Doug Parker announced last night that due to the new tax reform and recognition of outstanding efforts made by AA employees, each AA mainline and wholly-owned regional employee (excluding officers) will receive an extra $1,000 dollars at some point in the first quarter of this year.

A link of some sort sure would be helpful.

AA here
https://www.dallasnews.com/business/air ... rm-benefit

And SWA too
https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/business/So ... 69573.html

unattendedbag wrote:

A link of some sort sure would be helpful.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/03/southwe ... -bill.html

My sincerest apologies....

I don't know how to post here without turning this thread into a non-av political issue but, these airlines (and other corporations), have been hugely profitable for years so why now? It's not like they didn't have money for these bonuses, in previous years. It reeks of political theatre and quid pro quo in the good old boy network.

Without getting too far into politics .... I'm enormously suspicious of all of these companies (AA, Southwest, AT&T, Comcast, and several banks, at minimum from a quick Google search) offering the same $1,000 bonus to all of their employees. Several of them have had the exact same wording, or eerily similar wording, in their press release as well.

On one hand, good on the companies for giving back, but on the other hand it really feels like a coordinated behind the scenes effort to buy goodwill for the tax reform package so that the longer term negative effects are muted.

Can't people just be happy they're getting some money? I swear if our President made everyone millionaires, people would find a way to complain. THis is very good news to all of the employees at SWA and AAL. Good for them! Hopefully other airlines such as DAL & UAL will soon follow suit!

ual763 wrote:

Can't people just be happy they're getting some money? I swear if our President made everyone millionaires, people would find a way to complain. THis is very good news to all of the employees at SWA and AAL. Good for them! Hopefully other airlines such as DAL & UAL will soon follow suit!

If the president made everyone millionaires there would be massive inflation in the economy and prices would skyrocket, plummeting the value of the currency and at best leaving everyone status quo.

Economics is a bitch.

ual763 wrote:

Can't people just be happy they're getting some money? I swear if our President made everyone millionaires, people would find a way to complain. THis is very good news to all of the employees at SWA and AAL. Good for them! Hopefully other airlines such as DAL & UAL will soon follow suit!

I think people take issue with the potential long-term consequences of the recent tax reform. What will that $1,000 today cost down the road?

Anyway, I'm glad the employees are getting something out of the deal.

Rdh3e wrote:

ual763 wrote:

Can't people just be happy they're getting some money? I swear if our President made everyone millionaires, people would find a way to complain. THis is very good news to all of the employees at SWA and AAL. Good for them! Hopefully other airlines such as DAL & UAL will soon follow suit!

If the president made everyone millionaires there would be massive inflation in the economy and prices would skyrocket, plummeting the value of the currency and at best leaving everyone status quo.

Economics is a bitch.

I'm aware. It was a figure of speech. Thanks for the lesson.

This is great news, happy for the employees.

The real question to me is, will this be an annual "corporate tax cut" bonus, or will this be a one-time "See, the corporate tax cuts saved you money!" payment that no one will ever see again. The tax cuts are permanent. A one-time $1,000 payment to employees is nothing. This feels like placating the masses as a tangible effect of the tax cuts.

The real test will be if wages rise accordingly.

airbazar wrote:

I don't know how to post here without turning this thread into a non-av political issue but, these airlines (and other corporations), have been hugely profitable for years so why now? It's not like they didn't have money for these bonuses, in previous years. It reeks of political theatre and quid pro quo in the good old boy network.

Why now? Because the new tax bill allows these companies to keep a lot more profits in 2018. 79 percentage points instead of 65. That is a 21% increase in retained earnings.

The compensation you mention was based on old tax laws. Why do this now? Because other companies are doing it, and politically the American employees (and likely the country overall) need to see that the corporate tax cut (in particular) is overall positive thing for them. If everybody is against the new law then it might go away in a few years. People need to see/feel positive results from it.

osupoke07 wrote:

Without getting too far into politics .... I'm enormously suspicious of all of these companies (AA, Southwest, AT&T, Comcast, and several banks, at minimum from a quick Google search) offering the same $1,000 bonus to all of their employees. Several of them have had the exact same wording, or eerily similar wording, in their press release as well.

On one hand, good on the companies for giving back, but on the other hand it really feels like a coordinated behind the scenes effort to buy goodwill for the tax reform package so that the longer term negative effects are muted.

I rather doubt it is a conspiracy. Instead, companies are responding to each other. One gets a positive image for returning a small amount new profits to employees as a job-well-done gesture. And again, these employees vote in elections. The ideal outcome here is that both sides of the aisle realize that private sector profits are a good thing for all income groups.

MountainFlyer wrote:

The real question to me is, will this be an annual "corporate tax cut" bonus, or will this be a one-time "See, the corporate tax cuts saved you money!" payment that no one will ever see again. The tax cuts are permanent. A one-time $1,000 payment to employees is nothing. This feels like placating the masses as a tangible effect of the tax cuts.

The real test will be if wages rise accordingly.

Yeah, but it's still a free $1000. Hey, if people don't like or want it, I will gladly accept it!

airbazar wrote:

I don't know how to post here without turning this thread into a non-av political issue but, these airlines (and other corporations), have been hugely profitable for years so why now? It's not like they didn't have money for these bonuses, in previous years. It reeks of political theatre and quid pro quo in the good old boy network.

It's good PR. The magats can gush over Trump and the GOP and the airline is under less pressure to improve salaries as was one of the tax bill's main selling points.

A lot of big companies are rewarding employees $1,000 including Bank of America.

Flighty wrote:

Why now? Because the new tax bill allows these companies to keep a lot more profits in 2018. 79 percentage points instead of 65. That is a 21% increase in retained earnings.

Nonesense. I work for a company that has been giving bonuses far greater than $1000, every year for each of the past 15 years that I've worked for them, regardless of tax rates or political affiliation, simply because they are profitable. These bonuses reeks of a concerted effort between the administration and corporate America: I (the president) give you a huge tax break and you give me political capital in the form of a meaningless (to the corporation) bonus. It's the clearest sign yet that this country's political establishment is in the hand of corporations. These token bonuses while good for the employees are a drop in the bucket compared to the money they will make for themselves and their share holders. That's all this is.

bagoldex wrote:

airbazar wrote:

I don't know how to post here without turning this thread into a non-av political issue but, these airlines (and other corporations), have been hugely profitable for years so why now? It's not like they didn't have money for these bonuses, in previous years. It reeks of political theatre and quid pro quo in the good old boy network.

It's good PR. The magats can gush over Trump and the GOP and the airline is under less pressure to improve salaries as was one of the tax bill's main selling points.

Maggots really? You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. The tax bill will more than likely increase salaries. Not to mention, all these airlines have profit sharing, meaning even bigger bonuses!

Great news! The idea behind this bill is to further ignite the already booming economy and to finally raise wages after a decade of being stagnant.

It is a very good sign that all these companies are giving $1000 bonuses

Flighty wrote:

United has not paid $1 in cash taxes since exiting bankruptcy. This does literally nothing for them from a cashflow perspective until ~3 years from now when the NOL's were going to run out. Even now, this devalues the existing NOLs so there will be a write-down of those tax-assets which will be a headwind.

I'm not sure the extent this is true for DL/AA, but this is certainly not a slam-dunk good-guy for UAL.

ual763 wrote:

Yeah, but it's still a free $1000. Hey, if people don't like or want it, I will gladly accept it!

TANSTAAFL - There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Nothing in the world is free. All it does is defer the taxation to a later date. We still have to pay the governments bills, just because you're paying $1,000 less now doesn't mean you're not still going to pay for it over time.

I have a much better idea: All of you who want to bitch, complain, and moan over a measly $1,000, I just set up a special fund. Do not take the money and instead tell your company to deposit it in my fund account where it will be put to an appropriate use.

Jeez, complain you are not paid enough, then complain because its "only $1,000." Then complain because of some 'supposed tax increase' down the road you heard about on CNN. You don't want the money don't take it. But just quit complaining.

jfklganyc wrote:

Great news! The idea behind this bill is to further ignite the already booming economy and to finally raise wages after a decade of being stagnant.

It is a very good sign that all these companies are giving $1000 bonuses

More than likely these savings will be passed on to shareholders (a number of Fortune 500 corporations have admitted such), and the C-suite. The $1000 is a nice, one-time bonus for the rank-and-file employee that's useful for corporations and the admin to say "Look, wage increases!!!!" when in the long term, it's more likely than not that rank-and-file wages will remain largely stagnant.

Economically and historically, there's very little proof that supply-side economics work in the way proponents say they do.

For a lot of people an extra $1000 is a lot of money. Especially if you did not expect it.

I’m glad I get an extra couple of bucks, I’ll gladly take it. And I am no fan of twitter in chief.

.. "At some point" he said .. y'all holdin ur breath?

MountainFlyer wrote:

The real question to me is, will this be an annual "corporate tax cut" bonus, or will this be a one-time "See, the corporate tax cuts saved you money!" payment that no one will ever see again. The tax cuts are permanent. A one-time $1,000 payment to employees is nothing. This feels like placating the masses as a tangible effect of the tax cuts.

The real test will be if wages rise accordingly.

This. 1000 times this. I think we all know that this won't be an annual bonus, and if the corporations really wanted to effectively pass down these tax savings to their workforce they would do so in the form of base salary increases as opposed to one-time bonuses that are, ironically, taxed at far higher rates than standard income. Of course they won't do that because, again as I think we all know, they want these tax savings to go to their bottom line and back to their shareholders, which arguably and in some ways undermines the entire motive behind the votes that were cast for these corporate tax cuts in the first place.

Money is money I guess, but this seems a half-assed way to go about this that I hope employees see through. I imagine we'll be hearing from UA and DL next.

One can only wish that in past years more persons were interested in the long term effects of government spending and tax policies, imagine how low the current deficit and national debt would be...the mind boggles at the thought.

We all know that a number of large major companies were profitable the past few years but paid no bonus to staff and kept wages low, dividends in most cases were being paid as usual. So to those in tune with the political scene, why did the politicians not pass laws to get these companies to spend the money versus the daily tax mantra of them not paying their fair share of tax. Based on what we are hearing now, all that was needed was a change in the tax code to benefit these companies and they would start paying back their political benefactors with some trickle down to the masses like these $1,000.00 bonus.

727200 wrote:

Then complain because of some 'supposed tax increase' down the road you heard about on CNN.

The increase is actually written into the bill. Your taxes will go up in a few years. Your “supposed tax increases” is an actual tax increase written into the law.

As for the bonus, yes it’s nice to get something extra, but it’s akin to a .48 cent per hour raise this year. Stretch it over a number of years as this is most likely a one time thing and that number gets even smaller. Hardly what I would call passing the savings on to employees.

Then tell them to keep the .48 cent per hour raise and just put it in my account. That will solve the whole issue and you don't have to feel bad for taking it.

727200 wrote:

Then tell them to keep the .48 cent per hour raise and just put it in my account. That will solve the whole issue and you don't have to feel bad for taking it.

You’ve got your partisan mind made up so it’s pointless to reason with you. Some objective thinkers can see what’s actually going on here. I should have directed my comments to them. I apologize

Making Aviation Great Again

Back in the day, when Carty was at the helm,after Crandall stood down, on the good old days of the late nineties, we were given similar bonuses for profit sharing (yes, even international employees like me used to get them too). Trust me, AAers are extremely happy about this.

ghsweusa wrote:

For a lot of people an extra $1000 is a lot of money. Especially if you did not expect it.

Look, I don't want to crap all over what is just a bonus, it is a good and nice gesture, a simple small gift of a few hundred dollars to the employees. And it doesn't cost the company anything really based on what they had budgeted versus what they will now save in taxes and what will get paid out to share holders and top management due to the tax changes.

But I do take the idea that this is a lot of money to task. It is not, not unless you actually have no or very little money. To an employed person, an airline employee, it is just a nice small "assist" for a month for some small part of your budget. I'll say that if it was $1,000 extra per year going forward maybe it starts something. But really useful money starts at around $5,000 tax free and more really is needed to actually make a difference in ones annual life expenses. If one wants to actually give employees a lot of money, do $1,000 per month for the lower wage employees. Then you will start to actually make a change in employees lives.

FYI this is probably costing AA less than $150,000,000 - that's real money. (And I'll throw out that probably more than $1,500,000,000 will get dispersed to shareholders and top management and earners later in the year due to the changes)

So great for the companies to do this, really nice of them. I encourage more and everyone should be appreciative of it. But "a lot" it is not.

Tugg

stlgph wrote:

MAGAT = (M)ake (A)merica (G)reat (A)gain (TS)

I see. A derisive label for people that you disagree with.

Beardown91737 wrote:

stlgph wrote:

MAGAT = (M)ake (A)merica (G)reat (A)gain (TS)

I see. A derisive label for people that you disagree with.

Libtards anyone? We can all share how people call others mean names. I really wish everyone should step up and call out EVERYONE who does such, but we don't. (I myself tried to get some posters to stop using derisive versions of presidents names but it falls on deaf ears becasue it is too much fun to call people names)

Tugg

Didn't Bush II give people money "for nothing" and it added to the deficit? Isn't this the same thing? Not to be a Debbie Downer but I gotta ask.

More Tax reform winning.

seb146 wrote:

Didn't Bush II give people money "for nothing" and it added to the deficit? Isn't this the same thing? Not to be a Debbie Downer but I gotta ask.

Yep. And Reagan boasted big tax cuts early in his presidency - and had to back up and raise them substantially later, with budget deficits going out of control.

Whoever said "There is no free lunch" nailed it.

seahawk wrote:

More Tax reform winning.

Yep, again... but your kids and grandkids will be paying a big price for it.

Companies hand out $1000 this year as a bonus. No one would turn that down.

The bigger question is: if the airline is profitable this year, do employees get a raise next year? Another $1000 bonus?

The tax reform wasn't for companies to hand out bonuses; it was all about how salaries will increase because "now the companies have more money".

As long as salaries don't go up, this is nothing but a scam: giving you crumbs while the execs and shareholders feast.

727200 wrote:

Jeez, complain you are not paid enough, then complain because its "only $1,000." Then complain because of some 'supposed tax increase' down the road you heard about on CNN. You don't want the money don't take it. But just quit complaining.

It's not a 'supposed tax increase'. It's in the bill. It's going to happen.

Meanwhile, healthcare premiums are going to go up this year, for some significantly, because of the tax cut. That affects everybody, not just those working at these few companies who have paid out the bonuses. People are going to end up behind with these one-time payouts.

If companies want to throw bonuses at their workers, that's their prerogative, and good for them. But let's not lose sight of the bigger picture - this is a very expensive tax cut, and will end up costing a lot of people way more than a one-time $1,000 bonus provides. And it's not like American just found the money to do this sort of thing now - two years ago they gave all their employees two free tickets as a reward for good work (which, depending on where and when you wanted to go, would be worth quite a bit more than $1,000). It's just a PR move.

Most of these companies have a profit sharing program, right ? So that is a bonus on top of it ?

As for it being a political stunt, I also believe it is one, but I can see it backfiring on several levels : the 1000 dollars being a one time thing, when the tax cut is permanent. But more importantly, most Trump voters aren't working in these companies. How many millions will not get such a bonus, and will actually resent Trump as a result ?

Aesma wrote:

Most of these companies have a profit sharing program, right ? So that is a bonus on top of it ?

As for it being a political stunt, I also believe it is one, but I can see it backfiring on several levels : the 1000 dollars being a one time thing, when the tax cut is permanent. But more importantly, most Trump voters aren't working in these companies. How many millions will not get such a bonus, and will actually resent Trump as a result ?

The bonus, no matter how you spin it, is a good thing for all the workers.

Mind you, we will only be able to confirm how much the workers are benefiting overall through time.

a 1000 dollar bonus is still A 6.6% Bonus to someone making minimum wage.
The percentage declines as you race through the AA employee chain.

Wage growth is what the republicans touted in this plan to bankrupt America, so let's use that as our very low and close goalpost for the future. Bonuses don't mean squat in the long run, unless you always get them as a part of your salary.

$1000 one time bonus is nothing compared to a long term raise. Sure it's nice but it's really just a cheap PR move versus the actual advertised intent of the tax smash 'n grab, which was increased wages.

casinterest wrote:

Wage growth is what the republicans touted in this plan to bankrupt America, so let's use that as our very low and close goalpost for the future. Bonuses don't mean squat in the long run, unless you always get them as a part of your salary.

Yesterday, JetBlue announced $1000 bonuses to all full time employees as of 12/31.

More gimmicks, this bill wont put more money into peoples’ pockets... :/ (sarcasm)

jfklganyc wrote:

Yesterday, JetBlue announced $1000 bonuses to all full time employees as of 12/31.

More gimmicks, this bill wont put more money into peoples’ pockets... :/ (sarcasm)

Considering that's on an pre-tax basis, there's about 32.5% on average gone after taxes, so now you're left with roughly $675, which will likely go away in one or two paychecks depending on what you use it for (most likely pay down debt). Will B6 employees get another bonus next year if the airline makes profits? Will they get a salary increase? If not, this is merely a PR stunt. I mean after all, the companies will invest in their employees and wages will go up which will boost the economy.

Tugger wrote:

Beardown91737 wrote:

stlgph wrote:

MAGAT = (M)ake (A)merica (G)reat (A)gain (TS)

I see. A derisive label for people that you disagree with.

Libtards anyone? We can all share how people call others mean names. I really wish everyone should step up and call out EVERYONE who does such, but we don't. (I myself tried to get some posters to stop using derisive versions of presidents names but it falls on deaf ears becasue it is too much fun to call people names)

Tugg

I have an even bigger problem with that one (and anything ending in -tard) because it is degrading to people with a disability they were born with. People who use that show a lack of empathy. It is also an embarrassing label to see because my side should not have to resort to the petty name calling that is so commonplace from the left.

Beardown91737 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Beardown91737 wrote:

I see. A derisive label for people that you disagree with.

Libtards anyone? We can all share how people call others mean names. I really wish everyone should step up and call out EVERYONE who does such, but we don't. (I myself tried to get some posters to stop using derisive versions of presidents names but it falls on deaf ears becasue it is too much fun to call people names)

Tugg

I have an even bigger problem with that one (and anything ending in -tard) because it is degrading to people with a disability they were born with. People who use that show a lack of empathy. It is also an embarrassing label to see because my side should not have to resort to the petty name calling that is so commonplace from the left.

I dunno, I don't see what you are seeing. The right is solidly name calling people and has been for many years (Obummer anyone) and they enjoy it and revel in it. When it is pointed out, those doing the 4th grade antics are mostly "Yeah, damn right!" And an extreme name calling, insulting guy was elected to lead the "right". It is absolutely commonplace on the right and now more so than the left, so much that no one has any business trying to call out the left for it. The right must own the crap they support and embrace.

Tugg

Beardown91737 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Beardown91737 wrote:

I see. A derisive label for people that you disagree with.

Libtards anyone? We can all share how people call others mean names. I really wish everyone should step up and call out EVERYONE who does such, but we don't. (I myself tried to get some posters to stop using derisive versions of presidents names but it falls on deaf ears becasue it is too much fun to call people names)

Tugg

I have an even bigger problem with that one (and anything ending in -tard) because it is degrading to people with a disability they were born with. People who use that show a lack of empathy. It is also an embarrassing label to see because my side should not have to resort to the petty name calling that is so commonplace from the left.

Diddums. Live with it.