None of our lot would do this..............
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
None of our lot would do this..............
American Airlines chief gives up cash salary for stock
8 hours ago
From the section Business
American Airlines chief executive Doug Parker has joined a select group of company bosses opting to be paid entirely in shares.
He has decided to give up the cash portion of his salary and annual bonus.
Mr Parker was paid more than $12m last year, 40% of which was in cash, according to regulatory filings.
Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg, Google's Larry Page and Kinder Morgan's Rich Kinder are also paid solely in shares.
"I believe this is the right way for my compensation to be set -- at risk, based entirely on the results achieved, and in the same currency that our shareholders receive," Mr Parker said in a letter to employees.
Under the new deal, 54% of his payout will tied to performance targets.
The 53 year-old industry veteran has helped transform American Airlines into one of the country's most successful companies.
Shares of American Airlines have more than doubled in value since the company merged with rival US Airways in 2013.
Both carriers had undergone bankruptcy but their combination has since created the world's largest airline company based on passenger traffic.
American Airlines also posted a record profit of $2.9bn last year, helped by cheaper fuel prices and reduced competition.
Share this story About sharing
Email
Facebook
Twitter
Linkedin
More on this story
Rolls-Royce receives record £6bn engine order
17 April 2015
Thai aviation sector under scrutiny after safety audit
2 April 2015
8 hours ago
From the section Business
American Airlines chief executive Doug Parker has joined a select group of company bosses opting to be paid entirely in shares.
He has decided to give up the cash portion of his salary and annual bonus.
Mr Parker was paid more than $12m last year, 40% of which was in cash, according to regulatory filings.
Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg, Google's Larry Page and Kinder Morgan's Rich Kinder are also paid solely in shares.
"I believe this is the right way for my compensation to be set -- at risk, based entirely on the results achieved, and in the same currency that our shareholders receive," Mr Parker said in a letter to employees.
Under the new deal, 54% of his payout will tied to performance targets.
The 53 year-old industry veteran has helped transform American Airlines into one of the country's most successful companies.
Shares of American Airlines have more than doubled in value since the company merged with rival US Airways in 2013.
Both carriers had undergone bankruptcy but their combination has since created the world's largest airline company based on passenger traffic.
American Airlines also posted a record profit of $2.9bn last year, helped by cheaper fuel prices and reduced competition.
Share this story About sharing
Rolls-Royce receives record £6bn engine order
17 April 2015
Thai aviation sector under scrutiny after safety audit
2 April 2015
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Receiving salary in shares is not really a hardship and the great risk it is portrayed. It gives way to short termism and share price becomes the driver which is great if you can "manipulate" the share price. How long are the shares vested for, any restrictions on selling them? What are the dividends on the shares? How many does he receive, equivalent to his old salary or at a reduced "price"?
Sorry, I just cannot see ANY employee, includes CEO and the rest of the management team, being WORTH that much, compared to what the rest of the employees earn.
This modern system of a "select" few making such obscene salaries distorts the whole reward system and probably leads to gross distortions of strategies and results, often at the expense of the rest of the employees.
Was chatting to a retired CEO from a well known US airline recently. He was quite proud that salaries and pensions of the employees had been slashed to make the company more profitable. Seems his were not, so he did not understand the pain and damage caused to the people who worked for the airline.
There has to be a better balance!
This modern system of a "select" few making such obscene salaries distorts the whole reward system and probably leads to gross distortions of strategies and results, often at the expense of the rest of the employees.
Was chatting to a retired CEO from a well known US airline recently. He was quite proud that salaries and pensions of the employees had been slashed to make the company more profitable. Seems his were not, so he did not understand the pain and damage caused to the people who worked for the airline.
There has to be a better balance!
Join Date: May 2008
Location: All Over
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not my place to say what someone's worth in the job they do. People who work harder than I do digging ditches and the like make less, but I have a skill that's taken a great deal of resources to obtain with some hefty responsiblity attached. Then again cops do too yet they make less too.
The road of saying what one should be 'worth' is fraught with great peril--especially when one tries to compel this from the outside. The marketplace does this elegantly on it's own. At least when not encumbered with laws favoring one group or sector over another.
I don't think alot of sports stars are worth what they are paid personally; but again it's not my place to determine this and apparently SOMEONE is willing to pay for it. Al Gore has made millions off of pure unadulterated BS--in fact by gaining an audience has actually done great societal harm through those running amok with pens writing laws. So I can feel better about what I do I guess and what I'm paid.
As far as Parker's actions I applaud it as I did his restoration of the pay (and then some) from the flubbed F/A TA. At least he's willing to put his money with his mouth is and make strides to saying if we all don't profit he doesn't either. This shows a degree of confidence and team building is VERY important to making a profitable company on all levels. An adversarial role poisons a company; when everyone WANTS to go the extra mile to pitch in and get onboard for the big win companies are VERY productive.
I wish WE could learn this lesson but it hasn't appeared to happen as of late. I'll remain hopeful for a bit at least; guess we'll see.
The road of saying what one should be 'worth' is fraught with great peril--especially when one tries to compel this from the outside. The marketplace does this elegantly on it's own. At least when not encumbered with laws favoring one group or sector over another.
I don't think alot of sports stars are worth what they are paid personally; but again it's not my place to determine this and apparently SOMEONE is willing to pay for it. Al Gore has made millions off of pure unadulterated BS--in fact by gaining an audience has actually done great societal harm through those running amok with pens writing laws. So I can feel better about what I do I guess and what I'm paid.
As far as Parker's actions I applaud it as I did his restoration of the pay (and then some) from the flubbed F/A TA. At least he's willing to put his money with his mouth is and make strides to saying if we all don't profit he doesn't either. This shows a degree of confidence and team building is VERY important to making a profitable company on all levels. An adversarial role poisons a company; when everyone WANTS to go the extra mile to pitch in and get onboard for the big win companies are VERY productive.
I wish WE could learn this lesson but it hasn't appeared to happen as of late. I'll remain hopeful for a bit at least; guess we'll see.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Curtain Rod. You crack me up mate. You sit there and discredit and ridicule believers in God, then you demonstrate true denial and delusion by buying into the great 21st century crock called 'climate change'. I won't bother debating you....i'm sure you know the story of the pigs and mud? A different take on your 'belief'.
Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures - Telegraph
Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures - Telegraph
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no greater 'junk science' than that espoused by the frantic, hysterical 'global warming' crowd. Oh, I see they've changed the name now to 'climate change' as the warming thing was becoming a bit embarrassing. Why don't you visit Boston and suggest that the climate is warming....? Those Irish boys will soon set you straight. CR, you have a belief based on bogus and distorted 'science'. You really should look in the mirror and see the hypocrisy that you preach. 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: All Over
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More thread drift....
The sun's mass is constantly changing simply because it converts matter to energy. This means its gravitational pull is also constantly changing (i.e. decreasing) because gravitational pull depends directly on mass. As such, the satellites orbiting it (i.e. US) will ALSO never be in a completely stable orbit (and few, if any, orbits are completely stable anyway).
Adding to this, the Sun is basically just a big hydrogen campfire (using fusion rather than burning wood). It's output is RELATIVELY constant (lucky for us) but does vary and there's no reason to believe it won't or shoudn't--just like a well tended campfire (although one we cannot control or tend to). A little variation goes a very long way in how much heat we get from it.
We can do absolutely nothing about this.
This has occurred since the beginning of the universe as has climatic changes on earth. They were present before Man was on the planet and will continue with no effect by man while man is here and long after he is gone.
If one does a real energy balance, one will find we can measure the 'heat in' by old Sol to roughly one part in ten thousand. Any possible CO2 effects from ALL sources are at least two orders of magnitude below this (mostly due to the low concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere which have gone from 200 to roughly 380 ppm over the last 250 or so years--or as best as we can figure in that we are using 2015 technology to try to figure what was happening a couple of centuries ago). As such, it is not possible to draw any definiitve conclusions. It's like arguing when one can measure with the best available technology to 1.15 that YOUR model of 1.150071 is far superior to someone else's model of 1.150069. That's but one reason we see the data constantly being fudged to fit the model in the climate scam--right up to the point of deliberate falsification. And why the predictive models don't seem to work. And why the dire predictions of us all being underwater never seem to come true.
AND despite all the taxes, rules, and laws passed what ability do we really have to effect changes on CO2 concentration ? Even IF there was a link (which we don't really have; we just have some data with wide tolerances saying that one tends to follow the other--which is a great deal different than saying one CAUSES the other).
People used to believe strongly in witchcraft--along with their 'technical experts' too.
NO true scientist uses terms like "incontrovertable" or "irrefutable." Or even "settled science." This is a form of propaganda through verbal assertion like "intelligent laymen" or "real scientist" (whatever THAT is). Nor do real scientists fail to acknowledge the limits and tolerance of their model and data, and that they could well be wrong. They use terms like "the data tend to indicate."
I'd challenge folks to find ONE scientist banging the global warming mantra scam whose funding is divorced from 'proving' a link between CO2 and the warming or cooling of our planet. So we see not only junk 'science' but more than that corrupted science.
Rather than simply trusting and parroting others (like the vast majority seem to do) run the numbers for yourself. It's not all THAT hard to do. Actually look at the carbon adsorption spectra as a fraction of total area, the concentrations of CO2, the re-radiation efficiency of the earth in re-emitting IR from EM, etc. When you do this I think you'll find if you model it as a window which opens two feet the actual change over the past 250 years has been to close that window 9 millionths of ONE inch (under the best conditions to support the CO2 theory). Since our ability to measure heat in is at best to one part in 10,000 how could anyone draw a definintive link ?
The earth's temperature has varied from natural sources since the beginning of time and will continue to do so as long as time exists. We have no measurable effect on it. Our stragegies should be to deal with it rather than try to cripple our ability to do so.
Links to the EPA--the very agency who benefits from more taxes, rules, and laws (and has had a plethora of corruption scandals about the very individuals charged to propagate its agenda; as well as illegally expunging emails related to the very same topic) passed to support this 'theory' aren't particularly compelling.
The sun's mass is constantly changing simply because it converts matter to energy. This means its gravitational pull is also constantly changing (i.e. decreasing) because gravitational pull depends directly on mass. As such, the satellites orbiting it (i.e. US) will ALSO never be in a completely stable orbit (and few, if any, orbits are completely stable anyway).
Adding to this, the Sun is basically just a big hydrogen campfire (using fusion rather than burning wood). It's output is RELATIVELY constant (lucky for us) but does vary and there's no reason to believe it won't or shoudn't--just like a well tended campfire (although one we cannot control or tend to). A little variation goes a very long way in how much heat we get from it.
We can do absolutely nothing about this.
This has occurred since the beginning of the universe as has climatic changes on earth. They were present before Man was on the planet and will continue with no effect by man while man is here and long after he is gone.
If one does a real energy balance, one will find we can measure the 'heat in' by old Sol to roughly one part in ten thousand. Any possible CO2 effects from ALL sources are at least two orders of magnitude below this (mostly due to the low concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere which have gone from 200 to roughly 380 ppm over the last 250 or so years--or as best as we can figure in that we are using 2015 technology to try to figure what was happening a couple of centuries ago). As such, it is not possible to draw any definiitve conclusions. It's like arguing when one can measure with the best available technology to 1.15 that YOUR model of 1.150071 is far superior to someone else's model of 1.150069. That's but one reason we see the data constantly being fudged to fit the model in the climate scam--right up to the point of deliberate falsification. And why the predictive models don't seem to work. And why the dire predictions of us all being underwater never seem to come true.
AND despite all the taxes, rules, and laws passed what ability do we really have to effect changes on CO2 concentration ? Even IF there was a link (which we don't really have; we just have some data with wide tolerances saying that one tends to follow the other--which is a great deal different than saying one CAUSES the other).
People used to believe strongly in witchcraft--along with their 'technical experts' too.
NO true scientist uses terms like "incontrovertable" or "irrefutable." Or even "settled science." This is a form of propaganda through verbal assertion like "intelligent laymen" or "real scientist" (whatever THAT is). Nor do real scientists fail to acknowledge the limits and tolerance of their model and data, and that they could well be wrong. They use terms like "the data tend to indicate."
I'd challenge folks to find ONE scientist banging the global warming mantra scam whose funding is divorced from 'proving' a link between CO2 and the warming or cooling of our planet. So we see not only junk 'science' but more than that corrupted science.
Rather than simply trusting and parroting others (like the vast majority seem to do) run the numbers for yourself. It's not all THAT hard to do. Actually look at the carbon adsorption spectra as a fraction of total area, the concentrations of CO2, the re-radiation efficiency of the earth in re-emitting IR from EM, etc. When you do this I think you'll find if you model it as a window which opens two feet the actual change over the past 250 years has been to close that window 9 millionths of ONE inch (under the best conditions to support the CO2 theory). Since our ability to measure heat in is at best to one part in 10,000 how could anyone draw a definintive link ?
The earth's temperature has varied from natural sources since the beginning of time and will continue to do so as long as time exists. We have no measurable effect on it. Our stragegies should be to deal with it rather than try to cripple our ability to do so.
Links to the EPA--the very agency who benefits from more taxes, rules, and laws (and has had a plethora of corruption scandals about the very individuals charged to propagate its agenda; as well as illegally expunging emails related to the very same topic) passed to support this 'theory' aren't particularly compelling.
Last edited by Shep69; 26th Apr 2015 at 23:14.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: All Over
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't deny at all that the climate is changing; in fact that was one of my points. Always has and always will.
Whether it's warming or not I'm honestly not sure. If (motivated by funding) I placed a bunch of thermometers in a hot parking lot in Florida and only a few in snowy Minnesota my results aren't exactly objective. Or would be trying to extrapolate data from 100 years ago with a precision that didn't exist at the time. Or would be ignoring the inherent tolerances in carbon or other isotope historical dating. Or would be ignoring the frequent climatological changes that have occurred through the history of the planet devoid of human interaction. Or even WHERE it might be getting hotter and where it might be getting cooler; trying to lose the details in an averages obscuration (and also shelving orbital instabilities as a potential explaination).
Or would be ignoring the sun's varying output and wobble and precession in Earth's orbit and keying in on man made CO2. Like it or not slight output sun variations (immeasurable compared to claimed CO2 effects), or even slight orbital changes, can have huge inputs making CO2 fall well below the noise (and could well account for the ice ages and scorchers in the past). Not all surfaces absorb EM and radiate IR the same (just like the thermals we experience on final).
In any case we'd be powerless to change it.
What I AM saying is based on all the study and evaluation I've given to the topic CO2 and 'greenhouse gases' have absolutely nothing to do with it. And one trusts corrupted 'scientists' (consensus or not) at one's own peril. One should think for onesself.
In fact, I'm still awating that inevitable nuclear winter that was so popular in the 80s. Or that we were one minute from total destruction in the 70s (again from concerned 'scientists').
Good thing I didn't waste my money building that bomb shelter in the backyard. This time it's different; without choice or even substantiation the resources are being taken away.
Being wrong is an important part of scientific theory and the scientific method--and perfectly acceptable. Countless examples of this in our past. But passing laws and taxes isn't acceptable and the global warming scam represents the epitome of this and corruption. The minute laws, taxes, and money came into play it ceased being science.
Nothing wrong in believing in angels either.
Whether it's warming or not I'm honestly not sure. If (motivated by funding) I placed a bunch of thermometers in a hot parking lot in Florida and only a few in snowy Minnesota my results aren't exactly objective. Or would be trying to extrapolate data from 100 years ago with a precision that didn't exist at the time. Or would be ignoring the inherent tolerances in carbon or other isotope historical dating. Or would be ignoring the frequent climatological changes that have occurred through the history of the planet devoid of human interaction. Or even WHERE it might be getting hotter and where it might be getting cooler; trying to lose the details in an averages obscuration (and also shelving orbital instabilities as a potential explaination).
Or would be ignoring the sun's varying output and wobble and precession in Earth's orbit and keying in on man made CO2. Like it or not slight output sun variations (immeasurable compared to claimed CO2 effects), or even slight orbital changes, can have huge inputs making CO2 fall well below the noise (and could well account for the ice ages and scorchers in the past). Not all surfaces absorb EM and radiate IR the same (just like the thermals we experience on final).
In any case we'd be powerless to change it.
What I AM saying is based on all the study and evaluation I've given to the topic CO2 and 'greenhouse gases' have absolutely nothing to do with it. And one trusts corrupted 'scientists' (consensus or not) at one's own peril. One should think for onesself.
In fact, I'm still awating that inevitable nuclear winter that was so popular in the 80s. Or that we were one minute from total destruction in the 70s (again from concerned 'scientists').
Good thing I didn't waste my money building that bomb shelter in the backyard. This time it's different; without choice or even substantiation the resources are being taken away.
Being wrong is an important part of scientific theory and the scientific method--and perfectly acceptable. Countless examples of this in our past. But passing laws and taxes isn't acceptable and the global warming scam represents the epitome of this and corruption. The minute laws, taxes, and money came into play it ceased being science.
Nothing wrong in believing in angels either.
Last edited by Shep69; 27th Apr 2015 at 02:36.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is far too much evidence already to support the FACT that climate change advocates have been doctoring the data. Even if all the grandiose plans to reduce carbon emissions are enacted, it would amount to a total change of 1/10th of 1 degree C. I hardly think co-opting the words economies, stealing thru taxation and altering the freedoms we currently have to live as we choose is worth 1/10th of 1 degree C of change. The sun and it's varying output is far and away the most likely cause of the varying climate. Further, the volcanoes that have recently erupted have put into the atmosphere almost as much carbon as mankind has the past 12 months. We are arrogant to think we can change such a vast and varied machine called 'climate'. As for the noted 'scientists' that have 'concluded' that mankind has effected the climate, and that we can stop it: they need to first explain why the average world temp has actually been falling the past 18 years? Easier to believe in angels than that lot. Keep your 'faith' CR...you are heading for a mighty letdown sometime later in life.
wtf has this to do with the AA CEO and his shares?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: All Over
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair enough; number is propaganda (originating from a 2009 AGU study from 2 researchers from the University of Illinois where roughly 1/3 of those polled responded and only 75 out of 77--whose funding was tied into proving the 'theory'--was considered for the 'results' and 'consensus') -- and alot depends on how one asks the question. Although widely parroted, there is widespread dissent with the CO2 link.
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!
Notably more than 31K climatologists have been actively dissenting with the CO2 link--largely given the huge tolerances and the effects it has on models.
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!
Notably more than 31K climatologists have been actively dissenting with the CO2 link--largely given the huge tolerances and the effects it has on models.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: the land of chocolate
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
shep69,
That's a link to an article from Forbes, one of the most right wing financial magazines out there. Hardly a peer reviewed article.
(And discredited see here RealClimate: Forbes’ rich list of nonsense)
If you are worried about conflict of interest within the group of climate scientist, you will find a bigger conflict of interest with the Forbes clan and their friends in big oil and industry.
That's a link to an article from Forbes, one of the most right wing financial magazines out there. Hardly a peer reviewed article.
(And discredited see here RealClimate: Forbes’ rich list of nonsense)
If you are worried about conflict of interest within the group of climate scientist, you will find a bigger conflict of interest with the Forbes clan and their friends in big oil and industry.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CR
Just who is the ignorant one?
The zealots in your camp first began by telling us that the earth was freezing; then when that was disproved, they told us the earth was heating up. Then as the evidence began to disprove that theory as well, the theme changed, yet again, to "climate change". Please don't insult us by now claiming that this was all consistent with your theory all along...it wasn't.
You are the intolerant one.
Try, if you can, to examine the other evidence beyond that which fits your narrow view....and please, please, get off your high horse.
Just who is the ignorant one?
The zealots in your camp first began by telling us that the earth was freezing; then when that was disproved, they told us the earth was heating up. Then as the evidence began to disprove that theory as well, the theme changed, yet again, to "climate change". Please don't insult us by now claiming that this was all consistent with your theory all along...it wasn't.
You are the intolerant one.
Try, if you can, to examine the other evidence beyond that which fits your narrow view....and please, please, get off your high horse.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and the reputable scientists who state the completely opposite to your deluded bunch CR...? Again, try and explain the falsified, corrupted and outright junk data that most of your lot have been using. Most of the worlds 'informed' people are wise to the game the 'climate change' crowd have been playing. You are on an inexorable decline to ridicule. Fun to watch though. You seem to consider yourself 'smarter' than the rest of us....the very type that usually falls flat on their faces eventually. Pride goeth...etc...
Join Date: May 2008
Location: All Over
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Scientists" (global warming BS or not) can certainly do whatever they want--right up to the point they start being corrupted and costing me money--effectively buying their 'vote' and support for funding by drawing fake conclusions statists exploit to tax, pass laws, and redistribute wealth (with the very same statists being the folks doing the divvying out). Then they're not scientists anymore. Then they're the same corrupt crony 'capitalists' we often scoff at here.
A scientist does not extrapolate one's data beyond its available tolerance to draw definitive conclusions; and that's what has happened. It's fine to hypothesize all one wants, but when one starts saying "irrefutable" and "incontrovertible" when one should know the data do not support the conclusions then again one is not practicing science (and one sees one's models continue to fail up to the point of having to falsify data inputs). One is practicing rhetoric at that point. As is one when one says 'there is no serious debate....the evidence is clear...'. Just forty years ago a computer was a thing that covered several acres and color television was a luxury; the time we could measure (still to two orders of magnitude less precision than any contribution of CO2 to the planet's temperature could be) with any degree of precision the solar output (heat in) of the sun even a decade more recent than that. Insignificant time on a planetary or climatic perspective. Oh yeah...and during the beginning of THAT decade we were headed into a mini ice age according to the 'scientists' and their models. So I scoff and will continue to scoff at them until they practice science again (while I gleefully throw another few lumps of coal in my stove).
Parroting the mantra louder and louder still won't make it so. There is no credible link between man produced CO2 and the earth's temperature at present.
A scientist does not extrapolate one's data beyond its available tolerance to draw definitive conclusions; and that's what has happened. It's fine to hypothesize all one wants, but when one starts saying "irrefutable" and "incontrovertible" when one should know the data do not support the conclusions then again one is not practicing science (and one sees one's models continue to fail up to the point of having to falsify data inputs). One is practicing rhetoric at that point. As is one when one says 'there is no serious debate....the evidence is clear...'. Just forty years ago a computer was a thing that covered several acres and color television was a luxury; the time we could measure (still to two orders of magnitude less precision than any contribution of CO2 to the planet's temperature could be) with any degree of precision the solar output (heat in) of the sun even a decade more recent than that. Insignificant time on a planetary or climatic perspective. Oh yeah...and during the beginning of THAT decade we were headed into a mini ice age according to the 'scientists' and their models. So I scoff and will continue to scoff at them until they practice science again (while I gleefully throw another few lumps of coal in my stove).
Parroting the mantra louder and louder still won't make it so. There is no credible link between man produced CO2 and the earth's temperature at present.
Last edited by Shep69; 29th Apr 2015 at 07:54.