KC v. Tulsa v. Fort Worth: Whose overhaul base closes??

phxcat · Post by **phxcat** » Thu Jul 24, 2003 7:08 pm

I have recently sene articles about Southwest and America West getting back in the black, so I agree that the industry is not as bad offf as it appears. There will always be a need for air travel, and as we distance ourselves from 9-11 the irrational fear that a lot of people feel will disipate, and as the economy comes back we will see increased air travel. The companies that are failing now will help the companies who are not failing. I think the key is to bring in Southwest, who probably uses as sound business practices as anybody, and can be trusted. Vanguard and Branif, those just weren't big and sustained enough. But we need the nice, secure terminal. I still think that adding to an existing terminal could give the gates we need without costing as much as building a fourth.

Good2Great · Post by **Good2Great** » Thu Jul 24, 2003 11:12 pm

I believe Southwest has always been in the black while the big biys suck wind and cry about it.

phxcat · Post by **phxcat** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:18 am

Well, there you go!

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 9:07 pm

How dumb are Barnes and Holden?

I'd love for Barnes to pour $200 million into an airline that isn't worth a rip. Why doesn't she pull her head out of her rear and put money into an emerging airline that could create jobs here and increase traffic at the airport (Southwest, Jet Blue)? If you're gonna throw public money at someone you should at least make sure you're going to get something back. American Airlines is not good for Kansas City. 2,000 jobs or 200,000 jobs...it doesn't matter...they don't give two spits about KC.

I just hope Holden doesn't provide any money for 'em.

Posted on Thu, Jul. 31, 2003

Holden backs effort on overhaul base, but says resources are limited
By RANDOLPH HEASTER
The Kansas City Star

Missouri will support efforts to keep American Airlines' Kansas City maintenance base open, but the state's budget situation will keep resources limited, Gov. Bob Holden said Wednesday.

Holden commented after meeting with Kansas City Mayor Kay Barnes and other Kansas City leaders.

The city is trying to persuade American to continue operating its Kansas City overhaul base, which has about 2,000 employees. American is in the midst of downsizing and is considering consolidating its maintenance operations, which could result in the closing of the Kansas City base.

Barnes sent a proposal to American earlier this month that offered rent breaks on the overhaul base and the issuance of up to $200 million in revenue bonds to upgrade the aging facility. The city has also offered to cover $4.5 million of American's annual debt service on the bonds.

Holden noted that part of the city's proposed bond repayment would come from the state.

"We have been able to identify a possible $600,000 per year, or $18 million of state support, that we would seek from the Missouri Development Finance Board," Holden said. "That support would come in the form of transferable tax credits that could be sold to support the repayment of bonds."

The Department of Economic Development is also looking at some of its incentive programs that could assist American, Holden said.

"The use of those incentives will still require some actions on the part of American Airlines," Holden said. "However, given our tight state budget situation, our resources are limited, and we need to be inventive and responsible in how we go about assisting American."
To reach Randolph Heaster, call (816) 234-4746 or send e-mail to rheaster@kcstar.com.

Post by **dangerboy** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 10:25 pm

trailerkid wrote:How dumb are Barnes and Holden?

Dude calm down. 2,000 jobs is a big deal. American doesn't care about Kansas City any less than any other big corporation. Don't forget that American is the world's largest airline, so they must doing one or two things right.

Remember that these are EXISTING jobs, not theoritical jobs. If we have a chance to retain 2,000 jobs we should take it, rather than gamble on another airline that might bring in 200 jobs at most. $200 million is definitely a staggering amount, but so is the chain reaction when ancillary busineses close, hundreds of mortgages default, etc.

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Fri Aug 01, 2003 12:05 am

Enron employed thousands of people too. Maybe Barnes and Holden should give them some money to relocate here.

ShowME · Post by **ShowME** » Fri Aug 01, 2003 3:54 pm

Maybe you should see what workers at the American overhaul base make and then see how much Southwest and JetBlue pay. Trust me you'll be shocked. I agree American is definitely not loyal to the Kansas City area but then again if you're trying to recruit a company from outside the KC area (which would be 99% of all companies) then no one will be loyal.

Post by **mean** » Mon Aug 04, 2003 12:43 pm

2,000 jobs might be a big deal, but so is financially mismanaging one of the largest corporations in existence. They jacked up, they should have to pay the same price as if I financially mismanged my business. Granted, the terrorist attacks have made their business slow down, but if I had to declare bankruptcy every time business got slow I'd be just as screwed as AA deserves to be.

NO MORE CORPORATE WELFARE! We can and will put a stop to it, it's only a matter of how many more millions get wasted until then.

Vote mean, thx.

Post by **bahua** » Wed Aug 06, 2003 7:24 am

I have no love for entitled businesses, regardless of how "dependent" we are on them. If they don't work, something else will. Let it.

Post by **mean** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 12:13 pm

It just occured to me that when a city is in the position of, say, giving a corp $200 mil to stay, or facing 2,000 unemployed workers, why not give each worker $100,000 to live on until they find a new job and tell the corp to piss off?

ShowME · Post by **ShowME** » Tue Sep 09, 2003 9:10 pm

Tulsa Vision 2025
Proposition 2 - American Airlines
Yes 71,611 61%
No 45,110 39%
92% Precincts Reporting

Looks like Tulsa voters will gladly dole out "corporate welfare". Bye bye KCI overhaul base jobs!

KCgridlock · Post by **KCgridlock** » Tue Sep 09, 2003 10:48 pm

That's gonna suck if they loose those high paying skilled jobs.

If KC does, they should get very creative with that same 200 million to lure some other company our airline to the airport.

Post by **dangerboy** » Wed Sep 10, 2003 7:12 am

mean wrote:It just occured to me that when a city is in the position of, say, giving a corp $200 mil to stay, or facing 2,000 unemployed workers, why not give each worker $100,000 to live on until they find a new job and tell the corp to piss off?

What about all of the local businesses that provide services and supplies to the overhaul base? Do they get a cut of the dole? How do you calculate that? And what about the businesses that supplied the suppliers? The relationships are too comlex for such a simple plan. The issue is larger than just 2,000 paychecks - it includes dozens of other businesses and hundreds of other workers further down the food chain.

ShowME · Post by **ShowME** » Wed Sep 10, 2003 8:17 am

From watching the local news stories about this it appears that KC's $200 million is all in future tax breaks and reductions in the overhaul base's lease payments. Only $2 million is upfront cash. Whereas Tulsa's voter approved plan provides AA with $22.3 million of cash upfront. I would think AA would jump all over the Tulsa plan. I can't believe the Tulsa plan has ZERO safeguards for the taxpayers.

Post by **mean** » Wed Sep 10, 2003 8:37 am

What about all of the local businesses that provide services and supplies to the overhaul base?

Any business that relies on just one customer to survive doens't have a very good business model.

Post by **dangerboy** » Wed Sep 10, 2003 8:41 am

mean wrote:
What about all of the local businesses that provide services and supplies to the overhaul base?
Any business that relies on just one customer to survive doens't have a very good business model.

Um, I never said anything about a business relying on one customer. How did you infer that?

But even the loss of 10-20% of business could be devastating.

Post by **mean** » Wed Sep 10, 2003 12:52 pm

Um, I never said anything about a business relying on one customer. How did you infer that?

This:

What about all of the local businesses that provide services and supplies to the overhaul base? Do they get a cut of the dole? How do you calculate that? And what about the businesses that supplied the suppliers? The relationships are too comlex for such a simple plan.

To answer more verbosely, the local businesses that provide services and supplies to the overhaul base should hope they have a solid enough business that losing one customer will not destroy them. If losing the overhaul base won't put them out of business, then what's it matter? They'll go on as before, with one less customer.

Post by **dangerboy** » Wed Sep 10, 2003 1:53 pm

mean wrote:
Um, I never said anything about a business relying on one customer. How did you infer that?
This:

What about all of the local businesses that provide services and supplies to the overhaul base? Do they get a cut of the dole? How do you calculate that? And what about the businesses that supplied the suppliers? The relationships are too comlex for such a simple plan.
To answer more verbosely, the local businesses that provide services and supplies to the overhaul base should hope they have a solid enough business that losing one customer will not destroy them. If losing the overhaul base won't put them out of business, then what's it matter? They'll go on as before, with one less customer.

Where does that say businesses have a single customer? You are arguing against something that I didn't say.

Post by **mean** » Wed Sep 10, 2003 2:43 pm

Oh for the love of Ra.

I suggested that the bux go to the people who would lose their jobs. You said (paraphrasing), "but what about the businesses who rely on the AA base?" Ah, yes, what about them? Either they will go out of business or they will not. If they would go out of business, it is then obvious that they relied on AA to survive. You didn't HAVE to say it! It was a logical implication. If you cut off my head, I will die. It is thus quite logical to conclude that I require my head for survival.

Post by **dangerboy** » Wed Sep 10, 2003 3:07 pm

OK now you are going out of your way to be difficult. I didn't say that they would go out of business, you did. My point was that they would have a negative impact. Maybe Supplier X gets 10% of it's revenue from AA. If AA leaves then they might lay off 10% of their emloyees. Would those employees get part of your payout also?

And by the way, even if a supplier doesn't rely on one company for all of it's revenue, it is very possible that it has a specific plant that produces product for a specific company. There are small plants all over the outlaying areas of Missouri and probably Kansas that supply parts exclusively to the Fairfax and Claycomo auto plants. If the auto plant shut down the supplying company wouldn't necessarily go under, but it would possibly close its plant(s) that supplied the auto plant.