Some new hire airline employees are older. They take the job in their 50’s and 60’s after retiring from a previous job, like military, police , corporate, etc. Many times they are on their previous job’s retirement pension and are doing quite well. Even for some, working for an airline might be their third career.
They work for an airline part time for medical, flight benefits and to get out of the house.
So it’s not based on age. It’s based on company seniority.
This is correct, but not strictly helpful. When speaking in generalities, outliers may add some spice, but offer few, if any, calories. The majority of senior FAs are in an advanced state of age. Particularly true in AA's case, as until US came to save them in 2013, there had been virtually no new hires since the very early 2000s. And also in particular, with high seniority overseas bidding effectively going away, it would not be unreasonable to expect the associated issues with that spilling over to the domestic markets.
I totally agree with you and I was gonna post a similar post. To be paid 8 hours per day and only work 1 hour is ridiculous, especially at tax payer expense. No company would truly operate in that manner and now is the time to shrink the airlines to match demand. It’s a tough thing to do, but it has to be done.
Absolutely. I do not know where this talk of more bailouts is originating, but there will be no
calvary coming over the hill. Both parties have indicated that it is not politically feasible to prop up the airlines when the country has real problems to deal with. We have done more than enough already.
The AMR stock holders were not wiped out. As you pointed out they received 3.5% of the new AAL stock. Usually stock holders of BK companies receive nothing and the stock is worthless. In this case the company exchanged the AMR stock for 3.5% in the new AAL stock. They did OK and the stock eventually made it to approx $58 a share at its peak.
And very quickly retrenched trading at less than $34, less than a year later. Even pre-Covid, the decline in value was steady, sharp, and not indicative of a return to peak at any point in the near to mid term. I understand that buy-backs can have this effect, but for investors, that is not an excuse, so much as a very good reason to get out of that fire.
3.5% of new stock not 100%, that leaves 96.5% of old stock wiped out.
I see what your trying to say but the payout turned out well for the AMR stock holders. Unusual for bankruptcies. check out this article https://www.dallasnews.com/business/air ... a-killing/
Highly doubtful. Your article is behind a paywall, which makes it not worth reading.
known about AMR & AAL stock is more reflective of what Boof02671 has said. While 96.5% was indeed wiped out, the gains that were made were highly transient and rife with Velocity. This is indicative of Day Trade Poafs here and there, but no substantial —or even noteworthy— long or mid term value. You do not see them in a lot of Mutual Funds.
I get that the more recent buy-backs were at least partially intended to remove some of that Velocity and stabilize the stock's general valuations, however those really did not accomplish this either. Their one and five histories paint a dismal picture of the company's financial performance with regard to value.
They were a trash stock before their BK, and things have not improved much since then. I do not know what the future holds for AA, but at this moment, further investment would be a poor choice.
"Nous ne sommes pas infectés. Il n'y a pas d'infection ici..."