Come celebrate the first anniversary of AA's TWA purchase.

[FrugalFlyer]

While I do not have a law degree or an MBA and English is not my first language, I don't understand why people refer to the AA/TW deal as a merger, which it was clearly NOT. I always thought a merger would be something like AA + TW forming a 'new' company where AA & TW shareholders would each get XX % of the new company.

TW filed chtp. 11 and AA picked up the pieces. Former TW employees seem to think that this was a trick by AA to acquire TW. Hardly . Besides the hilarious JAG offer, how many other offers were there for TW? I think CO was interested, but only in slots - I really doubt CO would take on many (any?) employees. Nobody wanted to touch TW due to uncle Carl's ticketing contract - but only AA had the lawyers smart enough to beat Carl at his own game. Heck, why didn't TWA's own legal dept. or law firm they had on retainer not figure a way out of uncle Carl's grasp? Somebody dropped the ball here.

Another arguement former TW people use is that they were forced to give up the scope language in their contract. Not true, the employees did not have to waive the clauses, but they did so because they were painfully aware that not waiving those clauses meant no job. Did the TW employees HONESTLY think that they could maintain 100% seniority at AA? If so, then they are dilusional.

I'd like to know what the expectations of TW people were? There was talk that TW would have survived as a separate entity. Maybe, but not after 9/11. Another form of rhetoric is that TW brought to AA valuable assetts - such as the prestigeous routes to the middle east which AA dropped like a hot potato.

TW mployees did a remarkable job keeping TW afloat, as did management with the limited $$$ resources. But that is the past. TW is gone. It is time to move on. Life is not always fair, but I think a job at AA is a lot better, more secure, and probably more enjoyable than TW or no job at all.

 

[TWAnr]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 10/21/2002 10:30:58 AM FrugalFlyer wrote:
[P]While I do not have a law degree or an MBA and English is not my first language, I don't understand why people refer to the AA/TW deal as a merger, which it was clearly NOT.[BR][/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]At the risk of repeating myself:[/P]
[BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style=MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px]
[P]That may be [STRONG]YOUR [/STRONG]personal opinion, to which you are entitled, but it is not what the law says. This is the legal definition of a merger:[BR][BR][FONT color=#3366ff size=2][STRONG]Section 2. (a) The term merger as used herein means to join action by the two carriers whereby the unify, consolidate, merge, or pool in whole or in part their separate airline facilities or any of the operations or services previously performed by them through such separate facilities.[/STRONG][/FONT][BR][BR][A href=http://216.156.32.93/Allegheny%20Mohawk%20LPPs.htm][FONT color=#336699]http://216.156.32.93/Allegheny%20Mohawk%20LPPs.htm[/FONT][/A][/P][/BLOCKQUOTE]

 

[Cart Pusher]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/21/2002 10:30:58 AM FrugalFlyer wrote:

While I do not have a law degree or an MBA and English is not my first language, I don't understand why people refer to the AA/TW deal as a merger, which it was clearly NOT. I always thought a merger would be something like AA + TW forming a 'new' company where AA & TW shareholders would each get XX % of the new company.

TW filed chtp. 11 and AA picked up the pieces. Former TW employees seem to think that this was a trick by AA to acquire TW. Hardly . Besides the hilarious JAG offer, how many other offers were there for TW? I think CO was interested, but only in slots - I really doubt CO would take on many (any?) employees. Nobody wanted to touch TW due to uncle Carl's ticketing contract - but only AA had the lawyers smart enough to beat Carl at his own game. Heck, why didn't TWA's own legal dept. or law firm they had on retainer not figure a way out of uncle Carl's grasp? Somebody dropped the ball here.

Another arguement former TW people use is that they were forced to give up the scope language in their contract. Not true, the employees did not have to waive the clauses, but they did so because they were painfully aware that not waiving those clauses meant no job. Did the TW employees HONESTLY think that they could maintain 100% seniority at AA? If so, then they are dilusional.

I'd like to know what the expectations of TW people were? There was talk that TW would have survived as a separate entity. Maybe, but not after 9/11. Another form of rhetoric is that TW brought to AA valuable assetts - such as the prestigeous routes to the middle east which AA dropped like a hot potato.

TW mployees did a remarkable job keeping TW afloat, as did management with the limited $$$ resources. But that is the past. TW is gone. It is time to move on. Life is not always fair, but I think a job at AA is a lot better, more secure, and probably more enjoyable than TW or no job at all.


----------------
[/blockquote]

In response to your first paragraph, of all the airline mergers in the past, TW/OZ - NW/RC - CO/PE/NY/ - DL/WA - AS/JI - US/PI, not one formed a new company. There was always a surviving stronger entity.

Paragraph #2 starts out by saying that TW employees were wrong in thinking that the TW bankruptcy filing was not a trick to acquire TW. Then you go on to say that it was exactly that by allowing AA a way to dissolve the KARABU agreement with Carl Icahn. The bankruptcy filing was a trick by AA to allow them to purchase TW without much of the debt and that KARABU agreement, which was ultimately what did TW in. Nobody knows whether TW would have whethered the storm after 9/11 or not, and we don't know if they could have reorganized again under Ch. 11, or if they even would have had to. America West seems to be on the right track after 9/11 - perhaps TW would have followed in their footsteps, combining with them to form a stronger carrier. Who knows?

Paragraph #3 addresses the TW employees being coerced into signing away the scope language in their contracts. You contradict yourself here as well. You say they were not forced into it then go on to say that they knew not waiving those clauses meant no job. They were backed into a wall and essentially told that if they wanted to continue working under ANY circumstances they should sign. All the while, their Carty swearing in front of Congress that they would treat the TW folks fairly in terms of seniority. What is fair anyway? Who decides? Carty? APFA? TWA? IAM? A judge?

I think TW people expected some sort of slotting as far as seniority. Nobody really expected to get all their seniority. Most people just wanted some credit for time served. Instead, they are told that they could stay at STL base for the rest of their life and not lose seniority, however, that will only last until they start allowing transfers from other AA bases into STL or they leave STL for whatever reason. And since then they have started transferring much of the STL flying to other AA bases and laying off mostly TW folks. Some AA folks think the TW folks want credit for all their TW years, they don't. Just a fair integration as Carty promised congress.

TWA people did do a great job, over the years, of keeping their airline alive. Now they are being screwed. Should they be penalized because they chose to stay? What would you have done if you had 20, 30 years seniority? It's not that easy to walk away from.

 

[FA Mikey]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/21/2002 2:29:08 PM TWAnr wrote:



[BLOCKQUOTE]
----------------
On 10/21/2002 10:30:58 AM FrugalFlyer wrote:


While I do not have a law degree or an MBA and English is not my first language, I don't understand why people refer to the AA/TW deal as a merger, which it was clearly NOT.
[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]


At the risk of repeating myself:[/P]
[BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"]


That may be [STRONG]YOUR [/STRONG]personal opinion, to which you are entitled, but it is not what the law says. This is the legal definition of a merger:

[FONT color=#3366ff size=2][STRONG]Section 2. (a) The term "merger" as used herein means to join action by the two carriers whereby the unify, consolidate, merge, or pool in whole or in part their separate airline facilities or any of the operations or services previously performed by them through such separate facilities.[/STRONG][/FONT]

[A href="http://216.156.32.93/Allegheny%20Mohawk%20LPPs.htm"][FONT color=#336699]http://216.156.32.93/Allegheny%20Mohawk%20LPPs.htm[/FONT][/A][/P][/BLOCKQUOTE]
----------------
[/blockquote]
Yes, thank you for showing us what language the C.A.B. used to describe a merger. Move forward 30 years and there is no C.A.B. This is this Allegany or Mohawk airlines.

 

[FibberMcGee]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/21/2002 1:54:32 PM Cart Pusher wrote:



----------------
[/blockquote]

In response to your first paragraph, of all the airline mergers in the past, TW/OZ - NW/RC - CO/PE/NY/ - DL/WA - AS/JI - US/PI, not one formed a "new company". There was always a surviving stronger entity.

Paragraph #2 starts out by saying that TW employees were wrong in thinking that the TW bankruptcy filing was not a "trick" to acquire TW. Then you go on to say that it was exactly that by allowing AA a way to dissolve the KARABU agreement with Carl Icahn. The bankruptcy filing was a "trick" by AA to allow them to purchase TW without much of the debt and that KARABU agreement, which was ultimately what did TW in. Nobody knows whether TW would have whethered the storm after 9/11 or not, and we don't know if they could have reorganized again under Ch. 11, or if they even would have had to. America West seems to be on the right track after 9/11 - perhaps TW would have followed in their footsteps, combining with them to form a stronger carrier. Who knows?

Paragraph #3 addresses the TW employees being "coerced" into signing away the scope language in their contracts. You contradict yourself here as well. You say they were not forced into it then go on to say that they knew "not waiving those clauses meant no job". They were backed into a wall and essentially told that if they wanted to continue working under ANY circumstances they should sign. All the while, their Carty swearing in front of Congress that they would treat the TW folks "fairly" in terms of seniority. What is fair anyway? Who decides? Carty? APFA? TWA? IAM? A judge?

I think TW people expected some sort of slotting as far as seniority. Nobody really expected to get all their seniority. Most people just wanted some credit for time served. Instead, they are told that they could stay at STL base for the rest of their life and not lose seniority, however, that will only last until they start allowing transfers from other AA bases into STL or they leave STL for whatever reason. And since then they have started transferring much of the STL flying to other AA bases and laying off mostly TW folks. Some AA folks think the TW folks want credit for all their TW years, they don't. Just a "fair integration" as Carty promised congress.

TWA people did do a great job, over the years, of keeping their airline alive. Now they are being screwed. Should they be penalized because they chose to stay? What would you have done if you had 20, 30 years seniority? It's not that easy to walk away from.
----------------
[/blockquote]


I couldn't have said it better myself, and I have tried.

 

[MiAAmi]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/21/2002 1:54:32 PM Cart Pusher wrote:

TWA people did do a great job, over the years, of keeping their airline alive. Now they are being screwed. Should they be penalized because they chose to stay? What would you have done if you had 20, 30 years seniority? It's not that easy to walk away from.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Anyone from Eastern Pan Am and Braniff know exactly the position you were in. Believe me I wouldn't wish that feeling on anyone in the world. But you have to admit you fared alot better than most. I gather by your post that you feel your being screwed because you were placed at the bottom of the seniority list. I think that if AA really wanted to screw you they wouldn't have honored your 20-30yrs seniority in pay (a 40% raise). If AA really wanted to screw you they would have fired everyone from TWA and made them re-apply. If AA wanted to really give it to you they would have closed STL and furloughed everyone. A friend of mine from US Airways finds it funny that you all got a raise after your company declared bankrupcty and they got pay cuts after their company filed. I'm sorry you feel screwed. Try to look on the bright side, you still get to push a cart!

 

[Bob Owens]

Kirkpatrick;
It is Mikey's opinion that we should be stapled. His facts are about as good as his spelling. For example, he continues to insist that our signing away our scope clauses was signing away our right to receive any seniority. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just look at the pilots. They signed away the same scope clauses in their contract, yet slightly under half of them were feathered in with AA pilots beginning at about seniority #2500 at a ratio of 8.17 to 1 after that. The IAM-represented mechanics and ramp service people received some seniority in an arbitration although they signed away their scope clauses as well.

TWA LLC workers who are now in the TWU have three different Occupational seniority dates, dependant on location, 100% in a few locations, 25% in others and 4/10/01 in the rest.

 

[TWAB717]

That's right. The Flight Attendants are the only work group with a union at AA that didnt get some sort of integration of seniority. Now, the courts will decide, and the IAM is powerful with lot's of money. The other AA unions may have to snicker at APFA for doing themselves in. Regardless if we win or lose, it's still gonna cost APFA quite a bit of time and money to fight us and the IAM, thats satisfaction enough. I don't care if I have my TWA company seniority for pay, vacation, and retirement, it doesn't do me any good without a job.

 

[MiAAmi]

So Danny,

Can you please tell us without snickering exactly what you think is fair? Who goes on the street first? APFA isn't going anywhere. I am APFA and so are the other 22,000 AA f/a's. If need be I am willing to pay higher dues to keep APFA going.

 

[TWAnr]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 10/21/2002 535 PM MiAAmi wrote:
[P][/P]I think that if AA really wanted to screw you they wouldn't have honored your 20-30yrs seniority in pay (a 40% raise)...
[P][/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]There is no 40% [STRONG]take home [/STRONG]pay raise. I have now seen close to ten months worth of pay statements. The net take home increase is less than 10%. Yes, the hourly rates are substantially higher, but the pairings or sequences that the flight attendants are now working are substantially less efficient. While it was relatively easy to accumulate more than ninety flying hours in ten to twelve days previously (i.e., Big Girl turns), now it takes fifteen workdays to put in the guaranteed 71 to 72 hours. To top it off, there is no longer cross utilization between international and domestic. Many people who use to work international flights at international pay are now working domestic flights at the lower rate of pay. [/P]
[P]Most of the people which I know are more concerned about the number of days away from home as opposed to the number of hours in the air. When you account for the various contributions toward the cost medical and dental insurance and prefunding of the retirement medical insurance (there were none at TWA), the difference in pay is not substantial enough to outweigh the quality of life hardships that resulted from this takeover. [/P]
[P]Yes, the pay increase is appreciated, for those who are still employed; however, implying that there was a tangible 40% increase in the actual paychecks is misleading at best.[/P]

 

[La Treal]

[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]


When you account for the various contributions toward the cost medical and dental insurance and prefunding of the retirement medical insurance (there were none at TWA), the difference in pay is not substantial enough to outweigh the quality of life hardships that resulted from this takeover. [/P]

[/blockquote]


Errr. Did you mean merger? (lol).

 

[TWAB717]

The letter below was sent by General Vice President Robert Roach, Jr. to John Ward, President of the Association of Professional Flight Attendants (APFA), the American Airlines Flight Attendant union by fax on March 23, 2001. Mr. John Ward
President
Assoc. of Professional Flight Attendants
1004 West Euless Blvd.
Euless, TX 76040


Dear Mr. Ward,

As you know, on March 19, 2001, I personally appeared before the APFA Board of Directors to strenuously urge that APFA agree to a process for the fair and equitable integration of seniority of TWA and American Flight Attendants. My request was literally met with silence until yesterday. Without even giving this organization the benefit of a phone call you announced on your hotline that in effect the APFA Board of Directors had voted unanimously to unfairly represent and prejudice TWA Flight Attendants represented by this organization.

Be advised that if APFA goes forward with its announced plan to discriminate against TWA Flight Attendants by fencing them off from the rest of the American system while allowing American Flight Attendants to displace them and, thereafter, in effect place them at the bottom of the American Airlines' seniority list, we will take all legal measures available against you, your Board of Directors as individuals and your organization to prevent this gross injustice.

Be assured that proceeding on your announced course is not in the long-term interest of your organization or any of the Flight Attendants involved in the merger. You are simply inviting a long and contentious legal battle that will leave you, your Board of Directors and your organization liable for the damages incurred by the TWA Flight Attendants.

If it is the intention of the APFA and its Board of Directors to test the resolve of the IAMAW in its quest to fulfill its legal and moral obligation to the TWA Flight Attendants, you will find that we are prepared to meet that challenge.

Your independent organization has, in the past, received support from AFL-CIO organizations. With your anti-labor announcement, you have isolated yourself from all AFL-CIO transportation labor unions.

Accordingly, I urge you to reconsider your Board's resolution and enter into good faith negotiations to deal fairly with the integration of TWA Flight Attendants.

Sincerely,

Robert Roach, Jr.
GENERAL VICE PRESIDENT

 

[FA Mikey]

My god those poor ex TW people who now have to pay medical and dental. It probley ate most of the 40% increase in pay. Let me see here. I pay 16.46 in medical and another 2.75 in dental. Then another almost 13 dollars for retiree medical. Wow thats not even 1 hours pay in the air or on the ground taxiing.

 

[TWAB717]

What I think is fair is what was promised to me. No less favorable conditions than those employees at AA in similar classifications. Now, you tell me how I am in as favorable a condition as a 3 year AA f/a? AA bought TWA's assets, the biggest of which is it's employee's (said many times by Carty). My experience as a f/a and agent at TWA are my asset to AA, whenever I get the opportunity to start to use them again.

 

[TWAB717]

Exactly! We have to pay for our insurance now at AA, the flexibility isnt as good, those bid services have a monopoly on open time. We had major trade freedom at TW, plus, yes, the ability to fly Intl. because we were all trained to do so. We can go on and on, but all of us TWA'ers do realize just how lucky we were before we got Something Special In The Rear