FA furloughs and STL transfers

[AAmech]

----------------
On 5/25/2003 9:01:00 AM MiAAmi wrote:

Quit manipulating the facts. Yes AA filed a tax loss last year sighting TWA and Reno as BAD investments. No one said that TWA was the only reason AA was losing money. But TWA does not help the situation.
----------------​

Now Reno was a bad investment too? TWA was a cheap purchase but Reno was practically FREE!! Just because AA spent money does not mean it was a bad investment. I''m sure if AA had a crystal ball they would not have bought TWA. But then they wouldn''t have pissed away a fortune on all those 777''s and 737''s either!

 

[FibberMcGee]

As of July 1, 2003 you all have your wish...Not one TWA flight attendant will remain. And the flight attendants "forced" to come to STL will get the $12,500 in moving expenses while the TWA flight attendants get a free "job fair". That sounds fair...
Who will you bash next once the TWA f/as are gone?
MiAAmi wrote:
"Buying TWA has not saved one AA job, if TWA wasn''t around there wouldn''t be the need to get rid of them. Buying TWA was a bad decision and the company has publicly stated this."
You''re right that it didn''t save 1 AA job, it saved thousands of AA jobs. The company has never publicly stated that buying TWA was a bad decision. TWA was bought for a song and you know it. The continual drain from the TWA purchase that you speak of doesn''t exist as you make it out. Of course there was initial costs involved in converting TWA to AA but many of those costs were one time costs. Once traffic picks up, and it will, you will see the value of the TWA purchase though I suspect you will never admit it. This debate will never change. Instead of hoping that things will get better, and doing something about it, some of you pray that things will get worse just so you can say "I told you so". The facts remain: TWA was purchased by AA and 9/11 did happen. Many AAers are furloughed. Many many more would have been or at least made Eagle employees. Many former TWA people have been furloughed and many have been reduced to part time status (so much for the raise). I sincerely hope that no other employees will be furloughed and pray that many will be recalled shortly.
Things will turn around and I hope I''m a part of it.

 

[MiAAmi]

----------------
On 5/25/2003 9:52:51 AM FibberMcGee wrote:

You''re right that it didn''t save 1 AA job, it saved thousands of AA jobs. The company has never publicly stated that buying TWA was a bad decision.
----------------​

My point is that if AA had not bought TWA most likely we would still have naative AA''ers out on the street. AA would probably still be losing money but not as much. Since AA would be at a better financial advantage without TWA less people would need to be furloughed. The fact that AA became a larger carrier with the purchase of TWA also made it more cash strapped. And check your facts about AMR and their statements about TWA and Reno. They took a filed a loss last year in part because they deemed the purchase of TWA and Reno as a BAD investment. Regardless of all this the reality of our situation is that we have 1000''s of our co-workers losing their income. The fact that TWA was a bad investment for AA does not mean that the employees from TWA are bad people. No one wants to see anyone lose their income. The comments about transfers getting moving expences while the furloughs get no furlough pay is reaching to show how unfair life is. But I think you are forgetting that a few thousand naative AA''ers are on furlough as well and it has nothing to do with giving the screws to the TWA''ers. Remember that if things do turn around soon you will be one of the 1st people to be called back. I think we all wish things had turned out so that we were hiring and expanding instead of the opposite. It is not nor was it ever my "wish" to get rid of any of the TWA''ers. (except Sherry Cooper and those are my own personal reasons.) Happy Memorial Weekend!! Enjoy it if your off.

 

[coldplay]

----------------

On 5/23/2003 10:12:34 AM Cosmo wrote:

On 5/23/2003 2:39:16 AM rampguy wrote:

MAYBE those junior FA''s at AA that continue to work solely due to the STL hub are the ones that cashed in because if AA hadn''t bought TWA and merged the operations then they would have been laid off too.

----------------
On 5/23/2003 9:25:01 AM coldplay wrote:

ahh, but then again if AA hadn''t bought TWA and merged the operations Then MAYBE there would have been no reason to lay off those junior AA FAs.

----------------​

So you''re saying that if AA had simply not bought TWA, 9/11 wouldn''t have happened? Or the Iraq War wouldn''t have happened? Or SARS wouldn''t have happened? These events have had a profound impact on all airlines, AA included, and they would have caused substantial furloughs at AA even without the TWA purchase. So regardless of anyone''s opinion about whether or not AA was right to buy TWA''s assets (and how the two workforces were subsequently integrated), it defies logic to say that "maybe there would have been no reason to lay off those junior AA FAs" given the events of the past 18 months. Get real!

----------------​

Cosmo if you were not so boneheaded you''d realize that I was replying with a simple "Maybe" scenario to Rampguy''s "Maybe" scenario. I capitalized the MAYBE''s in that exchange so you can follow the trend of thought and try not to burst a blood vessel in your brain.

of course we''ll leave it to someone like you to bring up 9/11 and SARS and the war to place the blame on the decline of the airline industry, instead of to the REAL cause : SIMPLE MISMANAGEMENT & EGO. Even world economic advisors were exclaiming what a boneheaded move it was for Carty to put up plans on purchasing TWA at a time of a soon to come economic decline. Lest we forget AA was in the middle of contract negotiations with the FAs, and the Pilots and Mechanics contracts were coming up soon after. What a great way to "hide" the money and tell these workgroups " sorry but we simply don''t have the money to share with you".

so yes, go on believing & convincing yourselves that TWA was a great investment. In the meantime you can turn a blind eye to the hemmoraging going on until it bites us in the ass and we find ourselves out of a job and we can always meet up at the local pub and talk about the good ole days when AA was still around.

 

[rampguy]

----------------
On 5/24/2003 7:13:31 PM sfo2laxfsc wrote:


On 5/22/2003 9:33:36 PM sfo2laxfsc wrote:

​

sure the apfa has faults just like any other union.  but if you want to use this one instance to justify your opinion that they are "rotten" then you are not very wise...but then again that wouldnt surprise me being that you judge the twu as "doing the right thing" because you benefitted from their idiocy.  i wonder what is the opinion of all those aaers that you "bumped" of the twu.  you know those guys with  7 and 8 years.  somehow i bet they dont share your view.  as far as not being a "true" member, i hold the sentiments of a large percentege naatives.  and as for apfa, with the exception of this one mishap, they are hands down the best union on the property.  if the twu could have done half the job apfa did, they would have more respect from naatives and i''d bet you would have a completely different opinion of them.  but your right you have no more reason to be ashamed than the homeless guy who bought the winning lottery ticket with his last dollar instead of food.



On 5/23/2003 2:39:42 AM rampguy wrote:

​

What a bunch of pure garbage. Senor bumped NOBODY with 8 yrs. He should have been able too but it isn''t allowed. 22 year old people with 3 yrs in stay while people with over 30 years are laid off so get it straight.
 
Your views may have the majority sentiment but who cares. The majority isn''t always correct and it doesn''t mean you are.
Lottery ticket? Maybe those junior FA''s at AA that continue to work solely due to the STL hub are the ones that cashed in because if AA hadn''t bought TWA and merged the operations then they would have been laid off too.
I am one that never advocated that TWA get 100% seniority but I didn''t agree with the staple job either.
Now that we all have had our say and we won''t agree nor will we get anything changed, lets move on.
----------------

​

oh my bad...he "bumped" guys with 7yrs.  as far as guys with 3yrs staying ft at lax...huhhhh, i think you should get your facts straight buddy.  oh yeah, name ONE guy who earned over 30yrs at aa who was bumped by a 3yr guy??? and in terms of your "who cares" remark....bravo,bravo you get an "A" in critical analysis because that''s actually a better response than i thought i would get from you.  as for our junior f/a''s "cashing in" i''m sure they are just itching with excitement about having to endure st louis and that miserable little airport for god knows how long (god bless them, because they''ll need it).
oh, and by the way, about "pure garbage???"  just look in the mirror and you''ll see 80yrs of it.
 



Your bad is right. Your whole post makes no sense. 80yrs of what? 30yrs at AA being bumped by a 3 yr AA? Again, no sense in your post. Now I did say 3yr AA people staying while 30yr TWA/AA people get laid off.
You need to re-read my post. But, then again, who cares if you do or don''t.









willing to risk nothing, wanting to gain everything

----------------​

 

[FA Mikey]

----------------
On 5/25/2003 9:52:51 AM FibberMcGee wrote:

As of July 1, 2003 you all have your wish...Not one TWA flight attendant will remain. And the flight attendants "forced" to come to STL will get the $12,500 in moving expenses while the TWA flight attendants get a free "job fair". That sounds fair...
Who will you bash next once the TWA f/as are gone?

----------------​

You write it, as though the company is in the process of cutting the checks at this very moment. A flight attendant who is forced transfer to STL can submit to the company for repayment moving expenses of up to 15,000 dollars. Receipts must be submitted, and the company will only pay actual costs of the move.

Now exactly how many people are going to take the company up on this offer and move to wonderful, lovely St. Louis? Few to none. The few who already live there cannot get anything. The rest will likely commute until such time they can leave.

 

[AAmech]

----------------
On 5/25/2003 9:51:20 AM FA Mikey wrote:

If Reno was a good purchase where have all the planes and routes for Reno gone?

----------------

Very early into the Reno purchase AA made it clear they were NOT keeping ANY of the Reno planes. They quickly placed an order for 20 757's to replace them and slowly returned the Reno planes to their Lessors. The main purpose for buying Reno was to remove them as a competitor from the West Coast as AA was trying to reestablish it self there. It also provided AA with gates and facilities and experienced Pilots Fa.s and Mechanics for its West Coast expandtion. I don't think anyone thought AA was going to keep flying the Reno Airlines Routes for very long.
Does anyone remember the exact price of the Reno purchase? I remember it was like cheaper than buying one 737.​

 

[FWAAA]

----------------
On 5/25/2003 931 PM AAmech wrote:

----------------
On 5/25/2003 9:51:20 AM FA Mikey wrote:

If Reno was a good purchase where have all the planes and routes for Reno gone?

----------------

Very early into the Reno purchase AA made it clear they were NOT keeping ANY of the Reno planes. They quickly placed an order for 20 757's to replace them and slowly returned the Reno planes to their Lessors. The main purpose for buying Reno was to remove them as a competitor from the West Coast as AA was trying to reestablish it self there. It also provided AA with gates and facilities and experienced Pilots Fa.s and Mechanics for its West Coast expandtion. I don't think anyone thought AA was going to keep flying the Reno Airlines Routes for very long.
Does anyone remember the exact price of the Reno purchase? I remember it was like cheaper than buying one 737.​

----------------​

Exactly! Too many people make the wrong assumption about what AA is buying when it buys a competitor: AA doesn't buy the competitor's crappy old planes - it buys competitors to get their CUSTOMERS, employees, slots, gates, etc.

Recall that pre-September 11, AA announced plans to replace nearly all of TWA's planes (except the MD-80s). That led to lots of whining about how few TWA planes would remain on the property. Airplanes haven't been scarce for a long time. Before the recent financial crisis, AA could strike very favorable deals with Boeing for new ones outfitted to AA's specs. Customers, on the other hand . . . well, they are always scarce. And what better way to win them over than to buy the airline to which they have been loyal?? And convert their mileage and status to AAdvantage??

Slots are (were) scarce. Gates can be hard to get. Airplanes? Very easy to obtain.

And AA is still flying up and down the left coast a whole hell of a lot more now than before AA purchased Reno Air. They just don't hub at Reno anymore.

Purchase price for Reno Air? About $124 million. In late 1998, that was chump change for AA - AA made well over a billion dollars that year.

 

[sfo2laxfsc]

 

[sfo2laxfsc]

On 5/23/2003 2:39:42 AM rampguy wrote:

​

What a bunch of pure garbage. Senor bumped NOBODY with 8 yrs. He should have been able too but it isn't allowed.22 year old people with 3 yrs in stay while people with over 30 years are laid off so get it straight.

Your views may have the majority sentiment but who cares. The majority isn't always correct and it doesn't mean you are.

Lottery ticket? Maybe those junior FA's at AA that continue to work solely due to the STL hub are the ones that cashed in because if AA hadn't bought TWA and merged the operations then they would have been laid off too.

I am one that never advocated that TWA get 100% seniority but I didn't agree with the staple job either.

Now that we all have had our say and we won't agree nor will we get anything changed, lets move on.

----------------

​

On 5/24/2003 7:13:31 PM sfo2laxfsc wrote:

oh my bad...he "bumped" guys with 7yrs. as far as guys with 3yrs staying ft at lax...huhhhh, i think you should get your facts straight buddy. oh yeah, name ONE guy who earned over 30yrs at aa who was bumped by a 3yr guy??? and in terms of your "who cares" remark....bravo,bravo you get an "A" in critical analysis because that's actually a better response than i thought i would get from you. as for our junior f/a's "cashing in" i'm sure they are just itching with excitement about having to endure st louis and that miserable little airport for god knows how long (god bless them, because they'll need it).

oh, and by the way, about "pure garbage???" just look in the mirror and you'll see 80yrs of it.


On 5/25/2003 657 PM rampguy wrote:

Your bad is right. Your whole post makes no sense. 80yrs of what? 30yrs at AA being bumped by a 3 yr AA? Again, no sense in your post. Now I did say 3yr AA people staying while 30yr TWA/AA people get laid off.
You need to re-read my post. But, then again, who cares if you do or don't.




"your post makes no sense," "i cant understand," "boo hoo, boo hoo, who cares," all of which are iterations which suggest you are uneducated and lack knowledge. but since its clear to me that you have a few handicaps including, a) your likely a senior citizen 80yrs+ and B) you display poor comprehension skills, i will explain this one time only, in terms that you are used to...elementary terms.

you said:Senor bumped NOBODY with 8 yrs. (how keen of you to pay such close attention to detail)

i said: your right, only guys with 7 yrs (i know this is complicated but stay with me).

you said:22 year old people with 3 yrs in stay while people with over 30 years are laid off so get it straight (no mention of twa here, maybe you should re-read your own post...if you can).

i say: you get it straight. there is no one at AMERICAN AIRLINES with over 30yrs seniority being laid-off. seniority earned at competing carriers doesn't amount to a hill of beans here. so your comment perpetuates a distorted view of the truth (see that wasnt so hard was it).

ok, class dismissed. if you cant understand this time i strongly suggest you pick up a book once in a while.















willing to risk nothing, wanting to gain everything
​

 

[Oliver Stone''s Apprentice]

----------------
On 5/25/2003 311 PM coldplay wrote:

of course we''ll leave it to someone like you to bring up 9/11 and SARS and the war to place the blame on the decline of the airline industry, instead of to the REAL cause : SIMPLE MISMANAGEMENT & EGO. Even world economic advisors were exclaiming what a boneheaded move it was for Carty to put up plans on purchasing TWA at a time of a soon to come economic decline. Lest we forget AA was in the middle of contract negotiations with the FAs, and the Pilots and Mechanics contracts were coming up soon after. What a great way to "hide" the money and tell these workgroups " sorry but we simply don''t have the money to share with you".

----------------​

You conveniently a lot of facts in your little diatribe.

Haven''t you noticed the economy lately? Or are you so wrapped up in watching American Idol and The Bachelor that you don''t have time to watch the news?...

Carty is why Hawaiian Airlines, US Airways, and United declared bankruptcy? AMR management is responsible for what is happening to Northwest and Continental?

You can blame Carty all you want for what happened with AMR, but it doesn''t explain the decline of every other major except for SWA, and just about every other national carrier.

 

[rampguy]

----------------
On 5/26/2003 4:06:35 AM sfo2laxfsc wrote:

On 5/23/2003 2:39:42 AM rampguy wrote:

​

What a bunch of pure garbage. Senor bumped NOBODY with 8 yrs. He should have been able too but it isn''t allowed.22 year old people with 3 yrs in stay while  people with over 30 years are laid off so get it straight.
 
Your views may have the majority sentiment but who cares. The majority isn''t always correct and it doesn''t mean you are.

Lottery ticket? Maybe those junior FA''s at AA that continue to work solely due to the STL hub are the ones that cashed in because if AA hadn''t bought TWA and merged the operations then they would have been laid off too.

I am one that never advocated that TWA get 100% seniority but I didn''t agree with the staple job either.

Now that we all have had our say and we won''t agree nor will we get anything changed, lets move on.

----------------

​

On 5/24/2003 7:13:31 PM sfo2laxfsc wrote:

oh my bad...he "bumped" guys with 7yrs.  as far as guys with 3yrs staying ft at lax...huhhhh, i think you should get your facts straight buddy.  oh yeah, name ONE guy who earned over 30yrs at aa who was bumped by a 3yr guy??? and in terms of your "who cares" remark....bravo,bravo you get an "A" in critical analysis because that''s actually a better response than i thought i would get from you.  as for our junior f/a''s "cashing in" i''m sure they are just itching with excitement about having to endure st louis and that miserable little airport for god knows how long (god bless them, because they''ll need it).

oh, and by the way, about "pure garbage???"  just look in the mirror and you''ll see 80yrs of it.
 

On 5/25/2003 657 PM rampguy wrote:

Your bad is right. Your whole post makes no sense. 80yrs of what? 30yrs at AA being bumped by a 3 yr AA? Again, no sense in your post. Now I did say 3yr AA people staying while 30yr TWA/AA people get laid off.
You need to re-read my post. But, then again, who cares if you do or don''t.




"your post makes no sense," "i cant understand," "boo hoo, boo hoo, who cares," all of which are iterations which suggest you are uneducated and lack knowledge.  but since its clear to me that you have a few handicaps including, a) your likely a senior citizen 80yrs+ and B) you display poor comprehension skills, i will explain this one time only, in terms that you are used to...elementary terms.   

you said:Senor bumped NOBODY with 8 yrs. (how keen of you to pay such close attention to detail)

i said:  your right, only guys with 7 yrs (i know this is complicated but stay with me).

you said:22 year old people with 3 yrs in stay while  people with over 30 years are laid off so get it straight (no mention of twa here, maybe you should re-read your own post...if you can).

i say: you get it straight.  there is no one at AMERICAN AIRLINES with over 30yrs seniority  being laid-off.  seniority earned at competing carriers doesn''t amount to a hill of beans here.  so your comment perpetuates a distorted view of the truth (see that wasnt so hard was it).

ok, class dismissed.  if you cant understand this time i strongly suggest you pick up a book once in a while.















willing to risk nothing, wanting to gain everything
​

----------------​

You may want to turn this into a name calling match but I ain''t playin. I know what I am talking about and posted facts unlike you.
Bye.

 

[coldplay]

----------------
On 5/27/2003 8:34:26 AM eolesen wrote:

----------------​

You conveniently a lot of facts in your little diatribe.

Haven''t you noticed the economy lately? Or are you so wrapped up in watching American Idol and The Bachelor that you don''t have time to watch the news?...

Carty is why Hawaiian Airlines, US Airways, and United declared bankruptcy? AMR management is responsible for what is happening to Northwest and Continental?

You can blame Carty all you want for what happened with AMR, but it doesn''t explain the decline of every other major except for SWA, and just about every other national carrier.

----------------

it''s still all about EGO & Mismanagement, the "state of the Economy" and where it was heading was a well known fact then, and yet AA goes and buys TWA. wow, great move. an AA manager would think this way: I''m losing my job next month, hey great...I think i''ll go buy a new Mercedes, upgrade my kitchen, buy a speedboat, and buy a condo in Honolulu.

SWA? Profitable...you just answered the question. Great Management skills over there & less ego trips, that''s why they''re profitable. Compare JetBlue & SWA''s management with the "declining" majors'' management. the economy, SARS, 9/11, or whatever other reasons the majors blame for their problems, why then is SWA profitable if SWA is also experiencing the SAME problems??? Your statement says it all: "the decline of every other major except for SWA...". That''s the kicker EXCEPT FOR SWA. why then EXCEPT FOR SWA, if not for their management team? same economy, same problems, but yet EXCEPT FOR SWA. Someone must be doing something right over at SWA, and yet AA and the other majors are declining? i thought these majors management were the best of the best, and yet they can''t compete with SWA? what a joke. The majors management want to place the blame on everything else EXCEPT themselves.

 

[Oliver Stone''s Apprentice]

SWA is profitable, but barely. Compared to their past profits, they''re barely breaking even.

In 2002, they had a profit (excluding specials) of less than $200M. Compare that to $421M in 2001, and $625M in 2000.

During 1Q03, they had a profit of $24M, compared with $21M the year before and $121M in 2001.

I don''t see them dipping into the red anytime soon, but they''re certainly not raking in cash by any means.

 

[coldplay]

----------------
On 5/28/2003 9:44:58 AM eolesen wrote:

SWA is profitable, but barely. Compared to their past profits, they''re barely breaking even.

In 2002, they had a profit (excluding specials) of less than $200M. Compare that to $421M in 2001, and $625M in 2000.

During 1Q03, they had a profit of $24M, compared with $21M the year before and $121M in 2001.

I don''t see them dipping into the red anytime soon, but they''re certainly not raking in cash by any means.



----------------​

the bottomline is they''re still PROFITABLE while facing the SAME problem the majors are facing. If that does not tell you something about their management team then what other proof do you need?
so before you accuse me of not being aware of the present economy because I spend too much time watching American Idol or whatever slam you put up to show your "superiority", I suggest you put away your pokeman cards and do some research about why SWA is profitable (oh gee, they''re profitable but not that profitable...what a copout, typical AA management comeback). But I guess that entails you getting up from your cubicle seat, not heading home at 5PM, and doing some real work like the rest of us real working stiffs do every damn day. SARS, 9/11, and the economy, the main scapegoats of the majors, instead of mismanagement and egos. quit blaming those as the reasons, trim the fat, get some real managers who work for a change, and then maybe we''d see some type of profit damn it!
You protect Management so much because you''re one of them, you have no clue about what goes on in the real world, and base things on numbers and statistics. The Airline industry is in the state it is because of simple Mismanagement and swell-headed egos of their respective management teams who don''t give a rat''s ass about its employees...well, except for SWA. You want to see real management in action that does the WHOLE company good, then look at SWA and take a cue from how they operate. People first, their people are important, treat them well but i guess that''s just too much to ask from AA because damn it, we''ve got to get those planes out on time! what a freakin'' joke.