Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mu Gamma Lambda -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SmoothSail who wrote (7933)	9/24/2001 4:17:43 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10077

Message 16385603 I think the reasons are: 1. To not let the terrorists win. 2. To avoid the economic dislocation caused to a handful of companies with nearly a million employees whose business is necessary to the servicing of virtually every business out there in one way or another. The ripple effect of those bankruptcies might cause a lot more damage than people realize. It might make airlines uninsurable, it might make them unable to obtain funding or debt instruments, and ultimately might make the whole business untenable financially. All because of a few yahoos with box cutters. 3. The airlines have always had a close relationship with the federal government, including cooperation in times of military need (for example, the Persian Gulf War troops were transported on commercial aircraft which the military can access in times of need) 4. The salaries of those CEO's are what the market has determined. Yes, you can take them away, and the high salaries of all management away. And if you do, you will get people whose other career opportunities are as night cook at the local Denny's. Do you want airlines run by people with skill and talent or by people who can't get the rest of corporate America to hire them? I do not agree with bailouts by the government generally. But this is different.

To: SmoothSail who wrote (7933)	9/24/2001 4:22:08 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10077

I do question it. Air travel is critical for the business world to function. It is a service that people and businesses value. If they cannot come up with a business model that is profitable without government cash, then maybe they need to be put through the "survival of the fittest" routine. LUV has proven that an airline can be run profitably, maybe the other airlines need to do a little restructuring. However, since our economy relies on the airline industry in a number of ways, right now may be the wrong time to be saying "sink or swim". IMO

To: SmoothSail who wrote (7933)	9/24/2001 5:20:27 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10077

One more thing about the airlines....not about the wisdom of the bailout, which is debatable, but what is driving it ..... The jet airplane is, perhaps more than even the skyscraper, the most powerful symbol of modern Western civilization. Its very attitude as it climbs skyward is one of power, freedom, limitless opportunity. I was at O'Hare with my son a few months back, and we had a long walk at the outdoor lot to our car. Every time one of those planes roared skyward, he looked....stared.....at the image of these mechanized, oversized birds. He does not know it, but the jet changed the planet as much or more than the computer in many ways. The jet also changed the planet for the forces behind these attacks in many ways. It brought the world to them, showed the people they would subjugate that there is something else out there, somewhere. A world where man (and woman) takes flight, floats freely above the landscape. If you are trying to force your people to beg, bribe and borrow to curry government favor, if you are trying to get your people to reflexively follow a strict religion while you have six wives and 50 kids (question: If men are supposed to have six wives, wouldn't they run out of women before 80 percent of the men had any wives?), if you are trying to tell people that God is great and just and on your side and theirs......these planes, and the people who build them and fly them, are an affront. A symbol of the devil as much as the modern skyscraper. Much has been made of the singling out of symbols of American and Western might in these attacks. The Pentagon, two of our three tallest buildings, and not only that, the buildings devoted to "world" trade. The use of the jet, our own jets, was also symbolic. The jet spreads America to the world, and the world to America, so much more quickly. As we look at the world now, it is hard to fathom sometimes how quickly it has changed. How, less than 100 years ago right now, no plane had ever sustained flight, not even from here to the end of the block. Yes, that was less than 100 years ago. I was reading a book about New York last night. It mentioned something I had forgotten....that a couple of blocks from the WTC, there is a statue of George Washington. It stands at the place where Washington took the very first oath of office for the U.S. Presidency, during that brief period of time when the U.S. capital was New York. That statue must lie at or near the edge of the rubble now. And also at the edge of the rubble, where planes once proudly flew overhead, minute after minute, a rebirth will occur. This is above all a war of symbols. Of West and East, of power and freedom and development and civilization. There is already talk of rebuilding the WTC, whether as two 100-story or four 50-story buildings does not matter. There is already talk about rebuilding the Pentagon too, making it even stronger. And for the same reasons, there will be dramatic actions taken to rescue the symbols of America and Western civilization embodied in those airplanes and the companies that fly them. Is it sound economic policy? Maybe not. But it isn't being done for purely economic reasons. It is being done to achieve victory in the most symbolic conflict we have yet seen. Against that backdrop, is it wrong?

To: SmoothSail who wrote (7933)	9/24/2001 5:31:22 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10077

Hi SmoothSail.. I'm questioning it to the extent that it would be funneled into a failed business model, but I do think the Feds should take over the responsibility of airline security. It's too important to be left to corporate entities on the verge of bankruptcy. And as I read the above I worry..... :-/ These are the same people responsible for maintenance <vbg>

To: SmoothSail who wrote (7933)	9/24/2001 5:39:20 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10077

Message 16403011

To: SmoothSail who wrote (7933)	9/25/2001 12:13:40 AM
From: Libbyt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10077

> Maybe he would start with these ridiculous salaries the CEOs are making. < Monday September 24, 7:08 pm Eastern Time American Air Chief Forgoes Salary By Marcus Kabel DALLAS (Reuters) - American Airlines's chairman and CEO on Monday said he would give up his pay for the rest of the year to help the world's largest carrier cope with an industry-wide downturn since the Sept. 11 hijack attacks. In a recorded message to employees, Don Carty said the future of American and the entire industry remained in jeopardy despite a $15 billion rescue plan for U.S. airlines approved by Congress last week. Carty urged employees to work hard to restore public confidence in air travel and bring back travelers who are staying away in droves. American is a unit of Fort Worth, Texas-based AMR Corp. (NYSE:AMR - news). ``What's clear to me, however, is that we have begun a chapter of American history that will likely require some measure of sacrifice from all of us,'' Carty said. ``And with that in mind, I am informing the AMR Board of Directors that, in light of our calamitous financial condition, and in recognition of the men and women who have paid the highest price, I will forego any personal compensation, including my salary, from now until the end of the year,'' Carty said. Carty's annual salary is $772,500, American spokesman Al Becker said, adding he did not have a total for stock options that might be part of Carty's compensation package. ``I realize this step by itself will have relatively little impact on our company's overall financial health,'' Carty said, ''but my hope is that it will underscore the depth of my commitment to this great airline, and my willingness as its leader to share in the sacrifices necessary to get us back on our feet.'' AMR Corp last week said the sudden plunge in passenger numbers caused by the Sept. 11 attacks would force it to cut its schedule by 20 percent and slash at least 20,000 jobs from its global workforce of about 138,000 at American, subsidiary TWA and regional airline American Eagle. Carty said AMR was setting up a program to turn money back into the carrier from other managers and employees who volunteer to take a pay cut of any size for any amount of time, but added that ``the decision to participate is strictly up to the individual''. ``While no one should feel obliged to participate, there is one additional incentive: for every dollar of voluntary pay cuts, 20 cents will be put in a fund devoted to meeting the educational needs of the children of the American Airlines employees who perished on September 11th and to helping unique hardship cases that arise as a result of the job reductions,'' he added. American lost 17 pilots and flight attendants when two of its planes were commandeered by suicide hijackers and crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Two United Airlines jetliners were also hijacked. One crashed into the World Trade Tower and the other went down in a Pennsylvania field. biz.yahoo.com