreement are expressly conditioned on four elements being achieved:

that the process concludes this round of Section 6 negotiations and results in a comprehensive contract settlement,

that the resulting tentative agreement adequately addresses our core issues – scope and job security, pension security, and scheduling, and

that the CAL pilots’ investment must be part of a comprehensive restructuring of the Company’s financial condition, with management, other employees, and stakeholders participating, and

that the resulting tentative agreement provides that CAL pilots will receive a fair and equitable return on their investment so that they will participate in the upside when there is a rebound in the Company’s financial condition, and

>>Don't say I didn't warn you, and you'll have done it to yourself.<<

When the company comes back with there hat in their hand again...don't say I didn't warn you.

I'll be back on in a couple days. Perhaps you'll be man enough to admit you lied about the whole union business which probably stems from your obvious disdain for the union. You slipped, I busted you.

Now I hope I am bright enough to be able to fly that Boeing across the pond tommorrow. How about that resume comparison? Still game Mr. Brightness?






 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: CO - $206 Million Fourth Quarter Net Loss

Sat Jan 22, 2005 12:50 pm

>>We saw it at EA<<

When working at CO ,we saw it at EA. Jesus, but you're dense.  Laugh out loud
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11865
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: CO - $206 Million Fourth Quarter Net Loss

Sat Jan 22, 2005 1:19 pm

Question: Does anyone know how much CO paid their executives in 2002, 2003, and 2004? I'm talking salaries, stock options, and other compensation ABOVE the general benefit package (std. dental and medical, etc.).

While I admit to being a "bastard capitalist," fleecing is just wrong. However, just for the record, CO seems to have the best forward thinking strategy of the US majors. Now if they would just transfer ERJ-145 orders to Embraer-170's. Don't get me wrong, I loved the ERJ-135 flown from BDL-CLE when I lived in CT. I'm just of the opinion the 50 seater market is saturated and its time to super size the regional jets. (And yes, a 2000nm isn't regional, but it isn't coast to coast mainline either. Tween capabilities get slapped with the lesser label.)

Falcon84: Well said! In my opinion poor work rules are the death of any company. I'm lucky to work for a company where the work rules are both flexible, efficient, and good for most employees.
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
WesternA318
Posts: 4477
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 11:55 am

RE: CO - $206 Million Fourth Quarter Net Loss

Sat Jan 22, 2005 1:22 pm

*sigh*

you two are still at it? Good lord, this remids me of the Lorenzo/Bryan fights of yore. Get over it EWR, Falcon is just getting his point of view across.
Check out my blog at fl310travel.blogspot.com!