Another TWA lawsuit filed?
- Thread starter jersey777
- Start date
OP
jersey777
Veteran
- May 24, 2006
- 627
- 73
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #17
Well jim.... I guess my my sister's hairdresser's dog groomer's next door neighbor's 2nd cousin who works next to the Wichita Falls airport (so he ought to know) was right. I have to wonder where you are coming from. You don't like the APFA or American Airlines yet if it wasn't for the APFA you would have been on the street in 2001 when the first group of furloughs left .....AND you still seem to not have any bad feelings toward those poor TWA folks when they are the ones will get YOUR job if they keep fighting to get their seniority.
Nobody wanted "your" seniority, just credit for what they brought to the table, over $2,600,000 a year in dues, airplanes, routes, the ability to provide "income" to AA from day one.
And as someone who had 35 years, I certainly didn't want Jim's seniority..lol
Also, without this "cushion" of 4200, don't you think there would have been more substantial attempts to retain jobs? No giving up of furlough pay, an attempt to negotiate staffing requirements on the planes? There could have been some protective language such as no Intn.(although a good portion of our f/as were multiple language qualified), actually adhereing to the original SIA. And most of all, it didn't have to be DOH. There is a problem of consistancy with the AA f/a unions. Air Cal and Trans Carib (acquired) received DOH, RENO (most senior 5 years and acquired) received choice of base and a cash payout based on seniority in lieu of DOH.
Jim has been furloughed and most likely will be furloughed again. He is one of those that will have "lost" a good chunck of change (maybe not the $28,000 that salary topped out have lost), because of the APFA. Jim is an honorable man and knows right from wrong.
Here we go again..
That has NOTHING to do with the issue at hand. The discussion is what we brought to the table at the APFA. I think we ALL agree that we wish AA had left us alone. STL has been raped. We watched predatory pricing at the beginning with fares simply $5 more to put our non-stops behind AA trips through ORD or DFW. Pax had to fight to be booked on our London and Paris flights because AA wanted to protect ORD and DFW. We were sacrificed to shore up those markets. We had the youngest fleet of all carriers and were taking delivery of new aircraft monthly. Bill Compton and Don Carty orchestrated this mess and there is a special place in hell for both of them. AA did us no favors. And no, I was never happy about this purchase. I was familiar with your contract and other than the dollar per hour cried over having your work rules. And it only got worse with the ineffective RPA give backs. It will be interesting to see if "restore and more" even ends up "maintain and sustain". Lets see how the union handles the next round of furloughs.
STL was downsized and subsequently dehubbed because there were, and still is, too many seats chasing less people who will pay a fare that is PROFITABLE to the airlines. As a result, the airlines drop fares to entice people to fly which results in a lower yield but increases cash flow which enables them to survive in the short to medium term. As a former TWA employee you should be well aware of this. Downsizing/dehubbing STL was a business decision made by AA to cut capacity in the hopes of bring the supply/demand equation where it needs to be to insure profitability. Cutting the STL hub was a no brainer because the terminal is pretty shabby and outdated; especially when compared to DFW and ORD. Also, the economies of ORD and DFW are doing a lot better than that of STL (higher fares resulting in higher yields). Additionally, since it was TWA's only hub, everyone there was basically at top pay, so if most of those people are laid off AA saves a ton of money. AA's studies determined that the assets (aircraft in this case) can be more productive elsewhere. They did the same thing to the BNA, RDU, SJU, SJC twice, LAS, and RNO hubs, why aren't you crying for those former hubs and the affected employees? Maybe because they weren't TWA? STL obviously isn't the asset Carty and the TWAers claimed it was, otherwise AA would have kept a hub there. So now all that is left of TWA's assets is a few slots in NYC and DCA, 60 super 80s, billions in debt, and around 5,000 TWAers who still cling to the ridiculous notion that the assets of TWA's estate brought very high value to AA in order to justify their attempted theft, yes theft, of nAAtive seniority.
Regarding your statement about TWA's fleet, yes they were getting new planes but a what cost? Leases that where 2 to 3 times higher than what their competitors were paying due to their [Deleted by moderator] poor credit rating because of 2 bankruptcies. TWA was never going to make money with those astronomical lease payments; especially competing against Southwest in STL and being under Icahan's karabu ticket agreement.
TWA flight attendants did in fact get a substantial increase in pay when they arrived at AA but you constantly claim the work rules were better at TWA. If it's so bad at AA, then why are a large number of your former TWA coworkers beating down the door to get back in and are still filing lawsuits?
Regarding your statement about TWA's fleet, yes they were getting new planes but a what cost? Leases that where 2 to 3 times higher than what their competitors were paying due to their [Deleted by moderator] poor credit rating because of 2 bankruptcies. TWA was never going to make money with those astronomical lease payments; especially competing against Southwest in STL and being under Icahan's karabu ticket agreement.
TWA flight attendants did in fact get a substantial increase in pay when they arrived at AA but you constantly claim the work rules were better at TWA. If it's so bad at AA, then why are a large number of your former TWA coworkers beating down the door to get back in and are still filing lawsuits?
TWA flight attendants did in fact get a substantial increase in pay when they arrived at AA but you constantly claim the work rules were better at TWA. If it's so bad at AA, then why are a large number of your former TWA coworkers beating down the door to get back in and are still filing lawsuits?
Pay yes and the answer to why so many continue to return is simple...jet fuel in the blood. Our work rules were a little more f/a friendly. I flew less days per month and (for me) cost effective flying was most important. I also enjoyed a 14% (age weighted) 401K contribution and free medical. If you add those in, the salary gain was a wash. Not all of our work rules were better and I do not speak for others but they worked better for me. No matter how well prepared any of us were when furloughed, we were on the top of the pay scale (thank you AA, not APFA) and entering any other profession was just that..entering. Another reason to return. But thanks to the giving up of furlough pay, the junior tier at AA has become seasonal and it has made it so much easier for AA to lay-off. Add to the fact that the APFA was less than aggressive in "calling" the company on WARN ACT violations last April. So once again, we have to fight for rights that the APFA should be fighting for...oh yes, I forgot, ALL of the work the APFA has to do for those furloughed...lol big time.
Pay yes and the answer to why so many continue to return is simple...jet fuel in the blood. Our work rules were a little more f/a friendly. I flew less days per month and (for me) cost effective flying was most important. I also enjoyed a 14% (age weighted) 401K contribution and free medical. If you add those in, the salary gain was a wash. Not all of our work rules were better and I do not speak for others but they worked better for me. No matter how well prepared any of us were when furloughed, we were on the top of the pay scale (thank you AA, not APFA) and entering any other profession was just that..entering. Another reason to return. But thanks to the giving up of furlough pay, the junior tier at AA has become seasonal and it has made it so much easier for AA to lay-off. Add to the fact that the APFA was less than aggressive in "calling" the company on WARN ACT violations last April. So once again, we have to fight for rights that the APFA should be fighting for...oh yes, I forgot, ALL of the work the APFA has to do for those furloughed...lol big time.
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2003
- 5,311
- 584
- Banned
- #23
<_< -----My, my, my! This thing sure has struck a nerve! One little ol' law suit, and look how quick all these cats come out of the woodwork! Claws unsheathed no less!!! 
OP
jersey777
Veteran
- May 24, 2006
- 627
- 73
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #24
<_< -----My, my, my! This thing sure has struck a nerve! One little ol' law suit, and look how quick all these cats come out of the woodwork! Claws unsheathed no less!!!
Yes...all these cats! Aren't women so hysterical and silly!!
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2003
- 5,311
- 584
- Banned
- #25
------ That's a fact!!!
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2003
- 5,311
- 584
- Banned
- #27
<_< ------ Hey, why not try something novel? Let the Court decide the Case!!! 
I agree with MCI, if there is a triable issue, let the court decide. All this trash indicates how foolish some posters are to claim the plaintiffs have no issue because AA paid 5 billion for TWA or the f/as got substantial pay raises. It shows a sort of unrepentent hate towards others who have different opinions. They have labeled themselves.
