This UAL guy made some coin

[FlyBoeingJets]

Found It--

Mesaba bills former pilots for training costs

Lisa Treon
4/19/2006​

Is bankrupt Mesaba Airlines implementing a little-used policy to make money now? According to the pilots’ union, some former pilots are being billed thousands of dollars for training costs.

The first-year pilots were notified in late 2005 that they would be furloughed in January or February. Some left for other jobs and gave Mesaba two weeks’ notice. The airline said it is following through on a contract provision – should a pilot leave the airline within the first year, training costs would have to be repaid.

The Northwest unit of the Air Line Pilots Association said the payback provision has not been enforced in the past. Mesaba has given those pilots 30 days to repay the airline or their bills will be turned over to a collection agency. ALPA said some pilots have received bills for more than $10,000, which is half of their annual salary at Mesaba.



Make sure you get furloughed before you accept the next job offer!!!

 

[Smacktard]

That's nothing. The CEO of Exxon just retured with the equivalent of over $140,000 PER DAY of compensation. The free market at work.

April 14, 2006— Soaring gas prices are squeezing most Americans at the pump, but at least one man isn't complaining.

Last year, Exxon made the biggest profit of any company ever, $36 billion, and its retiring chairman appears to be reaping the benefits.

Exxon is giving Lee Raymond one of the most generous retirement packages in history, nearly $400 million, including pension, stock options and other perks, such as a $1 million consulting deal, two years of home security, personal security, a car and driver, and use of a corporate jet for professional purposes.

Last November, when he was still chairman of Exxon, Raymond told Congress that gas prices were high because of global supply and demand.

"We're all in this together, everywhere in the world," he testified.

Raymond, however, was confronted with caustic complaints about his compensation.

"In 2004, Mr. Raymond, your bonus was over $3.6 million," Sen. Barbara Boxer said.

That was before new corporate documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that revealed Raymond's retirement deal and his $51.1 million paycheck in 2005. That's equivalent to $141,000 a day, nearly $6,000 an hour. It's almost more than five times what the CEO of Chevron made.

"I think it will spark a lot of outrage," said Sarah Anderson, a fellow in the global economy program at the Institute for Policy Studies, an independent think tank. "Clearly much of his high-level pay is due to the high price of gas."

Exxon defends Raymond's compensation, pointing out that during the 12 years he ran the company, Exxon became the largest oil company in the world and that the stock price went up 500 percent.

A company spokesman said the compensation package reflected "a very long and distinguished career."

Some Exxon shareholders are now trying to pass resolutions criticizing the company's executive pay policies. The company is urging other shareholders to vote against those resolutions.

So what? Who cares how much they made. What was their profit margin? Was it higher than other industries...I'll give you a hint, it isn't. 10% of 40 billion is a lot higher than 10% of a million, how come you guys don't get that?

As for gas prices, it's still cheaper adjusted for inflation than it was in the 70's. I mean I'll agree it sucks to see gas at 3$ but is it really changing your lifestyle that much? You guys need to get a grip about losing your head over $3 a gallon. If it matters that much, sell the old piece of junk and get one of those little cute cars shaped like a turd to bop around in, maybe it will fit your personality better! As for me, pedal to the medal, let it burn...

 

[pipejockey]

So what? Who cares how much they made. What was their profit margin? Was it higher than other industries...I'll give you a hint, it isn't. 10% of 40 billion is a lot higher than 10% of a million, how come you guys don't get that?

Maybe I am missing the point but what you are saying is that their GROSS revenues are 40 billion while their NET profit is 10% of that? Well the netting 10% is all fine and well but the 40 billion figure is grossly exagerated due to the consumer being gouged for 2.50 to 3.00 a gallon gasoline when it should be no higher than 1.75.

 

[Smacktard]

Maybe I am missing the point but what you are saying is that their GROSS revenues are 40 billion while their NET profit is 10% of that? Well the netting 10% is all fine and well but the 40 billion figure is grossly exagerated due to the consumer being gouged for 2.50 to 3.00 a gallon gasoline when it should be no higher than 1.75.

Profit margin...do you know what this is? The profit margin for the oil industry is around 8%, it is the same today as it was 5 years ago. That means for every dollar they spend, the will see an 8% profit. Oil is about 58% percent of the price of a gallon, taxes another 25%, refining was about 20% and so on. The retailer is making 0.8% profit per gallon. Is Exxon setting the price for a barrel of oil? (Hint...OPEC) Care to guess what other industry profit margins are? Banks, 10%. Semiconductor, 14%. Southwest Airlines, 11%. So I guess Southwest is guilty of gouging as well? In fact, they're even worse than the oil industry. We better slap them with a 'Windfall' profits tax...

You see, there's a small factor that you're completely ignoring in this, it's called supply and demand. Supply stays the same for years, demand goes up, what do you think happens to prices? Environmentalists force us to mix 17 different blends of gas for summer driving. What impact does this have on prices? Refineries switch from winter blend to summer blend, what affect does this have? Number of refineries in this country stays the same for almost 3 decades, what affect does this have?

As for the 'price gouging', the gub'ment has a panel investigating this, they've been working on this for over a year...any proof so far? No, none, there hasn't been any proof because there hasn't been any price gouging.

I agree gas should be less than $2 a gallon, but we've let policy makers twiddle with the our ability to supply our needs for 30 years. What we haven't seen before is the rest of the world taking up the slack in the supply side of the energy equation. It's finally caught up to us. So now you want the policy makers to tweak things again? Yeah, lets pass a 'windfall' tax on those greeddy s.o.b.s, who's going to pay for that? You.

Oh yeah, one other factor. Iran is in serious financial straits. Same with Russia, Venezuela etc. Iran starts making all these crazy statements about Nukes, Isreal etc. What happens to oil prices everytime the Mad Mullah opens his mouth? Hint...they go up. These guys are riding the fear train to a big pay day. Sure it makes the 'profit' larger for Exxon, but it doesn't change the 'Profit Margin'. They still have to purchase the single largest potion of a price of gas, oil, from outside sources, they're not cashing in on it like the average dolt thinks. Use your brain folks...

 

[Blackjet]

Sure it makes the 'profit' larger for Exxon, but it doesn't change the 'Profit Margin'. They still have to purchase the single largest potion of a price of gas, oil, from outside sources, they're not cashing in on it like the average dolt thinks. Use your brain folks...

You must be high. Your statements are simply not true. Either you didn't read the whole earnings report, or you have a vested interest in wiping your feet on the truth.

Had demand skyrocketed when Exxon was making these record profits, your statements would be correct. The problem here is that demand remained flat, meaning no significant increase or decrease. Former ExxonMobil CEO, Lee Raymond, in testimony before a Congressional panel that was quoted by the original poster, stated that 'gas prices were high because of global supply and demand'. Notice he said supply AND demand, not just supply. Any rational person would take him at his word meaning supply was limited by the oil producing countries (OPEC) like it always is and demand was steady/stable, so we could charge what we wanted because oil is a must have for most of the world's population.

So, explain to me how Exxon made a 10B 4th quarter profit (1.5B more than the previous quarter) on almost 1.4B less previous quarter revenue while maintaining the same profit margin? I believe you told the folks to 'use their brains', so I eagerly await for you to take your own advice and do just that. This should be good.

Don't take my word for the $s, take Exxon's word for it.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XOM

I don't know if you are use to spinning the truth with these guys, but I am not some toothless crack-ho, so don't come in here trying to pull that crap anymore or be advised, you will be checked. Oil companies making a 10B profit when working men and women are struggling to fill up their tanks, but oh no, there's no price gouging going on here. Does Exxon have a source of income that provided all of this profit above 8% margin they made on fuel sales? Please, share with all of us the revenue generating ghost product they are selling, because this income had to come from somewhere outside of fuel sales according to your 8% rule, so where?

Gas/Oil prices have a brutal impact on this nation's economy, so it's a serious issue, especially when paying $5 for a gallon of JetA or $3 for a gallan of 87 OCT that must be acquired in order to function.

Now, use that brain of yours and explain to me this mathimatical impossibility you swear exists.

 

[Smacktard]

You must be high. Your statements are simply not true. Either you didn't read the whole earnings report, or you have a vested interest in wiping your feet on the truth.

Had demand skyrocketed when Exxon was making these record profits, your statements would be correct. The problem here is that demand remained flat, meaning no significant increase or decrease. Former ExxonMobil CEO, Lee Raymond, in testimony before a Congressional panel that was quoted by the original poster, stated that 'gas prices were high because of global supply and demand'. Notice he said supply AND demand, not just supply. Any rational person would take him at his word meaning supply was limited by the oil producing countries (OPEC) like it always is and demand was steady/stable, so we could charge what we wanted because oil is a must have for most of the world's population.

So, explain to me how Exxon made a 10B 4th quarter profit (1.5B more than the previous quarter) on almost 1.4B less previous quarter revenue while maintaining the same profit margin? I believe you told the folks to 'use their brains', so I eagerly await for you to take your own advice and do just that. This should be good.

Don't take my word for the $s, take Exxon's word for it.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XOM

I don't know if you are use to spinning the truth with these guys, but I am not some toothless crack-ho, so don't come in here trying to pull that crap anymore or be advised, you will be checked. Oil companies making a 10B profit when working men and women are struggling to fill up their tanks, but oh no, there's no price gouging going on here. Does Exxon have a source of income that provided all of this profit above 8% margin they made on fuel sales? Please, share with all of us the revenue generating ghost product they are selling, because this income had to come from somewhere outside of fuel sales according to your 8% rule, so where?

Gas/Oil prices have a brutal impact on this nation's economy, so it's a serious issue, especially when paying $5 for a gallon of JetA or $3 for a gallan of 87 OCT that must be acquired in order to function.

Now, use that brain of yours and explain to me this mathimatical impossibility you swear exists.

Do you want your flogging in public or private? Ahh, what the heck, I'll give it to you here, fools like you need their lumps to get the point across. That link you posted was pretty impressive, too bad you don't understand what you were posting. There is a slight difference between Gross Profit Margin and Profit Margin. A few things aren't factored into Gross...small things, like taxes for example. Do you know many corporations that don't pay taxes on profits? Neither do I. So posting your drivel doesn’t help your point, it actually makes you look uneducated. But I digress.

Exxon did very well last year, their profit margin was slightly higher than the industry average of 8%, with a 9.3%. So, for every dollar they invested, they had a profit of 9.3 cents. You paid, into their greedy, green stained hands, a whopping $0.22 for every gallon of gas. But did you realize you paid the government about $0.50 for each gallon? And the government also got taxes from Exxon (from their GROSS Profits), so really, you can add another $0.11 cents to that gallon. If there is such a strain on the poor working man, why doesn't the government drop it's 'share' of the profit as well? Your argument also applies to the government, after all, their share went up too. In fact, their share is almost 3 times larger than the evil oil companies share, but yet you don’t complain about that???

I have a few links for you as well, they might help you ‘limited’ understanding of such basic things…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102702399.html

And you might really like this link, it applies to you…
http://txfx.net/2005/10/30/mommy-what-is-a-profit-margin/

And here’s yet another for your personal use…
http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/compare.asp?Page=ProfitMargins&Symbol=XOM


What you fail to understand is a BASIC premise of economics. If Exxon sold 1 billion dollars worth of goods, they make a handsome 9.3 million in profit. But guess what genius, the single most expensive portions of gas, oil, which they have little to no control of price, almost doubled. So what happens to their revenue? It goes up! And guess what?! 9.3% of 10B, is a bigger number than 9.3% of 1B! Do you get it?

So, let me see if I understand your position a little better. You think, that because their profit was such a large number, even though, it was still a lower percentage than almost EVERY other industry in existence, that they should be limited to how much they can make? Is that correct? It’s ok for them to make a percentage profit, but only until they hit a level that you’re comfortable with? They do that sort of thing in other countries, places like Russia, old East Germany, China, Italy, you know, places where private businesses thrive!

Oh, one other point I’d like to make. If the government, due to incompetents like you, change their policies and make a ‘Windfall’ tax adjustment, your ideas will actually do more harm than good. Other than raising the costs of oil (you are, after all, going to pay for it, not evil Exxon), you will affect the investment side of the industry. Where do you think 401ks and other investment vehicles are placing their money? Who depends on that money? What industries are also involved when investment money gets pulled out of the oil industry?

 

[Blackjet]

Do you want your flogging in public or private? Ahh, what the heck, I'll give it to you here, fools like you need their lumps to get the point across. That link you posted was pretty impressive, too bad you don't understand what you were posting. There is a slight difference between Gross Profit Margin and Profit Margin. A few things aren't factored into Gross...small things, like taxes for example. Do you know many corporations that don't pay taxes on profits? Neither do I. So posting your drivel doesn’t help your point, it actually makes you look uneducated. But I digress.

OK, so that confirms it; You ARE high! Once again, you only read the parts you want to selevtivly quote. I do infact realize the difference, but you obviously failed to read the whole report, and it's not really all that long. Had you not been so busy trying to manipulate the figures instear of reading read the whole report. Had you done so, you would have looked further down the page and seen those deductions for things such as taxes, etc. It's right there in black and white and how you failed to see that is beyond me. Furthermore, the last figure is the "Net Income" figure. Do I really need to explain to you what Net Income means? Do I? Just like your paycheck, buddy. There is a Gross figure for pre-tax/deductions, then a net figure for what you take home. You are focusing on the Gross figures, which is nice and all, but the bread gets buttered with NET numbers, not Gross. Are you honestly trying to argue this? Honestly? As I said earlier, you are HIGH! Now, what were you saying about using the brain, Genius?

Exxon did very well last year, their profit margin was slightly higher than the industry average of 8%, with a 9.3%. So, for every dollar they invested, they had a profit of 9.3 cents. You paid, into their greedy, green stained hands, a whopping $0.22 for every gallon of gas. But did you realize you paid the government about $0.50 for each gallon? And the government also got taxes from Exxon (from their GROSS Profits), so really, you can add another $0.11 cents to that gallon. If there is such a strain on the poor working man, why doesn't the government drop it's 'share' of the profit as well? Your argument also applies to the government, after all, their share went up too. In fact, their share is almost 3 times larger than the evil oil companies share, but yet you don’t complain about that???

Nice, by your rational, you are suggesting that companies pay taxes on income before deducting their own expenses? Think about what you are saying. If that were the case, the what is the definition of profit? Why do you think they breakout gross/Net monies? It's to determine what they truly made. TAXES ARE PAID ON NET INCOME, otherwords, what's left after their operating costs are paid. Maybe it's just me, but I always thought profit was (Income-Expenses=Profit) But, from your "NEW" math, it's (Income-Taxes paid=X then X-Expenses=Profit). I don't think so, Homey don't play that. I'll write more when I have the time to deal with this. In the mean time, you are on notice; don't get on here trying to pull the wool over these folks eyes with Voodoo Economics and BS Economic Data, as I mentioned before, you will be checked. Don't tell me, Reagonomics was great economic policy as well, right Lester Thurow?

 

[Smacktard]

OK, so that confirms it; You ARE high! Once again, you only read the parts you want to selevtivly quote. I do infact realize the difference, but you obviously failed to read the whole report, and it's not really all that long. Had you not been so busy trying to manipulate the figures instear of reading read the whole report. Had you done so, you would have looked further down the page and seen those deductions for things such as taxes, etc. It's right there in black and white and how you failed to see that is beyond me. Furthermore, the last figure is the "Net Income" figure. Do I really need to explain to you what Net Income means? Do I? Just like your paycheck, buddy. There is a Gross figure for pre-tax/deductions, then a net figure for what you take home. You are focusing on the Gross figures, which is nice and all, but the bread gets buttered with NET numbers, not Gross. Are you honestly trying to argue this? Honestly? As I said earlier, you are HIGH! Now, what were you saying about using the brain, Genius?

Nice, by your rational, you are suggesting that companies pay taxes on income before deducting their own expenses? Think about what you are saying. If that were the case, the what is the definition of profit? Why do you think they breakout gross/Net monies? It's to determine what they truly made. TAXES ARE PAID ON NET INCOME, otherwords, what's left after their operating costs are paid. Maybe it's just me, but I always thought profit was (Income-Expenses=Profit) But, from your "NEW" math, it's (Income-Taxes paid=X then X-Expenses=Profit). I don't think so, Homey don't play that. I'll write more when I have the time to deal with this. In the mean time, you are on notice; don't get on here trying to pull the wool over these folks eyes with Voodoo Economics and BS Economic Data, as I mentioned before, you will be checked. Don't tell me, Reagonomics was great economic policy as well, right Lester Thurow?

This is all you need bro...

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/compare.asp?Page=ProfitMargins&Symbol=XOM