I have never wished bad on anyone, quite the contrary. I hope everyone gets called back including the former TWA'ers. The fact that I have a different opinion about the seniority issue does not make me or anyone else a bad person (or someone with bad karma). You can bash AA and everything about us but the fact remains that you desperately want to be a part of it or we wouldn't even be having this debate.twasilverbullet said:
How The Merger Went Down...
- Thread starter L1011Ret
- Start date
no miami,MiAAmi said:
because you disagree on the seniority issue you will always be an aarogant, evil person who has no compassion for other folks unless you are willing, and agree to giving them what they want....seniority in your union for time time worked elsewhere.
Let them wish karma on you all they want, and then accept that if AA gets bought out by another airline that you will go on the seniority list where you belong... at the end of it.
Can't wait till the suit is dropped though, boy o boy i can't wait.
Everybody keeps talking about precedence but the only precedence I see of the independant non-afl-cio affiliated APFA is Reno.
When are the court precedings going to start again?
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #33
Court proceedings? Soon there will be oral arguments on the motion to dismiss by AA and APFA. Many expect the motion will fail and the case will continue with depositions and then a possible jury trial. This has nothing to do with precedence whatsoever. It is more based upon AA's promise of "fair and equitable" and APFA's misdeeds. As it would appear that defendants do not want to negotiate - not an unreasonable position at this point - it would appear that a jury trial is quite possible. But since this is in Federal court, it is likely that some posters will get copies of the proceedings and we can all make judgments about potential outcomes.
LiveInAHotel
Veteran
- Nov 5, 2003
- 645
- 0
AA and TWA DIDN'T MERGE!!!!! AA acquired them due to the fact TWA was basically dead in their grave! A merger and acquisition are two different things.TWAnr said:
So you're calling the AA/Reno Air acquisition a merger too? Reno Air flight attendants got the same deal as the TWA flight attendants, but without the pay.
LiveInAHotel
Veteran
- Nov 5, 2003
- 645
- 0
I think you need to go pull that TWA/IAM contract out of the closet and dust it off. Then read it from front to back and you will see the TWA flight attendants had NO seniority protection in the event of an acquisition!! This was NOT a merger!TransWorldFirst said:
After you have read the TWA/IAM dusted off contract, read the APFA contract Article 1. You will see that if AA acquires another airline, the AA flight attendants seniority will be protected.
Almost forgot, the IAM signed all of your seniority off to the APFA. So even if you had acquisition protection, it wouldn't have held up due to the IAM signing it off. The APFA has this letter and it will be presented in court.
You could have waited for TWA to file BK again and then you would have no job or recall rights.
THIS IS DEAD, GET OVER IT AND MOVE ON!!!!
TransWorldFirst
Member
- Sep 10, 2003
- 28
- 0
You are so wrong, and so uninformed, and so unreasonable I am not even going to waste my time explaining to you why.
But here's a hint: APFA didn't have SCOPE until AFTER the TWA merger.
Trans World First
But here's a hint: APFA didn't have SCOPE until AFTER the TWA merger.
Trans World First
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #37
Afraid not, this is in Federal Court. The F/As have a good case. There is a major problem here, this is not about contracts, it is about making written promises that you did not fulfill and/or weaseled out of. That is a court matter.
Liveinahotel - Good grief - you are going to split your pants from all the pressure your in - to avoid looking at the VERY POSSIBLE outcome. This is So far from being over!LiveInAHotel said:I think you need to go pull that TWA/IAM contract out of the closet and dust it off. Then read it from front to back and you will see the TWA flight attendants had NO seniority protection in the event of an acquisition!! This was NOT a merger!TransWorldFirst said:
After you have read the TWA/IAM dusted off contract, read the APFA contract Article 1. You will see that if AA acquires another airline, the AA flight attendants seniority will be protected.
Almost forgot, the IAM signed all of your seniority off to the APFA. So even if you had acquisition protection, it wouldn't have held up due to the IAM signing it off. The APFA has this letter and it will be presented in court.
You could have waited for TWA to file BK again and then you would have no job or recall rights.
THIS IS DEAD, GET OVER IT AND MOVE ON!!!!
As Jim says - we could all debate "which sides have more boggers" - but I feel confident that the jury trial will bring the truth out.
And as I have said before - Let's wait for the outcome then the winning side can say "GET OVER IT AND MOVE ON" "GET OVER IT AND MOVE ON"
LiveInAHotel said:I think you need to go pull that TWA/IAM contract out of the closet and dust it off. Then read it from front to back and you will see the TWA flight attendants had NO seniority protection in the event of an acquisition!! This was NOT a merger!
THIS IS DEAD, GET OVER IT AND MOVE ON!!!!
Hotel -
Obviously, you are not well versed in contract law as it relates to the IAM/TWA CBA. The scope provisions in that contract were/are enforceable in the event of either a merger or any fragmentation of TWA.
Regardless, the issues in the current seniority lawsuit brought by the former TWA F/A's does not hinge on the language of the scope provision in the IAM/TWA CBA. The issues are much more broad and consist of various tort law claims. All of these claims are civil in nature, which lowers the evidentiary bar to only a preponderance of the evidence. The former TWA F/A's need only convince the jury using the "reasonable persons" standard. I ask you, would a reasonable person see the "fairness and equity" of a 40 year former TWA F/A being sent packing in favor of a 40 day nAAitive remaining employed?
As far as your assertion that this issue is over... I remind you that the wheels of justice grind slowly, but they do indeed turn. You should not be lulled into a false sense of security simply because the issue is not front and center. APFA (John Ward) has purposely not been forthcoming concerning the gravity of this issue nor the potentially perilous position in which he has placed the APFA and its membership.
Should AA/APFA/TWA, llc.'s motion to dismiss be overcome, this case will play out before a jury of "our" peers who will look at the allegations, determine liability and assess damages. Remember, this case will be heard in New York, a notoriously "union" town. I am counting on my fellow unionists to see the unfair way in which the former TWA F/A's have been stapled. If the public admonitions of the entire ALF-CIO are any indication, all of organized labor is will be appalled at APFA's behavior when the facts of this case come to light.
LiveInAHotel
Veteran
- Nov 5, 2003
- 645
- 0
Mikey,FA Mikey said:
No matter what we nAAtives say, it's always wrong in the eyes of these TWA'ers. TWA is DEAD and it isn't coming back. The APFA contract does have SCOPE, Article 1 of the contract. I'm beginning to wonder if some of these people actually know how to read a contract from TWA.
This senioroty thing is OVER and done with. You really forgot what the IAM signed over to the APFA. That letter of agreement is all the APFA needs in court to shut you TWA folks up. It obvious you TWA'ers are bored because you keep bringing up this seniority thing over and over again.
Get over it! At least you still have recall rights. Just think you could be on the street without any recall rights. You all should be thankful AA ACQUIRED TWA. Most of us wish it never happened, because it was a waste of money.
Why dont you TWA'ers just start a new TWA and get over it?
TransWorldFirst- You're so wrong pal.
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2003
- 5,311
- 584
- Banned
- #43
:angry: Livin---- Just like the football team you seem to admire! Time will tell friend! Time will tell! And No!! We won't just "live" with it! We want "Justice"!!! And what you've given us, ain't it!!!! Signed: Just another redheaded step child"!!!
TransWorldONE
Advanced
- Jun 11, 2003
- 172
- 0
LiveInaMotel said:
"No matter what we nAAtives say, it's always wrong in the eyes of these TWA'ers."
Thats definatly not true. Some of you actually have my respect. Like jimntx, he seems like a fellow human being. And...
PS "just getting over it" would make it way too easy for you.
"No matter what we nAAtives say, it's always wrong in the eyes of these TWA'ers."
Thats definatly not true. Some of you actually have my respect. Like jimntx, he seems like a fellow human being. And...
PS "just getting over it" would make it way too easy for you.
Live in a hotel - evidently you have problems arguing the FACTS. I have reposted Hunter's post once again. Which I believe is a really good explanation about what lies in the future. You have no facts to support you works - they are just that USLESS WORDS.Hunter said:LiveInAHotel said:I think you need to go pull that TWA/IAM contract out of the closet and dust it off. Then read it from front to back and you will see the TWA flight attendants had NO seniority protection in the event of an acquisition!! This was NOT a merger!
THIS IS DEAD, GET OVER IT AND MOVE ON!!!!
Hotel -
Obviously, you are not well versed in contract law as it relates to the IAM/TWA CBA. The scope provisions in that contract were/are enforceable in the event of either a merger or any fragmentation of TWA.
Regardless, the issues in the current seniority lawsuit brought by the former TWA F/A's does not hinge on the language of the scope provision in the IAM/TWA CBA. The issues are much more broad and consist of various tort law claims. All of these claims are civil in nature, which lowers the evidentiary bar to only a preponderance of the evidence. The former TWA F/A's need only convince the jury using the "reasonable persons" standard. I ask you, would a reasonable person see the "fairness and equity" of a 40 year former TWA F/A being sent packing in favor of a 40 day nAAitive remaining employed?
As far as your assertion that this issue is over... I remind you that the wheels of justice grind slowly, but they do indeed turn. You should not be lulled into a false sense of security simply because the issue is not front and center. APFA (John Ward) has purposely not been forthcoming concerning the gravity of this issue nor the potentially perilous position in which he has placed the APFA and its membership.
Should AA/APFA/TWA, llc.'s motion to dismiss be overcome, this case will play out before a jury of "our" peers who will look at the allegations, determine liability and assess damages. Remember, this case will be heard in New York, a notoriously "union" town. I am counting on my fellow unionists to see the unfair way in which the former TWA F/A's have been stapled. If the public admonitions of the entire ALF-CIO are any indication, all of organized labor is will be appalled at APFA's behavior when the facts of this case come to light.
