AMR talks about training fill-in flight attendants

[Bob Owens]

I know Sito and Eddie Jr, good people, O'Driscoll was working on a deal with Mike Milken do save TW but AA came in before he could work out the details.

I agree. Sito and I worked at Capitol together many years ago. Ed wasn't a young man, I would imagine that he's retired by now. I would expect that you agree on the issue of scabbing.

 

[Bob Owens]

Just more and more misinformation...the IAM wasn't even our flight attendant union, IFFA was.

How's this?
Sure Ozark employes were blended in but thats because it was never put to a membership vote and the IFFA wanted the dues.

 

[700UW]

Yes I agree Bob, Jack London was 100% correct and I dont use the word on here cause the mods dont like it, lol.

I never met Eddie Sr but I worked with Eddie Jr on the US fleet service campaign and I worked a lot with Sito on things.

 

[gasman]

I was unaware that seniority was portable.

Your anaolgy is lacking because it was the TWA employees that went to AA. Its as if the AA employees are sitting on AA planes and a bunch of TWA employees are saying step aside our job is gone so we are taking yours.

The fact is the workers at AA never asked AA to buy TWA, the workers at TWA never asked AA to buy TWA.

May I ask you what privilege did you extend to the IAM workers from EAL, other than waiving the initiation fee, when they showed up at TWA?

We need to move on, many of us put years into companies and got no credit for that when we ended up somewhere else. Its our own fault for not consolidating our unions and making our pay rates and benifits standardized and seniority portable. All we had to do was look at the railroads to see our future but we didnt and we are all paying the price.

The TWA stapling was NEVER PUT TO A VOTE by the AA f/as either!


EAL was never purchased by TWA

Just the FACTS...

 

[BoeingBoy]

The first principle of unionism is to strictly adhere to their constitution and by laws and their contract for the protection of their (and only their) members.

You're as wrong as someone else who said basically the same thing (those who pay dues or something like that). The union is charged with representing all the employees in the group the union represents and representing them fairly, not just members.

Jim

 

[Bob Owens]

EAL was never purchased by TWA

Thats your way of rationalizing the fact that you gave nothing to the EAL workers despite the fact that they ended up at your place of work because they fought against pay and benifit cuts.
When nAAtives say "TWA was bought it wasnt a merger" it makes some ex-TWAers angry, are you one of those? Well thats their way of rationalizing why you weren't given anything either. In both cases union workers came to a new employer and recieved nothing in recognition of their being a union member for many years. In one case it was a decision of management that led to the move, in the other it was a decision to fight wage and benifit cuts that preceeded the move. So apparently you feel that unions should reward workers who accept pay and benifit cuts to their employer until such time that employer sells his business to another but punish union workers who fight against wage and benifit cuts.

You are basically saying that the actions ofa company should determine whether or not workers get seniority.

Like I said before, union workers, real union workers, no matter what they may disagree on, do not scab and help companies bust unions. I've repeated this story before, a few years back when I was in Ireland a group of train engineers that broke away from their union, SEPTU, went on strike, the employer thought that SEPTU would cross their lines because of the bitterness between the two unions, they were wrong, SEPTU did not cross.

Someday this industry will recover, and when it does you can go and enjoy a better wage and benifit package because APFA fought for that, its unfortunate that the owners of TWA sold the company you worked for to AA but thats the nature of the business. Your seniority was earned as an employee of TWA, when it ceased to exist your seniority went with it.

 

[conniegirl]

Thats your way of rationalizing the fact that you gave nothing to the EAL workers despite the fact that they ended up at your place of work because they fought against pay and benifit cuts.
When nAAtives say "TWA was bought it wasnt a merger" it makes some ex-TWAers angry, are you one of those? Well thats their way of rationalizing why you weren't given anything either. In both cases union workers came to a new employer and recieved nothing in recognition of their being a union member for many years. In one case it was a decision of management that led to the move, in the other it was a decision to fight wage and benifit cuts that preceeded the move. So apparently you feel that unions should reward workers who accept pay and benifit cuts to their employer until such time that employer sells his business to another but punish union workers who fight against wage and benifit cuts.

You are basically saying that the actions ofa company should determine whether or not workers get seniority.

Like I said before, union workers, real union workers, no matter what they may disagree on, do not scab and help companies bust unions. I've repeated this story before, a few years back when I was in Ireland a group of train engineers that broke away from their union, SEPTU, went on strike, the employer thought that SEPTU would cross their lines because of the bitterness between the two unions, they were wrong, SEPTU did not cross.

Someday this industry will recover, and when it does you can go and enjoy a better wage and benifit package because APFA fought for that, its unfortunate that the owners of TWA sold the company you worked for to AA but thats the nature of the business. Your seniority was earned as an employee of TWA, when it ceased to exist your seniority went with it.

 

[nbmcg01]

Just more and more misinformation...the IAM wasn't even our flight attendant union, IFFA was.

And yes it was put to a vote. The difference is that education was provided as to why it was the right thing to do..(give DOH when 5000 were still locked out). I don't know of anyone who regrets that decision. Labor peace...but I digress

 

[gasman]

Thats your way of rationalizing the fact that you gave nothing to the EAL workers despite the fact that they ended up at your place of work because they fought against pay and benifit cuts.
When nAAtives say "TWA was bought it wasnt a merger" it makes some ex-TWAers angry, are you one of those? Well thats their way of rationalizing why you weren't given anything either. In both cases union workers came to a new employer and recieved nothing in recognition of their being a union member for many years. In one case it was a decision of management that led to the move, in the other it was a decision to fight wage and benifit cuts that preceeded the move. So apparently you feel that unions should reward workers who accept pay and benifit cuts to their employer until such time that employer sells his business to another but punish union workers who fight against wage and benifit cuts.

You are basically saying that the actions ofa company should determine whether or not workers get seniority.

Like I said before, union workers, real union workers, no matter what they may disagree on, do not scab and help companies bust unions. I've repeated this story before, a few years back when I was in Ireland a group of train engineers that broke away from their union, SEPTU, went on strike, the employer thought that SEPTU would cross their lines because of the bitterness between the two unions, they were wrong, SEPTU did not cross.

Someday this industry will recover, and when it does you can go and enjoy a better wage and benifit package because APFA fought for that, its unfortunate that the owners of TWA sold the company you worked for to AA but thats the nature of the business. Your seniority was earned as an employee of TWA, when it ceased to exist your seniority went with it.

TWA was bought it wasnt a merger" it makes some ex-TWAers angry, are you one of those?

Bob, you must be very JUNIOR and believe in JUMP SEAT FACTS...are you one of those?

 

[BoeingBoy]

When nAAtives say "TWA was bought it wasnt a merger"...

Actually, Bob, those who say that are wrong. "Merger" is the generic word for taking two companies and combining them into one. It doesn't mean anything about the financial method of combining two companies. When NW bought Republic, it was a merger. When DL bought Western, it was a merger. When DL bought NW (using stock as the currency IIRC), it was a merger. When AMR bought TWA it was a merger. Why? Because the intent in each of those was to combine the two airlines into one.

The only time an acquisition is NOT a merger is when the two companies aren't combined - for airlines that means each continues to operate on it's own separate certificate using it's own separate employees, etc indefinitely. At least so far, Republics purchase of Frontier is an acquisition, not a merger, since there's been no talk of actually combining the two companies into one so far. If that changes then it'll be a merger. When Trump bought the Shuttle from EA, it was an acquisition, not a merger, since there was no other Trump airline to combine with.

Jim

 

[sickoftwa]

And yes it was put to a vote. The difference is that education was provided as to why it was the right thing to do..(give DOH when 5000 were still locked out). I don't know of anyone who regrets that decision. Labor peace...but I digress

So nancy since you're the one advocating for your group to scab why don't you ever take responsibility for what you are truly asking of them. Do you really think this will get back any goodwill from any union? Have you actually deluded yourself into thinking in some way the end result of your actions will be a victory? While you're retired and supposedly moved on your continuing to lead a group into destruction over seniority they will never get back even if they cross our picket line. Respect and integrity that you claim your group stands for is sorely lacking from your stance on scabbing. Of course the best part of your campaign is that should we ever merge with an afa represented company you've now ensured your relinquished seniority won't be recognized by them now either. To that I say woohoo!!!

 

[Hopeful]

Keep dreaming......The government will not allow any strike under the RLA.
Do you get it?

The government owns GM and fired its CEO and forced the UAW into further concessions!

Do you really believe theyre gonna let a strike hit AMR? In this economy? With unemployment as high as it is?



DREAM ON ALL YE SCABFOLK!

 

[QQ3270]

Reno was a fairly new Airline when bought out and the employees had Five years of Service.

How many AA f/as at the time of Reno's purchase had less then FIVE YEARS of service?

And your point??? Do you think you should be placed ahead of me because you were at TWA?? for 40 yrs For your info our most senior was 7yrs i now have 15yrs company and 11yrs occ with AA it doesnt matter.You guys at twa were broke I remeber your CEO saying that they needed cash just to pay for gas to operate we at reno were in the black when aa bought us i know your flight attendants were there for many years and im sorry for the bad timming butt your board of directors sold you out the window and your union released your scope claus for buyouts.I beleive Apfa could have handled both our deals better but its over now.And i feel for your group but if your group crosses our picket line then i will have a problem. You will me messing with my lively hood and thats plane crazy.I lost my seniority butt kept my pay the difference was we at Reno Air were here first so thats life good luck TWA folks but aa will give us a contract and scabs will be eatin alive on the line here at AA

 

[aafsc]

Actually, Bob, those who say that are wrong. "Merger" is the generic word for taking two companies and combining them into one. It doesn't mean anything about the financial method of combining two companies. When NW bought Republic, it was a merger. When DL bought Western, it was a merger. When DL bought NW (using stock as the currency IIRC), it was a merger. When AMR bought TWA it was a merger. Why? Because the intent in each of those was to combine the two airlines into one.

The only time an acquisition is NOT a merger is when the two companies aren't combined - for airlines that means each continues to operate on it's own separate certificate using it's own separate employees, etc indefinitely. At least so far, Republics purchase of Frontier is an acquisition, not a merger, since there's been no talk of actually combining the two companies into one so far. If that changes then it'll be a merger. When Trump bought the Shuttle from EA, it was an acquisition, not a merger, since there was no other Trump airline to combine with.

Jim

there are stark differences in the examples you list.

1. When NW bought republic by purchasing it's stock republic was a viable going concern not in bankruptcy and NW assumed ALL contractual liabilities of republic (including their union contracts and associated seniority protections) and republic's employees had valid career expectations even if NW had not purchased it. Furthermore, in terms of size (hubs) they were about equal, NW had NRT and MSP and republic had DTW and MEM but NW was very heavy on international and widebodies whereas republic had none.

2.When DL bought western by purchasing it's stock western was a viable going concern not in bankruptcy and DL assumed ALL contractual liabilities of western (including their union contracts and associated seniority protections; although eventually only pilots remained unionized while the others eventually ended up non-union) and western's employees had valid career expectations even if DL had not purchased it. Furthermore, in terms of size they were about equal. At that time DL had hubs in ATL and DFW while western had it's SLC hub and LAX was a large operation (maybe hub) for them. DL flew L-10-11s while western flew the DC-10s.

3. When DL bought NW by purchasing it's stock with it's own DL stock NW was a viable concern not in bankruptcy and DL assumed ALL contractual liabilities of NW (including their union contracts and associated seniority protections; pilots are now integrated and union representation for the agents, ramp, and F/As are yet to be ascertained but DL is still honoring, by law, the contracts of these former NW groups) and NW employees had valid career expectations even if DL had not purchased it. Furthermore, in terms of size, they were about equal. DL had JFK, ATL, CVG, SLC, Europe and a large presence in South America. NW had DTW, MSP, MEM, NRT and the Pacific. They were pretty close in terms of widebodies.

4. AA DID NOT buy TWA by purchasing it's stock and TWA was NOT a viable concern and WAS in bankruptcy and AA did NOT assume all of TWA's contractual liabilities (only those AA deemed fit and it did NOT assume their union contracts in their entirety) and TWA employees had NO career expectations whatsoever and if AA had not purchased the assets it desired the TWA people would have been out of work and on the street. Furthermore, in terms of size, they were NOT AT ALL equal. AA had DFW, ORD, MIA, SJU, LAX, NYC , the Caribbean and Latin America. TWA only had STL. AA had about 700 planes while TWA had about 200. AA had at the time a huge fleet of widebodies (close to or over 100), DC-10s, MD-11s, A-300s, and 767 while TWA had only around 9, that's right 9 767s.
And finally AA had a net worth of about $7.5 billion while TWA had a negative net worth and was bankrupt and out of cash which is why AA wasted a couple hundred million in two installments to keep the corpse alive through the Ch11/CH7 proceeding.

You view it in an operational sense while I and many other nAAtives view it in a financial and legal sense which is most appropriate because the TWAers needed AA but the nAAtives and AA certainly did not need TWA.

PS: I want to make another point. You said "'Merger' is the generic word for taking two companies and combining then into one." On 4/9/01 TWA (Trans World Airlines) existed as TWA INC. When the "transaction" closed on 4/10/01, AA took the assets it wanted and placed them in an AA subsidiary called TWA Airlines (TWAllc) and paid TWA Inc. cash for these assets. So legally what you have is American Airlines Inc. with its new subsidiary TWAllc and TWA Inc. which is now a shell company consisting of the cash received from AA, the assets that AA didn't want (some aircraft), the liabilities that AA didn't take, and it's certificate of incorporation. So, according to your own definition, the two companies never merged.TWA Inc. shell company disbursed the cash it had to it's creditors. In the NW/republic, DL/western, and DL/NW examples you give, there are no shell companies of the acquired because, unlike TWA Inc., they were in fact merged with their acquirer.

 

[gasman]

And your point??? Do you think you should be placed ahead of me because you were at TWA?? for 40 yrs For your info our most senior was 7yrs i now have 15yrs company and 11yrs occ with AA it doesnt matter.You guys at twa were broke I remeber your CEO saying that they needed cash just to pay for gas to operate we at reno were in the black when aa bought us i know your flight attendants were there for many years and im sorry for the bad timming butt your board of directors sold you out the window and your union released your scope claus for buyouts.I beleive Apfa could have handled both our deals better but its over now.And i feel for your group but if your group crosses our picket line then i will have a problem. You will me messing with my lively hood and thats plane crazy.I lost my seniority butt kept my pay the difference was we at Reno Air were here first so thats life good luck TWA folks but aa will give us a contract and scabs will be eatin alive on the line here at AA

Reno didn't have a union!