#1 2008-12-12 07:11:17
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081212/bs_ … ailout_129
Even the Dems rejected it.
The UAW is such an arrogant lot. It never ceases to amaze me that some folks, with <80 IQ's, think they deserve as much in pay as folks who spend an extra 7-12 years in school (and hundreds of thousands in student loans).
I know someone, with around a high 70's IQ, that makes over $30 an hour doing a job that would take under 2 hours of training to learn. I do his taxes and he's made over 120k the last three years.
I'm sorry, but if you say, "ok the 2% of the folk at the top make gross sums of money and that is why they are fucked", you're ignorant. Almost EVERY company has executives making sick forms of money. Hell, one of my friends is a manager at Anthem Insurance and that company continues to give it's CEO 16 million a year, and they continue to make cash. Their front-line employees make about $14 an hour doing, in my mind, a shittier job than what Mr. $30+ an hour unskilled auto worker. I'd much rather slap on a bolt than get yelled at by assholes all day.
Of course, I'm sure to get assraped by High Street class-envy set (Tojo, HKG, Fled, etc.) for this opinion.
My proof is in the pudding. During the 80's, the American auto industry survived the UAW by making as shitty a car as possible, usually with major repairs within months of warranty expiring. People started buying Japanese because they were sick of the "expect to send your car to the heap after 5 years" American plan. So the American auto industry started building up to Toyota standards and now they are feeling the impact of decades of being extorted by the UAW. I guess you can't build a quality American car, sell it for a comparable price to a Japanese car AND pay your workers twice what any other auto workers make all at the same time.
Go figure...
Offline
#2 2008-12-12 07:54:10
This will pass January 21. Barack's votes are on a NET 90.
Last edited by Scotty (2008-12-12 07:54:48)
Offline
#3 2008-12-12 07:57:39
There are only two options. Bailout the car makers or let them go into bankruptcy. I don’t know which one sucks the least. I do know the American people will take it up the ass in either case. I think we have to choose the option that comes with the best lube.
Offline
#4 2008-12-12 08:17:51
Assrape is not my cup of tea, not my tea bag, or whatever.
I'm not sure why you say the dems rejected it. Eighty percent of them voted for it in the Senate.
Labor accounts for approximately 10% of a car's cost, so there are other explanations in the mix. The biggest is that they have failed to make fully comptetitive products. I agree that executive compensation is a red herring. If (and I mean if) you are pinning everything on labor, then you are chasing your own red herring. Well maybe not a red herring. Maybe an orange roughy.
Like a lot of people, I have mixed feelings about loaning money to the US auto manufacturers, so don't assume you know what I think on the subject. I do think that those who promote Chapter 11 as the way to go are lying to the public. No one I know would buy a car (except at a very deep discount) of a manufacturer in bankruptcy.
I note that you seek to make your point by denigrating your client despite the fact that you accept his money year in and year out -- good for a deduct on style points.
Offline
#5 2008-12-12 08:48:50
Fled wrote:
Labor accounts for approximately 10% of a car's cost,
Current labor perhaps, but factor in labor that is receiving pensions above what they earned when they were a producing entity to the corporation and that % will likely be much higher.
Offline
#6 2008-12-12 08:50:32
I think what much of the public, and indeed the senators themselves are forgetting is that bankruptcy does not necessarily mean 'go out of business'. There are many forms of bankruptcy, and many of them allow for reorganization and continuation of the enterprise.
Offline
#7 2008-12-12 09:10:23
For the auto manufacturers, there are really only three possibilities: (1) some form of reorganization outside of bankruptcy; (2) Chapter 11; and (3) Chapter 7.
The first would be exceedingly difficult to achieve, as it would require bringing all of the creditors together in a voluntary negotiation to reach an agreement by which they would each agree to a haircut. Without the protection afforded by the Bankruptcy Code, it is highly unlikely that this could succeed.
The second is a chimera. Since the customer base would shrink radically on the filing of a bankruptcy petition, cash flow, credit would become even scarcer, suppliers would put an even shorter leash on sales contracting, and the debtor would be forced into Chapter 11 (liquidation) in short order.
Chapter 7, a wipe out, would ensue.
Are you aware of any other options?
Last edited by Fled (2008-12-12 09:11:19)
Offline
#8 2008-12-12 09:32:57
I just don't want government built cars. Government housing, government cheese nd now government cars?
Offline
#9 2008-12-12 10:53:20
Fled wrote:
Assrape is not my cup of tea, not my tea bag, or whatever.
I'm not sure why you say the dems rejected it. Eighty percent of them voted for it in the Senate.
Labor accounts for approximately 10% of a car's cost, so there are other explanations in the mix. The biggest is that they have failed to make fully comptetitive products. I agree that executive compensation is a red herring. If (and I mean if) you are pinning everything on labor, then you are chasing your own red herring. Well maybe not a red herring. Maybe an orange roughy.
Like a lot of people, I have mixed feelings about loaning money to the US auto manufacturers, so don't assume you know what I think on the subject. I do think that those who promote Chapter 11 as the way to go are lying to the public. No one I know would buy a car (except at a very deep discount) of a manufacturer in bankruptcy.
I note that you seek to make your point by denigrating your client despite the fact that you accept his money year in and year out -- good for a deduct on style points.
I'm assuming the "client" comment is directed at me in reference to the guy I talked about, whose taxes I do.
He's more a "friend of the family". I do his taxes for free... Therefore, please give me back my style points as I accept none of his UAW-tainted funds.
I'm not sure why someone would be loathe to buy a car from an automaker under bankruptcy protection. All that would be happening would be a "reorganization". There is no way the company would completely go away (therefore negating any warranty from a purchased car). Anyone who wouldn't buy would be sorely ignorant of what Chapter 11 means and what historically happens to businesses of the size and scope of a GM or Chrysler that have filed for reorganization in the past.
For being friends with such an ignorant group of folk, I give you a deduction on style points. (just kidding, trying to keep this on an intelligent debate level, not idiocy-flame game here).
Last edited by ptah13 (2008-12-12 11:05:00)
Offline
#10 2008-12-12 11:04:16
Fled wrote:
For the auto manufacturers, there are really only three possibilities: (1) some form of reorganization outside of bankruptcy; (2) Chapter 11; and (3) Chapter 7.
The first would be exceedingly difficult to achieve, as it would require bringing all of the creditors together in a voluntary negotiation to reach an agreement by which they would each agree to a haircut. Without the protection afforded by the Bankruptcy Code, it is highly unlikely that this could succeed.
The second is a chimera. Since the customer base would shrink radically on the filing of a bankruptcy petition, cash flow, credit would become even scarcer, suppliers would put an even shorter leash on sales contracting, and the debtor would be forced into Chapter 11 (liquidation) in short order.
Chapter 7, a wipe out, would ensue.
Are you aware of any other options?
I went to work for Worldcom after they filed Chapter 11, being the largest corporation in the world, at that time, to do so with over 100b in assets. On a side note, Lehman bros were the company to top Worldcom as the new "largest ever". Anyway, I worked there post-bankruptcy filing, working in their sales division and business was booming. They made it out of bankruptcy and continued to do business to this day under their MCI name (although the company was acquired by Verizon.
There is no way, if the automakers go Chapter 11, will they be allowed to simply liquidated. Check out the history of what happened to Worldcom and you'll have a good example of what would happen if GM were to go Chapter 11.
Like others have said, the idea of the government being in the car business would be a more scary prospect for auto workers than Chapter 11, I would think. Obviously the execs want a bailout (as their precious stock would become worthless with a Chapter 11 filing) but I don't think that is the right thing to do for the American people. The idea that we are going to write blank checks to poorly managed and manipulated companies, at our expense, is scary, in my opinion.
Offline
#11 2008-12-12 11:05:37
whosasailorthen wrote:
I think what much of the public, and indeed the senators themselves are forgetting is that bankruptcy does not necessarily mean 'go out of business'. There are many forms of bankruptcy, and many of them allow for reorganization and continuation of the enterprise.
UAW votes put the majority of these people into office. UAW members are absoluely opposed to any kind of bankruptcy or reorg filings because those filings allow for the negation of any and all payment contracts. Suppliers everyone understands, what most people fail to realize is all UAW contracts would be wiped out and have to be renegotiated and I doubt they would get much more than what workers in U.S. based foreign plants are making.
The current unions are all too happy to destroy these companies to stop that from happening.
But as I already said, give this until Jan 21 and it will pass. Paying off union goons was an Obama promise.
Offline
#12 2008-12-12 11:07:40
One more thing. Maybe GM wouldn't be in this position if they didn't have some of the shittiest customer service in the history of the world.
I refuse to ever go to another GM dealer for as long as I live, based on my experiences with them, regardless of how much I like some of their cars.
Offline
#13 2008-12-12 11:43:34
Therefore, please give me back my style points as I accept none of his UAW-tainted funds.
Restored and doubled. On buying cars of a manufacturer in Chapter 11, I heard that from an "independent economist" testifying before the Senate committee last week. It was based, he said, on a survey of potetial buyers and confirmed by historical data on manufacturers in similar circumstances (i.e., big ticket consumer goods where there was solvent competition). I cannot vouch for the data, but the finding was a probable drop in sales of 80%.
On your statement that there is no way they would be allowed to liquidate, why do you think not? Who would step in? I know that in certain heavily regulated industries (such as banking and insurance), a buyer usually steps in. But who would step in to do anything more than cherry-pick GM or Chrysler plant, equipment and assets? This doesn't seem like telecommunications, where the insolvent company has readily marketable assets. So I am not sure what/who would prevent liquidation. Perhaps the creditors and contract parties, including the UAW, would quickly compromise their claims, but this is not a certainty by any means. I still think bankruptcy proceedings would not yield successfully reorganized manufacturers. Rather, the debtors would be picked over like carion by other manufacturers and they would liquidate.
I do agree, however, on the whole moral hazard-type objection. Philosophically, a bailout sucks.
Offline
#14 2008-12-12 11:47:12
Scotty - Why do you think the unions prefer unemployment? What do you base that assertion on? For reasons stated above, I don't believe that reorganization through bankruptcy is possible, and many economists agree. On the other hand, I think you are right about January 21, but it has little to do with paying off union goons. You don't need to characterize everything you disagree with with perjoratives. It detracts from your point.
Offline
#15 2008-12-12 12:11:52
Too obvious that ptah is basing his decision off of the old saw about UAW workers getting $73/hr which is a load of horseshit. Somehow the formula that was used to come up with that number always manages to get omitted from the articles. It's the hourly rate for the worker ($25/hr for some workers, but entry level workers around $16/hr) + all benefits' value + (and here's the sneaky part) the value of the pensions of all retired workers combined, divided by the current workers.
The UAW has already negotiated drastic cuts in pay $25/hr-->$16/hr and increases in health care copays, among other things. The deal proposed by the Republicans was never designed to be accepted. Why else would the only possible acceptable solution be for the UAW to make more concessions and the auto companies to make none? The whole point is to bust the union.
Funny thing, though, is that now that the Republicans decided to try to score points on this deal, it looks like Bush is going to just give them the money out of the TARP funds, and nobody will get their concessions.
Offline
#16 2008-12-12 12:22:10
GooberMcNutly wrote:
I just don't want government built cars. Government housing, government cheese nd now government cars?
to para-phrase John Stewart: You don't trust them with cars but you'll let them control nukes?
Offline
#17 2008-12-12 12:46:36
Can I hear a good "Fuck You" to the Senate Dems? Had the votes to win but backed down in the face of a "possible" repub fillibuster. As usual, not enough guts to actually fight for something they declare "critical".
I, can't believe I'm saying this, agree with the ptoeey here, Chapter 11 is made for a reason, and this is that reason. How many times have the airline companies, all of them, gone into Chap 11? Are they not still flying? Every now and then one goes into liquidation, and I wouldn't be surprised if Chrysler went into liquidation. Natural selection can be an ugly thing.
If the govt wants to give them a line of credit, like what Ford is asking, I could be agreeable. But this aid that GM and Chrysler is asking for is simply staving off the inevitable.
Look at the terms of the deal, it's Chap 11 without the legal niceties or consequences. They are required to do some half-assed reorganization but protects the really big fish from any sacrifice and protects the debt-holders. That's stupid. Chapter 11 should be preferable from the US people's point of view. Introducing government funds here simply reinforces non-selective behavior and will reduce GM to a Fiat or Renault monstrosity that can only make cars for the domestic market, and only then at a subsidy.
Either we can make cars profitably or we can't. If we can't, then we shouldn't sink public money into it as a jobs program, we have other work the government can fund that needs to be done.
Offline
#18 2008-12-12 13:04:15
tojo2000 wrote:
Too obvious that ptah is basing his decision off of the old saw about UAW workers getting $73/hr which is a load of horseshit. Somehow the formula that was used to come up with that number always manages to get omitted from the articles. It's the hourly rate for the worker ($25/hr for some workers, but entry level workers around $16/hr) + all benefits' value + (and here's the sneaky part) the value of the pensions of all retired workers combined, divided by the current workers.
The UAW has already negotiated drastic cuts in pay $25/hr-->$16/hr and increases in health care copays, among other things. The deal proposed by the Republicans was never designed to be accepted. Why else would the only possible acceptable solution be for the UAW to make more concessions and the auto companies to make none? The whole point is to bust the union.
Funny thing, though, is that now that the Republicans decided to try to score points on this deal, it looks like Bush is going to just give them the money out of the TARP funds, and nobody will get their concessions.
Again, you imagine stuff I never say and credit it to me. Your assumptions not only make you ignorant, but an asshole, to boot.
I specifically said, "$30+ an hour" and nothing more. I use this figure because the only UAW assembly line workers, that I know for certain what they make, make over $30 an hour.
Once again you claim some "obvious" thing about me that is complete and utter horse-shit and not even close to what I actually posted. Can you post one post, regarding my statements, without trying to discredit me by claiming I'm saying shit I never said?
If ever there was a complete dick, you, sir, are he.
Last edited by ptah13 (2008-12-12 13:10:28)
Offline
#19 2008-12-12 13:09:18
orangeplus wrote:
Can I hear a good "Fuck You" to the Senate Dems? Had the votes to win but backed down in the face of a "possible" repub fillibuster. As usual, not enough guts to actually fight for something they declare "critical".
I, can't believe I'm saying this, agree with the ptoeey here, Chapter 11 is made for a reason, and this is that reason. How many times have the airline companies, all of them, gone into Chap 11? Are they not still flying? Every now and then one goes into liquidation, and I wouldn't be surprised if Chrysler went into liquidation. Natural selection can be an ugly thing.
If the govt wants to give them a line of credit, like what Ford is asking, I could be agreeable. But this aid that GM and Chrysler is asking for is simply staving off the inevitable.
Look at the terms of the deal, it's Chap 11 without the legal niceties or consequences. They are required to do some half-assed reorganization but protects the really big fish from any sacrifice and protects the debt-holders. That's stupid. Chapter 11 should be preferable from the US people's point of view. Introducing government funds here simply reinforces non-selective behavior and will reduce GM to a Fiat or Renault monstrosity that can only make cars for the domestic market, and only then at a subsidy.
Either we can make cars profitably or we can't. If we can't, then we shouldn't sink public money into it as a jobs program, we have other work the government can fund that needs to be done.
well said, OP....
For once, you and I are in complete agreement.
For all our bitter discourse, at least, when you disagree with my opinions, you do so in a noble way.
Offline
#20 2008-12-12 13:34:31
It is highly unlikely that a US automobuile manufacturer would survive Chapter 11. The examples simply do not apply to high-ticket consumer products for which long term warranty is of great importance. Harley Davidson and Chrylser both survived their prior financial crises because they were afforded financial assistance before they had to file for bankruptcy protection.
How many times have the airline companies, all of them, gone into Chap 11? Are they not still flying?
In a word, O+, no. Do you see Braniff, TWA, Panam, Eastern -- do you see any of them still flying? Very few airlines successfully come out of liquidation. Here is a list of the failures (US carriers only):
AAXICO Airlines (1946 - 1965, to Saturn Airways)
Access Air (1998 - 2001)
ADI Domestic Airlines
Aeroamerica (1974 - 1982)
Aero Coach (1983 - 1991)
Aero International Airlines
Aeromech Airlines (1951 - 1983, to Wright Airlines)
AeroSun International
AFS Airlines (Arcata Flying Service)
Air America (owned and operated by the CIA in SouthEast Asia)
Air America (1980s)
Air Astro
Air Atlanta (1981 - 88)
AirAtlantic Airlines
Air Bama
Air Berlin, Inc. (Air Berlin USA) (1978-1990 [reconstituted as Air Berlin GmbH & Co. Luftverkehrs KG under German company law in 1990])
Airborne Express (1946 - 2003, to DHL)
Air California, later AirCal (1967 - 87, to American Airlines)
Air Carolina
Air Central (Michigan)
Air Central (Oklahoma) (to Trans-Central Airlines)
Air Chaparral (1980 - 82)
Air Chico
Air Colorado
Air Cortez
Air Florida (1972 - 84)
Air Gemini
Air General
Air Great Lakes
Air Hawaii (1960s) (1960s)
Air Hawaii (ceased operations in 1986)
Air Hyannis
Air Idaho
Air Illinois
Air Iowa
Airlift International (1946 - 81)
Air Kentucky
Air LA
Air-Lift Commuter
Air Lincoln
Air Link Airlines
Air Link Airways
Air Metro
Air Miami (to North American Airlines)
Air Michigan
Air Mid-America
Air Midwest
Air Missouri
Air Molokai (1980s)
Air Molokai (1990s)
Air Molokai-Tropic Airlines
Air Nebraska
Air Nevada
Air New England (1975 - 81)
Air New Orleans (1981 - 88)
Air Niagara
Air North (Alaska)
Air North (1963 - 1983, to Brockway Air)
Air O'Hare
Air Olympia
Air Oregon
Air One (1990s)
AirPac
Air Pacific (USA)
Air Pennsylvania
Air Resorts Airline
Air Sierra
Air South (1968 - 1975, to Florida Airlines;
Air South (1981-1982)
Air South (1986-1987)
Air South (1994-1997)
Air Speed (1974)
Air Spirit
Air Sunshine (1970s)
Air Sunshine (1980s)
Air Texana
Air Texas
Air Trails
Air 21
Air US
Air Utah
AirVantage Airlines
Air Vegas (1971 - 2004)
Air Vermont
Air Virginia
Airways of New Mexico
Air West
Alaska Air Transport (1935 to 1939) to Alaska Coastal Airlines
Alaska Coastal Airlines (1939 - 1968) to Alaska Airlines
Alaska Coastal-Ellis Airlines
Albany Air
All American Aviation Company (became US Airways)
Allegheny Airlines (became US Airways)
Aloha Airlines (1946 - 2008, to Aloha Air Cargo)
America West Airlines (1981 - Merged with US Airways in 2007)
American Central Airlines
American Export Airlines (1937 - 1948) merged the transatlantic division of American Airlines to form American Overseas Airlines
American Flyers Airline
American International Airways
American Overseas Airlines (1945 - 1950) merged into Pan American World Airways
Arista International Airlines
Arizona Airways
Arizona Airways (1993-1996)
Aroostook Airways
Aspen Airways (1962 - 1990)
ATA Airlines (1973 - 2008)
Atlantic Coast Airlines (1989 - 2004, to Independence Air)
Atlantic Gulf Airlines
Bar Harbor Airlines (1971 - 1992)
Big Sky Airlines (1978 - 2008)
Boeing Air Transport (1927 - 1930) to United Airlines
Bonanza Air Lines (1945 - 1968, to Hughes Airwest)
Braniff (1991 - 1992)
Braniff Inc. (1983 - 1990)
Braniff International Airways (1928 - 1982)
Britt Airways (1976 - 1987)
Brockway Air
Business Express Airlines to American Eagle
CalPac (California Pacific) (1993 - 1995 to Mesa Airlines)
Cal Sierra Airlines (1980)
Cape Smythe Air (1975 - 2005, to Frontier Flying Service)
Capitol Air Lines (1970s - 1980s)
Capital Airlines (1936 - 1961, to United Airlines)
Capitol Airways (1946 - 1982)
Cardinal Airlines
Caribbean Sun (2002 - 2007)
Carnival Air Lines
Cascade Airways (1969 - 1986)
Catalina Airlines (1940 - 1969)
CCAir
Centennial Airlines
Central Airlines (1944 - 1967)
Challenge Air Cargo (1978 - 2001)
Champion Air (1995 - 2008; ceased operations on May 31, 2008)
Chicago Air
Chicago and Southern Air Lines (1934 - 1953)
Chicago Express Airlines (1993 - 2005)
Coastal Airways (1929 -1930)
Cochise Airlines
Colgan Airways (1971 - 1986, to Presidential Airways, revived 1991, and currently operating as Continental Express, United Express, and US Airways Express: see http://www.colganair.com)
Colonial Air Transport (1926 - 1930)
Command Airways
Conquest Sun Airlines (to AirTran Airways)
Crown Airways (1969 - 1992 to Mesa Airlines)
Curtiss Flying Service (1929 - 1932)
Delta Express (1996-2003: replaced by Song; folded back into Delta Air Lines)
Desert Sun Airlines (1995 - 1997 to Mesa Airlines)
Eastern Air Lines (1926 - 1991)
Eastwind Airlines (1995-1999)
Ellis Airlines (1936 to 1962) to Alaska Coastal Airlines
Emerald Air (1978 - 1991)
Emery Worldwide Airlines (1977 - 2003)
Empire Airlines (1976 - 1985, to Piedmont Airlines)
Eos Airlines (2004 - 2008; passenger operations ceased April 27, 2008; currently charter only)
Eureka Aero (c. 1976 - 1979)
Falcon Air Express (1995 - 2007)
Fine Air (1989 - 2004)
Florida Coastal Airlines (ceased operations 2006)
FloridaGulf Airlines (1991 - 1997, to Air Midwest)
Flying Tiger Line (1945 - 1988, to Federal Express)
Freelandia
Frontier Airlines (1950 - 1986)
Galaxy Airlines
Gem State Airlines (1979, to Golden Gate Airlines)
Gemini Airlines
Global International Airways (1981 - ?)
Golden Gate Airlines (1980-1981)
Golden Pacific Airlines (1969-1973)
Golden Pacific Airlines (1981 - 1988)
Golden West Airlines
Great Plains Airlines (2001 - 2004)
Great Western Aviation Company (to AirVantage Airlines)
Gulf Air Transport (1979 - 1990)
Hooters Air (2003 - 2006)
Hughes Airwest (1968 - 1980, to Republic Airlines)
Imperial Airlines (1964 - 1986)
Independence Air (2004 - 2006)
Independent Air (1966 - 1990)
Indigo Airlines
Intermountain Airlines
Irving Airways (1936) to Alaska Air Transport
Island Pacific Air (to Air Hawaii)
Jet 24 (1981 - 1986)
Jet Express
JetWest (1969 - 1970) absorbed by Frontier Airlines
Key Airlines
Kitty Hawk Airways
Kitty Hawk International (to Kalitta Air)
Kiwi International Air Lines
L'Express Airlines (1989-1992)
Lake Central Airlines (1949 - 1968, to Allegheny Airlines)
Lakeland Airlines (1980 - 1984)
Las Vegas Airlines (1973 - 1987)
Legend Airlines (1996 - 2000)
Leisure Air (1992 - 1995)
Liberty Express Airlines ((1994 - 1997, to Air Midwest)
Lone Star Airlines
Mackey Airlines (1957 - 1981)
Maddux Airlines (1927 - 1929, to Transcontinental Air Transport)
Mahalo Air (1993 - 1997)
Mall Airways (1973 - 1989, to Business Express)
Marine Airways (1936 to 1939) to Alaska Coastal Airlines
MarkAir (1947 - 1995)
Marquette Airlines (to Trans World Airlines)
MAXjet (2005 - 2007)
Mayflower Airlines (1936 - 1945)
MetroJet
Mexus Airlines
MGM Grand Air
MidAtlantic Airways (2002 - 2006)
Mid-Continent Airlines (1928 - 1952, to Braniff)
Mid Pacific Air (1981 - 1988)
Mid-State Airlines (1964 - ?, to Sentry Airlines)
Midway Airlines (1979 - 1991 and 1993 - 2003)
Mississippi Valley Airlines (1969 - 1985)
Modern Air Transport (1946-1975)
Mohawk Airlines (1952 - 1988, to Allegheny Airlines)
Morris Air to Southwest Airlines
Mountain Air Express
Mountain West Airlines (1995 - 1997 to Mesa Airlines)
Muse Air to Southwest Airlines
National Airlines (1929 - 1980, to Pan American World Airways)
National Airlines (1983 - 1986)
National Airlines/Private Jet Expeditions (1994 - 1995)
National Airlines (1999 - 2002)
National Air Transport (1926 - 1930)
Nations Air Express (1994-1998)
Nationwide Airlines Southeast
New England & Western Air Transportation Co. (1930)
New York Air (1980 - 1986, to Continental Airlines)
New York Airways (1949 - 1979)
New York, Rio, and Buenos Aires Line (to Pan American World Airways)
North Central Airlines (1939 - 1979)
Northeast Airlines (1940 - 1972, to Delta Air Lines)
Northeastern International Airways (1980 - 1986)
Overseas National Airways (1950 - 1978)
Ozark Airlines (1943 - 1986, to Trans World Airlines)
Pacific Air Lines (1958 - 1968, to Hughes Airwest)
Pacific Air Transport (1926 - 1927)
Pacific Alaska Airways (1973 - 1986)
Pacific East Airlines (ceased operations 1984)
Pacific Express
Pacific Nevada Airlines
Pacific Southwest Airlines (PSA) (1945 - 1987, to USAir)
Pan American Airways (1996-1998)
Pan American Airways (1998-2004)
Pan American-Grace Airways (Panagra) (1928 - 1967, to Braniff International Airways)
Pan American World Airways (1927 - 1991)
Paradise Island Airlines
People Express (1981 - 1987, to Continental Airlines)
Piedmont Airlines (1940 - 1989, to USAir)
Pilgrim Airlines
Pioneer Airlines
Planet Airways (????- June 8, 2005, speculation only at this point in time)
Potomac Air
Presidential Airways (1985 - 1989)
Private Jet Expeditions (1989 - 1995)
Pride Air (August 1985 - November 1985)
Pro Air (1997 - 2000)
Provincetown-Boston Airlines
Ransome Airlines (1967 - 1986)
Rahm Rescue (?-1971)
Red Carpet Airlines
Red Dodge Aviation
Reeve Aleutian Airways (1932 - 2001)
Regent Air
RegionsAir (1996 - 2007)
Reno Air (1990 - 99, to American Airlines)
Republic Airlines (1979 - 1986, to Northwest Airlines)
Rich International Airways (1971 - 1996)
Riddle Airlines (1945 - 1965, to Airlift International
Rio Airways (1970 - 1987)
Robertson Air Service
Rocky Mountain Airways (1964 - 1986)
Russia Jet Direct (2005)
Samoa Air (American Samoa, ceased operations in 2003)
Saturn Airways (1960 - 76, to Trans International Airlines)
Seaboard World Airlines (1946 - 80, to Flying Tiger Line)
Shawnee Airlines (1968-1977)
Shuttle by United and United Shuttle (1994 - 2001)
Skybus Airlines (2007-2008, ceased operations 5 Apr 2008)
SkyTrain Airlines (to Air Great Lakes)
SkyValue (2006-2007)
Slick Airways (1946-1965)
Song (2003-April 30th, 2006 Merged back in with its parent company, Delta Air Lines)
South Pacific Island Airways (SPIA) (American Samoa, ceased operations in 1987)
Southeast Airlines (1992 - 2004)
Southern Air Transport
Southern Airways (1943 - 1979, to Republic Airlines)
Southern Jersey Airways
Southwest Airways (1946 - 58, renamed Pacific Air Lines)
Standard Airlines (1926 - 30) 1927 subsidiary of Aero Corp. of Ca., In 1930, bought by Western Air Express, thru merger with TAT became TWA, Transcontinental & Western Air, Trans World Airlines
StatesWest Airlines (1986-1993)
Stol Air Commuter
Sunbird Airlines (1979-1987 to CCAir)
SunCoast Airlines (?-1988)
Sun West Airlines
Sunworld International Airlines (? - 2004)
Sunworld International Airways (1983 - 1988)
Superior Airlines (1993 - 1995 to Mesa Airlines
Swift Aire Lines (1969 - 1981)
TAG Airlines
Tamir Transport (?-1971)
TAT - Maddux Air Lines (1928 - 30)
Tempelhof Airways (1981 - 1990)
Tennessee Airways
Texas Air
Texas Trans Air
Texas International Airlines (1944 - 1986, to Continental Airlines)
The Hawaii Express (1982 - 1983)
Tower Air (1983 - 2000)
Trans Air (1979 -1985)
Transamerica Airlines (1948 - 1986)
Trans-Central Airlines
Transcontinental Air Transport (1928 - 1930, TWA)
TransMeridian Airlines (1995 - 2005)
Transocean Airlines 1946-1962
Trans Ocean Airways (1979 - 1990)
Trans International Airlines (1947 - 1986)
TranStar Airlines (1981 - 1987)
Trans-Colorado Airlines
Trans-Texas Airways
Trans World Airlines (1930 - 2001, to American Airlines)
Trans World Express
Trump Shuttle (1989 - 1991, to US Airways)
UltrAir (1993)
Universal Airlines (US Cargo Operator 1966 - 1972, to Trans International Airlines)
ValuJet Airlines (1993 - 1997, to AirTran Airways)
Vanguard Airlines (1994 - 2002)
Varney Airlines to United Airlines
WestAir Commuter Airlines
West Coast Airlines (1940s - 1968, to Hughes Airwest)
Western (2007)
Western Airlines (1925 - 1987, to Delta Air Lines)
Western Pacific Airlines (ceased operations 1998)
Westward Airways (2002 - 2005)
Wien Air Alaska
Wilmington - Catalina Air Line
WinAir Airlines (1998 - 1999)
Wings Airways
Wright Airlines
Zantop Air Transport
Zantop Flying Service
Zantop International Airlines
Offline
#21 2008-12-12 13:50:33
I think bankruptcy is the best option for GM. First, Chrysler is a private company company owned by Cerebus Capital Management, a huge company with plenty of capacity to bail out the auto maker. They would just rather the American people did it for them. Second, Ford has said it doesn't need the bail out. This leaves GM. Chapter 11 protection is for corporate reorganization. The BK judge would step in with sweeping authority to renotiate contracts (including labor agreements), change interest rates on loans, and trim the company down to fighting weight. The threat to the labor contracts are the main reason the Dems don't want the company to go BK. Sorry, but bankruptcy is there to handle this exact situation.
Offline
#22 2008-12-12 13:53:59
The threat to the labor contracts are the main reason the Dems don't want the company to go BK.
I disagree. I think their main concern, as it is for Bush, is unemployment and its effect on the economy. Chapter 11 is almost certain to fail.
Offline
#23 2008-12-12 13:56:29
ptah13 wrote:
Again, you imagine stuff I never say and credit it to me. Your assumptions not only make you ignorant, but an asshole, to boot.
I specifically said, "$30+ an hour" and nothing more. I use this figure because the only UAW assembly line workers, that I know for certain what they make, make over $30 an hour.
So you didn't say, for example, "It never ceases to amaze me that some folks, with <80 IQ's, think they deserve as much in pay as folks who spend an extra 7-12 years in school (and hundreds of thousands in student loans)."
Or do you think that the only people who deserve to make over $30 an hour are those with the above credentials?
I personally was watching to see what the final version of the bill was before deciding whether the bailout was a good idea or not. There were some good things in the proposed bills, like reorgs, having to get approval before buying out competitors for over $5 million, and having to drop some of their lobbying/lawsuits, because there's no reason why the taxpayers should loan them money to sue us with. The versions of the bill I saw basically made it a really low-interest loan.
The reason why I do think that a bailout might be worth it (for some values of "bailout") even if the companies would have failed eventually anyway is because the reason why they need it now is because of the credit crunch. If the companies had just died out then the economy could handle it much better than having one to three million people out of their jobs while the market tries to decide who is going to pick up the scraps.
Offline
#25 2008-12-12 14:18:58
Hey, and who's gonna give me my "Fuck You!" for the Senate?
Offline
#26 2008-12-12 14:19:29
ptah13 wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081212/bs_ … ailout_129
Even the Dems rejected it.
The UAW is such an arrogant lot. It never ceases to amaze me that some folks, with <80 IQ's, think they deserve as much in pay as folks who spend an extra 7-12 years in school (and hundreds of thousands in student loans).
I know someone, with around a high 70's IQ, that makes over $30 an hour doing a job that would take under 2 hours of training to learn. I do his taxes and he's made over 120k the last three years.
I'm sorry, but if you say, "ok the 2% of the folk at the top make gross sums of money and that is why they are fucked", you're ignorant. Almost EVERY company has executives making sick forms of money. Hell, one of my friends is a manager at Anthem Insurance and that company continues to give it's CEO 16 million a year, and they continue to make cash. Their front-line employees make about $14 an hour doing, in my mind, a shittier job than what Mr. $30+ an hour unskilled auto worker. I'd much rather slap on a bolt than get yelled at by assholes all day.
Of course, I'm sure to get assraped by High Street class-envy set (Tojo, HKG, Fled, etc.) for this opinion.
My proof is in the pudding. During the 80's, the American auto industry survived the UAW by making as shitty a car as possible, usually with major repairs within months of warranty expiring. People started buying Japanese because they were sick of the "expect to send your car to the heap after 5 years" American plan. So the American auto industry started building up to Toyota standards and now they are feeling the impact of decades of being extorted by the UAW. I guess you can't build a quality American car, sell it for a comparable price to a Japanese car AND pay your workers twice what any other auto workers make all at the same time.
Go figure...
What Mumia sez: http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf … e21412.htm
HOMAGE TO MARAT
From "Marat / Sade"
(Adrian Mitchell / Richard Peaslee)
Peter Weiss
Four years after the revolution and the old king's execution
Four years after I remember how those courtiers took their final vow
String up every aristocrat
Out with the priests Let them live on their fat
Four years after we started fighting
Marat keeps on with his writing
Four years after the Bastille fell
He still recalls the old battle yell
Down with all of the ruling class
Throw all the generals out on their arse
Good old Marat by your side we'll stand or fall
You're the only one that we can trust at all
Four years he fought and he fought unafraid
Sniffing down traitors by traitors betrayed
Marat in the courtroom Marat underground
Sometimes the otter and sometimes the hound
Fight ing all the gentry and fighting every priest
Businessman the bourgeois the military beast
Marat always ready to stifle every scheme
of the sons of the arse licking dying regime
We've got new generals our leaders are new
They sit and they argue and all that they do
Is sell their own colleagues and ride upon their backs
And jail them and break them and give them all the axe
Screaming in language that no one understands
Of the rights that we grabbed with our own bleeding hands
When we wiped out the bosses and stormed through the wall
Of the prison they told us would outlast us all
Marat we're poor
And the poor stay poor
Marat don't make
Us wait anymore
We want our rights and we don't care how
We want our revolution now
Why do they have the gold
Why do they have the power
Why why why
Do they have the friends at the top
Why do they have the jobs at the top
We've got nothing
Always had nothing
Nothing but holes and millions of them
Living in holes dying in holes
Holes in our bellies and holes in our clothes
Marat we're poor
And the poor stay poor
Marat don't make us wait anymore
Poor old Marat they hunt you down
The bloodhounds are sniffing all over the town
Poor old Marat you work til your eyes turn as red as rust
poor old Marat
We trust in you ....
Offline
#28 2008-12-12 15:18:07
whosasailorthen wrote:
I think what much of the public, and indeed the senators themselves are forgetting is that bankruptcy does not necessarily mean 'go out of business'.
Well, that's sort of the problem, isn't it? "Most of the public" is the customer base. And if your customer base believes that bankruptcy = going out of business then they won't trust that warranties will be honored or that replacement parts will be available after a few years. That's a pretty big challenge for marketing to overcome. They don't just have to convince people their product is good. They have to convince them that bankruptcy doesn't mean they are going away. Changing that perception will be very difficult. And after all, if the consumer sees a Japanese car as a safe choice then the they need a HUGE incentive to roll the dice on a bankrupt competitor.
Kirk has it right.
Offline
#29 2008-12-12 15:29:52
Dmtdust wrote:
HOMAGE TO MARAT
From "Marat / Sade"
(Adrian Mitchell / Richard Peaslee)
Peter Weiss
Four years after the revolution and the old king's execution...
poor old Marat
We trust in you ....
Raised on a steady diet of Judy Collins and Joan Baez (as well as Johnny Cash, Tom Lehrer, and the Smothers Brothers) this was one of the first political songs I learned as a kid. The others were, notably, "Bread and Roses" and "I Dreamed I Saw Joe Hill Last Night".
Last edited by Taint (2008-12-12 15:30:53)
Offline
#30 2008-12-12 16:30:57
Taint wrote:
Dmtdust wrote:
HOMAGE TO MARAT
From "Marat / Sade"
(Adrian Mitchell / Richard Peaslee)
Peter Weiss
Four years after the revolution and the old king's execution...
poor old Marat
We trust in you ....Raised on a steady diet of Judy Collins and Joan Baez (as well as Johnny Cash, Tom Lehrer, and the Smothers Brothers) this was one of the first political songs I learned as a kid. The others were, notably, "Bread and Roses" and "I Dreamed I Saw Joe Hill Last Night".
Well your parent(s) certainly raised you well. I tip my hat to them!
Offline
#31 2008-12-12 17:58:33
The Friday Afternoon Piss-off for Phwedski and Ptah, dear friends that they are.
I give you....... Michael Moore!
Friday, December 12th, 2008
Friends,
They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers start building
only cars and mass transit that reduce our dependency on oil.
They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers build cars that
reduce global warming.
They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers withdraw their
many lawsuits against state governments in their attempts to not comply with our
environmental laws.
They could have given the loan on the condition that the management team which
drove these once-great manufacturers into the ground resign and be replaced with a
team who understands the transportation needs of the 21st century.
Yes, they could have given the loan for any of these reasons because, in the end, to
lose our manufacturing infrastructure and throw 3 million people out of work would
be a catastrophe.
But instead, the Senate said, we'll give you the loan only if the factory workers take a
$20 an hour cut in wages, pension and health care. That's right. After giving
BILLIONS to Wall Street hucksters and criminal investment bankers -- billions with no
strings attached and, as we have since learned, no oversight whatsoever -- the
Senate decided it is more important to break a union, more important to throw
middle class wage earners into the ranks of the working poor than to prevent the
total collapse of industrial America.
We have a little more than a month to go of this madness. As I sit here in Michigan
today, tens of thousands of hard working, honest, decent Americans do not believe
they can make it to January 20th. The malaise here is astounding. Why must they
suffer because of the mistakes of every CEO from Roger Smith to Rick Wagoner?
Make management and the boards of directors and the shareholders pay for this.
Of course that is heresy to the 31 Republicans who decided to blame the poor,
miserable autoworkers for this mess. And our wonderful media complied with their
spin on the morning news shows: "UAW Refuses to Give Concessions Killing Auto
Bailout Bill." In fact the UAW has given concession after concession, reduced their
benefits, agreed to get rid of the Jobs Bank and agreed to make it harder for their
retirees to live from week to week. Yes! That's what we need to do! It's the Jobs Bank
and the old people who have led the nation to economic ruin!
But even doing all that wasn't enough to satisfy the bastard Republicans. These
Senate vampires wanted blood. Blue collar blood. You see, they weren't opposed to
the bailout because they believed in the free market or capitalism. No, they were
opposed to the bailout because they're opposed to workers making a decent wage.
In their rage, they were driven to destroy the backbone of this country, not because
the UAW hadn't given back enough, but because the UAW hadn't given up.
It appears that the sitting President has been looking for a way to end his reign by
one magnanimous act, just like a warlord on his feast day. He will put his finger in
the dyke, and the fragile mess of an auto industry will eke through the next few
months.
That will give the Senate enough time to demand that the bankers and investment
sharks who've already swiped nearly half of the $700 billion gift a chance to make the
offer of cutting their pay.
Fat chance.
Yours,
Michael Moore
Offline
#32 2008-12-12 19:04:53
Seriously, who wrote that for Michael Moore? Because that made way too much fucking sense.
Offline
#33 2008-12-12 19:10:19
His diabetes meds must have been wearing off.
Offline
#34 2008-12-12 19:23:09
Dusty quoted an obnoxious fat bastard that no intelligent person takes seriously who wrote:
They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers build cars that
reduce global warming.
Howzat gonna work? Cars that suck heat from the atmosphere and shit ice cubes?
The way to save a failing auto manufacturer isn't to try to force it to make vehicles that people don't want to drive or aren't willing spend the extra money required to pay for.
Fat chance.
The only kind of chance I expect he ever gets...
Offline
#35 2008-12-12 19:56:09
Offline
#36 2008-12-12 20:19:09
Zookeeper wrote:
Dusty quoted an obnoxious fat bastard that no intelligent person takes seriously who wrote:
They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers build cars that
reduce global warming.Howzat gonna work? Cars that suck heat from the atmosphere and shit ice cubes?
The way to save a failing auto manufacturer isn't to try to force it to make vehicles that people don't want to drive or aren't willing spend the extra money required to pay for.Fat chance.
The only kind of chance I expect he ever gets...
Let me know when you find a liberal who understands the concept of supply and demand...
This must be said: the U.S. automakers understood the truck and SUV audience; they cleaned the Japanese automakers' clock in that segment. It's just in the passenger car department where they sucked.
Offline
#37 2008-12-12 20:23:25
AladdinSane wrote:
Let me know when you find a liberal who understands the concept of supply and demand...
This must be said: the U.S. automakers understood the truck and SUV audience; they cleaned the Japanese automakers' clock in that segment. It's just in the passenger car department where they sucked.
Most of the conservatives I've met seem think that you can somehow manufacture demand by creating supply.
Offline
#39 2008-12-12 21:40:00
There is no planning for the future beyond the next quarterly numbers. Do the tried and true, and fuck innovation. Management is where the rot is, and always has been.
What the fuck is wrong with people who think people shouldn't have a decent income? Unbelievable.
Offline
#41 2008-12-12 22:04:26
Dmtdust wrote:
What the fuck is wrong with people who think people shouldn't have a decent income? Unbelievable.
And I suppose you believe they should be able to do that with a single job and probably even have full healthcare coverage, too? Fucking commie.
Offline
#42 2008-12-12 22:18:14
Taint wrote:
Dmtdust wrote:
What the fuck is wrong with people who think people shouldn't have a decent income? Unbelievable.
And I suppose you believe they should be able to do that with a single job and probably even have full healthcare coverage, too? Fucking commie.
I am kinda put off by the deep throating members who just go down on the corporate cock. I mean the apologist who have no problem with some asshole making 100 million a year, and still fucking up.
Offline
#43 2008-12-13 09:40:10
Dmtdust wrote:
The Friday Afternoon Piss-off for Phwedski and Ptah, dear friends that they are.
I give you....... Michael Moore!
Friday, December 12th, 2008
Friends,
They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers start building
only cars and mass transit that reduce our dependency on oil.
They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers build cars that
reduce global warming.
They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers withdraw their
many lawsuits against state governments in their attempts to not comply with our
environmental laws.
They could have given the loan on the condition that the management team which
drove these once-great manufacturers into the ground resign and be replaced with a
team who understands the transportation needs of the 21st century.
Yes, they could have given the loan for any of these reasons because, in the end, to
lose our manufacturing infrastructure and throw 3 million people out of work would
be a catastrophe.
But instead, the Senate said, we'll give you the loan only if the factory workers take a
$20 an hour cut in wages, pension and health care. That's right. After giving
BILLIONS to Wall Street hucksters and criminal investment bankers -- billions with no
strings attached and, as we have since learned, no oversight whatsoever -- the
Senate decided it is more important to break a union, more important to throw
middle class wage earners into the ranks of the working poor than to prevent the
total collapse of industrial America.
We have a little more than a month to go of this madness. As I sit here in Michigan
today, tens of thousands of hard working, honest, decent Americans do not believe
they can make it to January 20th. The malaise here is astounding. Why must they
suffer because of the mistakes of every CEO from Roger Smith to Rick Wagoner?
Make management and the boards of directors and the shareholders pay for this.
Of course that is heresy to the 31 Republicans who decided to blame the poor,
miserable autoworkers for this mess. And our wonderful media complied with their
spin on the morning news shows: "UAW Refuses to Give Concessions Killing Auto
Bailout Bill." In fact the UAW has given concession after concession, reduced their
benefits, agreed to get rid of the Jobs Bank and agreed to make it harder for their
retirees to live from week to week. Yes! That's what we need to do! It's the Jobs Bank
and the old people who have led the nation to economic ruin!
But even doing all that wasn't enough to satisfy the bastard Republicans. These
Senate vampires wanted blood. Blue collar blood. You see, they weren't opposed to
the bailout because they believed in the free market or capitalism. No, they were
opposed to the bailout because they're opposed to workers making a decent wage.
In their rage, they were driven to destroy the backbone of this country, not because
the UAW hadn't given back enough, but because the UAW hadn't given up.
It appears that the sitting President has been looking for a way to end his reign by
one magnanimous act, just like a warlord on his feast day. He will put his finger in
the dyke, and the fragile mess of an auto industry will eke through the next few
months.
That will give the Senate enough time to demand that the bankers and investment
sharks who've already swiped nearly half of the $700 billion gift a chance to make the
offer of cutting their pay.
Fat chance.
Yours,
Michael Moore
Mikey Moore is the biggest retard (and liar) I've ever heard. If ever there is someone on the left that is WORSE than Rush, Mike is it.
Notice, he mentions 31 republicans.... He fails to mention 27 Democrats, doesn't he? So, it's ok for Dems to vote against the bailout?
I've seen all his films and he can't get away from being dishonest and misrepresenting the truth in any of them. He's almost a "tojo"... almost.
Offline
#44 2008-12-13 14:42:05
Notice, he mentions 31 republicans.... He fails to mention 27 Democrats, doesn't he? So, it's ok for Dems to vote against the bailout?
Solly, Ptui, it was just 10 dems who were chicken, while 40 voted for it, plus two independents and 10 repubs. You are a moron, even if articulate. Even if the automobile industry is fucked, at least it actually produces something, so real goods. Wall Street makes nothing but paper instruments. The country is fucked because, having drunk the koolade, the experts all seem to think it is okay if nothing is actually made in the US. It's enough if we just assemble for others and then scratch each others' asses in a "service economy[/i]. Quite a fucking daisy-chain. We have bought a load of crap. Now it is burning at our front door and we are going to rush outside and stomp on it in a panic instead of doing something smart, like support an industry the employees, directly and indirectly, more than 3 million consumers. People who will spend everything they earn and help goose the economy for everyone.
Real people build cars. It is fucking easy to tell them they need to accept a 20% pay cut like that Cork-fucker. What bullshit. You are a moron to buy into the line that it is the workers who must pay.
Offline
#45 2008-12-13 17:17:14
Did I miss something? Did it even come up for a vote, or did cloture get voted down? This was a procedural move, since there were enough votes to pass the fucker, just not enough to shut down a possible filibuster. The bill itself never came up for a vote.
And yeah, Crankhead is right, the vote was largely party-line.
Offline
#46 2008-12-13 18:24:45
Fled wrote:
Scotty - Why do you think the unions prefer unemployment?
I grew up in Atlanta, GA most of my life. I have been asking that same question about Eastern Airlines pilots since the early nineties.
Offline
#47 2008-12-13 18:49:31
Scotty wrote:
Fled wrote:
Scotty - Why do you think the unions prefer unemployment?
I grew up in Atlanta, GA most of my life. I have been asking that same question about Eastern Airlines pilots since the early nineties.
The unions are not in favor of unemployment! They’re just not willing to roll over and be fucked to death! It isn’t possible to negotiate with people who want your organization to die. In the fight to remain viable and represent their members’ interests, sometimes the unions lose out and the company dies. If the boards elected by the shareholders weren’t focused on reducing the workers to a subsistence level of compensation, these fights to the death wouldn’t occur.
Offline
#48 2008-12-13 18:56:59
well said, sir.
Offline
#49 2008-12-13 23:22:58
fnord wrote:
They’re just not willing to roll over and be fucked to death! It isn’t possible to negotiate with people who want your organization to die.
Why fnord. You sound like such a Zionist when read out of context!
Offline
#50 2008-12-13 23:24:27
fnord wrote:
If the boards elected by the shareholders weren’t focused on reducing the workers to a subsistence level of compensation, these fights to the death wouldn’t occur.
Why is it that it's OK for consumers to always look for the best deal on the commodities they buy but if an employer applies the same principal when looking for employees they are evil?
Offline
