AA/APFA Negotiations

[Deleted member 17588]

Juniority,

You can be added to the RULE 32 as well.

I hope you don't take my rolling eyes as a hostile threat.

 

[MCI transplant]

Sorry but my choice of user name does not violate rule 32 nor is there any hostile threat. It simply reflects a continual hijacking of most threads returning to beat a dead airline and how it's death occurred.
[/quote <_< -------- I didn't know AA had first graders working as pilot's for them!------ Because that's what your acting like! Like you said, TWA is history, so leave it in the past!------ Don't pick at a scab! Too many people got hurt over what transpired!

 

[paul1]

Yes sick about hearng about TWA, esp. since that buyout/merger whatever cost the current employees at AA the most. By picking up tried old md-80 and alot of other baggage

 

[nbmcg01]

Yes sick about hearng about TWA, esp. since that buyout/merger whatever cost the current employees at AA the most. By picking up tried old md-80 and alot of other baggage

Oh really. We had the youngest fleet in the industry and were taking delivery of a new plane monthly. And as far as the other old baggage, we had the highest DOT customer service ratings and on time in the industry..lol

Now back to topic:

Why would AA negotiate in good faith when the APFA has lessened their demands, the company is saving a million a day from the RPA concessions, and there are no current pressures from the financial community for labor peace?

 

[jimntx]

Yes sick about hearng about TWA, esp. since that buyout/merger whatever cost the current employees at AA the most. By picking up tried old md-80 and alot of other baggage

The oldest TW 757 was newer than our youngest 757, and their entire MD80 fleet was years younger than most of ours.

 

[galleyguy4u2]

I guess we can ask HR.

This DOES violate article 32. If any of the former TWA people did this they would be under the same charge. I have printed this thread and ready to hand it over to AA management. Let them decide.

Sick of TWA, you may rethink what you posted or you may be in job jeopardy if a charge is filed against you. You can run but you cannot hide.

I would highly suggest you delete your user name. Extremely insulting to the professionals who have been in this career for more years than you can count.

 

[galleyguy4u2]

The oldest TW 757 was newer than our youngest 757, and their entire MD80 fleet was years younger than most of ours.

You are correct Jim. BTW, congratulations on your transfer back home.

 

[TWskyliner]

Sorry but my choice of user name does not violate rule 32 nor is there any hostile threat. It simply reflects a continual hijacking of most threads returning to beat a dead airline and how it's death occurred.

I'm sure all you folks who are sick of being constantly reminded of the worst integration or lack of integration in airline history...surely would have let the issue die long ago had the APFA given the former TWA f/a's their rightful seniiority...yeah I doubt it.

 

[bbrooks1963]

Moderater,
Please request the username above "sickoftwa" to delete the choice of usernames. This is very offensive towards the former TWA employees. This could be considered a hostile threat and falls under Americans RULE 32 policy.

If this site was run by AA you might have a case. I might suggest that someone with a bowel disorder might have a problem with your “User Name”
and have it removed.

 

[MCI transplant]

This thread is headed into the gutter!------ It's low, even for AA!

 

[sickoftwa]

This DOES violate article 32. If any of the former TWA people did this they would be under the same charge. I have printed this thread and ready to hand it over to AA management. Let them decide.

Sick of TWA, you may rethink what you posted or you may be in job jeopardy if a charge is filed against you. You can run but you cannot hide.

I would highly suggest you delete your user name. Extremely insulting to the professionals who have been in this career for more years than you can count.

I haven't made a single threat while you have threatened my job for freely posting non-threatening musings on an anonymous internet site. There is nothing hateful about my user name it simply expresses a frustration I have with every topic becoming about your former airline. Once this returned back to topic I was going to ignore you and gasman but when my job became threatened over a harmless user name I felt compelled to reply. So let me be clear, this does not violate rule 32 as there is nothing threatening or intimidating nor is there anything that creates a hostile work environment on or off the job. If the moderators are okay with job threats over posting opinion or user names then this is a board I have no interest in participating in anyways. Your intimidation tactics bore me but do not scare me, they only serve to scare off those employees who may not be as familiar with the rules of conduct as I am. This place becomes less and less about information and more about intimidation every day.

 

[eolesen]

Trying to make a screen name into a rule 32 issue is ludicrous.

"Hate speech" is about race, gender, religion, orientation, disability, and maybe even political affiliation.

Previous employer isn't on the list...

Good luck wasting HR's time.

 

[gasman]

Trying to make a screen name into a rule 32 issue is ludicrous.

"Hate speech" is about race, gender, religion, orientation, disability, and maybe even political affiliation.

Previous employer isn't on the list...

Good luck wasting HR's time.

I agree that it wasn't a "hate speech", but a statement against a former company that American Airlines purchased. Remember "Two Great Airlines", now that's a speech. The former company TWA comes with previous employees attached along with the TWA name.

 

[nbmcg01]

Trying to make a screen name into a rule 32 issue is ludicrous.

"Hate speech" is about race, gender, religion, orientation, disability, and maybe even political affiliation.

Previous employer isn't on the list...

Good luck wasting HR's time.

This is all so silly and unneccesary. Heated discussion is good and shouldn't be "moderated" even if it tiressome or rehashes very diverse feelings and opinions. I guess we could get someone to sign on as wewishaahadleftusalone. The above isnot nor never was a rule 32 offense. Offensive perhaps but certainly not rule 32. That is already used so inappropriately..lol

Back to the original topic:

What next for the APFA? Training Center (FU) gearing up for extended recall training and new hires....hummmmm I'm curious as to the clout the rank and file think they have at this point. The union has not done a very good job of looking at no cost, cost neutral, quality of life enhancements to perhaps offset what the company has proposed. They have already backed off "restore and more" to "can I keep what I have now?". They don't have even the cajones to get some "me too" provisions. Could it be that AA feels that the "girls in the back" are secondary incomes and not breadwinners? (and therefore don't deserve the same buyout or retro $$s that might be offered to a predominately male union) and could it be that the APFA will cave on fighting for equality? I would LOVE to be negotiating for EITHER side in this mess...lol

 

[eolesen]

I agree that it wasn't a "hate speech", but a statement against a former company that American Airlines purchased.

Oh, dear God... You must not have been around to hear some of the things said about AirCal or Reno Air...

Could it be that AA feels that the "girls in the back" are secondary incomes and not breadwinners? (and therefore don't deserve the same buyout or retro $$s that might be offered to a predominately male union) and could it be that the APFA will cave on fighting for equality?

I don't think AA wants to give stewardesses a worse contract. Even though married men do deserve higher pay than housewives and single men (possibly in committed or casual relationships with other men), that might send the signal that the company actually has some money tucked away to sweeten the pot for those more highly skilled employees.

(And for those with no sense of reality, that last paragraph is said entirely in satire to show what borders on a real Rule 32 violation...)