Was it his post at the end of this thread you found refreshing?

http://flyertalk.com/forum/showthrea...9&page=2&pp=40

Seems like plain old baiting to me ....

Options? No. Derivatives? Yes.
 

I don't have a dog in this fight, but you guys need to look a little closer at the myriad SEC filings (like the Form 4's).

Or, in a capsule, look at:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/535/5550142.html

I agree with Mikey. There is too much merged information in the Strike Is On posting. It would more useful to have separate, specific posts.

100% in agreement. Either discussions of the strike should be completely shut down, or all views should be allowed. There very definitely is a "party line" here. Can't wait for some of the union bashers to be downsized themselves: they might have better luck at finding a job than a 57 year old mechanic who has worked at Northwest for over 30 years, but then again, I've heard of some white collar workers being downsized and losing their houses when they can't find a job that pays even half what they were making. I'm always amused by people who say "I used to think others just weren't looking hard enough for a job. Now I'm in this situation and see how wrong I was. I need help! Please help me with government programs!"

All these people complaining about customer service and flight delays will be complaining even more when the quality of NW employees falls as wages fall. If your time is of so little value that you're happy to waste a few extra hours tracking down lost luggage, and happy to have the frustration of dealing with a ticket agent who really cannot think well at all (as well as not getting paid enough to care about your problem), then you'll be happy with what the future is going to bring you. Vive la management! Keep hiring lower and lower paid workers! The top 1% of the US population will continue to increase their wealth, and what is more important? Isn't that why the US of A exists?

The lowest paid workers will be affected most, and you, the customer, will pay, because they won't give a damn about losing their job. (Of course, 99% of all Americans' jobs can theoretically be replaced by someone from another country (who is, in fact, more qualified than you, the current worker) who gets paid far less than any American worker gets paid. Perhaps we should just import 200 million foreign workers since they can do the job for $5.15/hour and would be ecstatically happy to get that. Or if we could get Congress to lower minimum wage for non-citizens, they could do the job for $2/hour! We can all go on permanent vacations (errr be unemployed) - even longer than our president! Coming soon to a workplace near you!)

I worry most about my safety with respect to the mechanics: they won't be on the plane if something gets "forgotten" in the push for "greater productivity" with workers of lesser competence. Wasn't it just an Alaska Airlines jet that crashed on the west coast a few years ago due to management pushing mechanics for shortcuts? http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2002/021210.htm "NTSB DETERMINES THAT POOR MAINTENANCE PRACTICES LED TO THE CRASH OF ALASKA AIRLINES FLIGHT 261" 88 people dead. But well before this crash, Alaska airlines managers had been found falsifying maintenance records. As pay drops, I expect maintenance issues to become more common.

The excessively incompetent, overpaid execs signed the labor contracts.
NW had a pretty experienced work force which it is slowly destroying. It might take a few years, but the loyalty to the airline has already been destroyed. Who but management is responsible for failing to do the research which would have predicted increased fuel costs? Geologists have been saying this for years (a number of articles appear in Science in the late 1990s; even more articles appeared in other academic journals).

Surely an airline would want to have someone tracking future fuel costs and projecting out future labor costs?? or would the execs NOT want to do this, if failing to do it makes the airline look stronger in the SHORT-TERM? thereby allowing them to collect their bonuses, increased salaries, and vest stock options at higher stock prices?

Now I know some here might say you'd need a crystal ball to have seen that fuel costs were going to sky-rocket. In fact, that's not true: all you need to do is look at the relevant research. It was crystal clear to many 8-10 years ago that it was going to be happening right about now, give or take a few years (as with so many other politically/socially unpopular things, the scientists sing their news into an abyss while the public sticks its head in the sand: e.g., global warming). Oil production simply cannot keep up with the increases in demand. We're going to have to figure out how to fly jets without petroleum in a few decades, so my advice is that now is about as good as time as any to start thinking about this (except almost 30 years ago, when Jimmy Carter was calling for research into alt. energy sources, would have been an even better time (what a magical crystal ball he must have had!!). Imagine how much less dependent on foreign oil for energy we might be today = lower demand for oil would translate into lower jet fuel costs!! Gee, this is so simple. And as Sunday's NY Times article told us http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/magazine/21OIL.html, existing oil reserves may well be overstated, as OPEC nations had every reason to do that to increase the amount of oil they could sell as a cartel member. Since most nations don't allow outsiders to audit their figures, we don't know but much suggests this is the case. By the way, the article is long: it's a complex issue; needs more than a sound bite.)

$200 billion spent on research into alternative fuels and increasing their efficiency would have done far more for the US in general than a war to control oil in the middle east (and the airlines almost certainly would have benefited from such research). Of course, a small number of individuals wouldn't have reaped so much profit from the war.

Hmmm ... I wonder how much this war contributed to NW's current problems? I'll bet the execs voted for Bush - one more example of their failure to appreciate the long-term costs of their actions: to what degree did this war accelerate increases in the prices of oil?

And imagine how much lower oil prices might be if demand were lower, i.e., if American cars got better mileage (completely within our reach with little added cost ($500-1000); see http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles...fm?pageID=1249 for analyses)? Amazing how interconnected it all is.

Another good idea is to make sure NW "reissues" the ticket to co or dl. That will save you another line/call later

Come on now, if the NW forum was easy to nav for RELATIVE NW information what fun would that be??? :D

Wow, talk about a long winded windy-snake path political statement.

I personally believe that efficiencies being brought to the market that end up forcing change and unemployment is not necessarily a bad thing. As a matter of fact, though it would cause me the same headache as those being discussed here, I in principle support a simplification of my industry that would in affect put me out of work.

It is a difficult thing to face potential change after many years of service, but those who rail against this current situation fail to understand the fundamentals of capitalism.

The Shareholder's demand a minimum certain value to their investment or management is removed. To complain that management is to "rich" and "greedy" may make one feel better; however, the market is competitive and demands such wages at those proscribed levels. I would argue that companies are often run to the disproportionate benefit of management, but that is difficult to ascribe to in the airline industry where even being in management carries a stigma. Making a career move into an industry with such a horrible track record of failure is not the wish of the best and the brightest.

Unions fundamentally impede painful change in whatever industry they reside because their members do not wish to encounter painful change. I sympathize, but necessity created out of painful change is the fuel of greatness.

Spend less, save more, and thus reduce worry when dark times come.

I need to redouble my efforts to more effectively apply my own advice.

If I want opinion I go to Omni. I'm looking here for FTers experiences today at the airport. A single thread titled "today at the airport" or something that tells me that the ONLY discussion is what we're experiencing today would be helpful. I'd start one but I'm not at the airport (yet) ;)

Sunday travel report
 

I had a OMA-LAS flight scheduled for late in the day. Being nervous I went to the airport early and paid the $25 to confirm an earlier flight. My actual flights went very well. All within 10 minutes, both early and late. Upgraded on both. A check today on NWA.com showed my original flights were mostly on time too. I saw very few cancellations and a lot of 10-15 minute late flights.
My advice - fly smart. Avoid 30 minute connections and fly early in the day - at least until this clears up or is over.
Hope this helps

Sunday travel report NW 352
 

I was on NW 352 on Sunday from MSY to MEM. I was a little concerned, since it was the last flight of the day.

Everything was fine, my upgrade even cleared :). We were delayed on the runway after pushback for 30 or so minutes by thunderstorms. Apparently one of the MSY runways is under construction, so when there is weather there, things get bogged down with arriving & departing flights. Anyway, not NW's fault, and I was pleasantly suprised to get home in good time.

"it ain't yesterday any more"
 

I wouldn't bother to redouble your efforts, as your advice is out-of-date, in my humble opinion.

We now live in a global world. India and China each have 1 billion people. There is no amount of education or re-training that Americans can get that can compete with an endless supply of equally well-educated (often in our own schools) labor that can live on substantially lower incomes.

This issue is bigger than Northwest and beyond Northwest Airlines' control so I won't indulge in endless debate. I will just point out that unrestrained capitalism means that you will be spending more and more on re-training, with less and less expectation of actually getting hired at the end of it.

I fully understand why the mechanics would fight to keep a $70K a year job. They can re-train away, it is highly unlikely that any but a tiny fraction of them would ever get such a job again. So of course they're going to fight the lay-offs and pay-cuts. I don't think they're wrong to fight. Any of us who are realistic about what jobs are out there for older people, even older people with fresh new degrees (and not just from community college) would fight to keep such a job.

I just don't think they can succeed in a climate where the only way industry can even get their cost down is to outsource. Northwest didn't create this climate, and Northwest can't fix this climate.

My feeling is that everyone involved is facing some hard times and difficult choices.

And I don't think people who save money and invest in education are going to be immune or that most of them will end up in better jobs. They'll just end up with more education debt. I think most of them will never work in such well-compensated jobs again. Age discrimination is real. Being told you're over-qualified is also real.

P.S. Now I'll hear that Talking Heads song in my head all day. Oh well, there are worse fates.

hubby went msy-mem-dtw, all smooth sunday
 

I think I posted it before, but I think it has gotten merged into the big thread with 700-plus posts. Come on, that's ridiculous, moderators. I am in agreement with the original poster.

Many small targeted threads are of more value than one huge thread that we can't possibly read the whole thing, so we hit the first few and last few in hopes of getting some information.

Long threads are also very dialup-unfriendly, which hurts the traveler stuck in some area where they can only get dialup.

Yes, I know, do a search, but my experience with search is that it may or may not bother to cough up what you're looking for.

I respectfully request that the policy of merging threads be reconsidered.

There are tons of high paying jobs like these for mechanics and other skilled workers in the oilfield these days. Take a look at the Houston want ads...

I agree too. And I'm on the other side. I think the issue people have with some of the people in this thread (not naming names of course) is the half-truths and out-and-out lies. And the fact that when they are shown to be wrong, they quickly go on some diatribe to try to obfuscate the point.

Yes, this is true. They signed this contract under the threat of a strike just before 9/11 happened. Surely if they were competent, they would have foreseen that too! But the labor contracts expired earlier this year. Once a contract expires, both parties are free to renegotiate the terms to their mutual satisfaction.

There are two issues here. First is whether it could be foreseen. While there were some people predicting increased oil prices, I don't think anyone reputable was predicting $70/barrel. Note that even when oil first shot up to $50/barrel, 2009 futures were still trading at the $30/barrel level. Because the general consensus was that this was temporary and that the price would revert in the future.

Second is what could they do about it? Do you know how hedging works? There are two main types of contracts they could use: forwards and futures. A forward is simply an agreement between two parties to deliver something at a future date for a set amount of money. Both parties to this contract are assuming credit risk. There's no way anyone would agree to this with NW w/o significant collateral (of which NW has none left).

A future is an exchange traded derivative (with credit risk guaranteed by the exchange) that is similar to a forward with one difference: account balances are marked-to-market daily. What this means is that if fuel oil went up by 5 cents/gallon today and you have contracts for 1 billion gallons, then the other parties have to give you $50 million cash. The danger is if the hedge goes against you. If fuel oil goes down by 5 cents/gallon, you have to pony up $50 million cash. If you're very wrong, this could quickly eliminate your liquidity. See the case of Banker's Trust and Metalgeschellshaft for dangers...

Wow, an informed opinon!
 

Wow, an informed opinion!

I will take this one step further. Why do employee-owned firms generally fail? It is because employees usually don't realize the contributions of management and adopt "A monkey can manage this company attitude." Then, the employees realize they can't do it and have to hire a managment team who then tells the employees that the labor costs (salaries, pensions, healthcare) are too expensive and must be scaled back or declare bankruptcy. Does United ring a bell?

As to hedging, sounds easy ... if you have never done it. I worked for Banker's Trust - it IS a dangerous and difficult proposition.