Its not like TWA went under over night. 17 years they were a failing company. At a time when all the airlines were hiring in mass because most of the other airlines were making record profits. I never applied to TWA because I wanted to have a future. TWA''s death was in the back of everyones mind. Your arguement about their retirement and getting bought by a carrier that would put them on the bottom of the seniority list is interesting. If they were so concerned about their future then why did they stay at a company that by all industry analyst would not be around forever? And staying around to see if another carrier would buy (save) them was the risk they took. They played their cards and lost. I know lots of TW''ers that are getting furloughed and I feel for them and their familys. I don''t think its my responcability to lose my job because someone from another company decided to throw caution to the wind and take what life threw them back. If things at AA don''t turn out in a way that I feel is in my future best interest you can bet that I will take control of my life and go where things are better. I don''t expect anyone to say poor so and so....he worked at AA for X amount of years. I guess things didn''t turn out how he liked so lets give him a job here, give him a raise and seniority for all his years at AA and sacrifice the most junior f/a that we have. You can bet that there are alot of AA flight attendants adding up how this and the BK would effect their retirement. But they haven''t had 17 years to work over the numbers.
Junior F/A''s say NO...to T/A
- Thread starter twaokc
- Start date
firstamendment is not the only person with a different view:
From Senate hearings on airline aid last Friday.
Senator Talent: "American Airlines acquired TWA in April of 2001. We all thought that was a good thing. We still hope it is a good thing. We supported it. At the time, American Airlines promised TWA employees that they would be treated fairly as a result of the buyout, and in fact that promise was one of the conditions of Federal approval of the buyout. Certainly, our expectation was that when the representative employee groups merged, their seniority lists would be dovetailed in the normal fashion....For whatever reason, that diden't happen. In fact nothing even close to it happened."
And further, "In all my years in public office and in the years when I practiced labor law, I have never seen a merger that was as disadvanteageous to one of the former employee groups as this one.
Mr. Bond: "But I believe when we are sending taxpayer's dollars to airlines, that we have at least some responsibility to ensure the employees are being fairly treated."
And "After American Airlines stapled the TWA seniority list to the bottom, at least the top official of American Airlines came to my office and said, 'We are going to put a wall around that and keep former TWA employees serving the traveling public out of that hub, and we are not going to have them laid off because they will continue the TWA service.' The wall came down. They were not protected...The promises made to them were the root of the entire agreement reached between TWA and American Airlines back when this whole deal was going down, and now these promises appear to have been broken."
There is more about how Senators understood AA's promises and what the expectations were. This adds additional credence to the TWA F/As complaint and only can be helpful to their lawsuit.
From Senate hearings on airline aid last Friday.
Senator Talent: "American Airlines acquired TWA in April of 2001. We all thought that was a good thing. We still hope it is a good thing. We supported it. At the time, American Airlines promised TWA employees that they would be treated fairly as a result of the buyout, and in fact that promise was one of the conditions of Federal approval of the buyout. Certainly, our expectation was that when the representative employee groups merged, their seniority lists would be dovetailed in the normal fashion....For whatever reason, that diden't happen. In fact nothing even close to it happened."
And further, "In all my years in public office and in the years when I practiced labor law, I have never seen a merger that was as disadvanteageous to one of the former employee groups as this one.
Mr. Bond: "But I believe when we are sending taxpayer's dollars to airlines, that we have at least some responsibility to ensure the employees are being fairly treated."
And "After American Airlines stapled the TWA seniority list to the bottom, at least the top official of American Airlines came to my office and said, 'We are going to put a wall around that and keep former TWA employees serving the traveling public out of that hub, and we are not going to have them laid off because they will continue the TWA service.' The wall came down. They were not protected...The promises made to them were the root of the entire agreement reached between TWA and American Airlines back when this whole deal was going down, and now these promises appear to have been broken."
There is more about how Senators understood AA's promises and what the expectations were. This adds additional credence to the TWA F/As complaint and only can be helpful to their lawsuit.
TWAnr
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2002
- Messages
- 1,003
- Reaction score
- 0
----------------
On 4/5/2003 6:44:13 PM IORFA wrote:
By the way what is your lovely wife''s name...
----------------
IORFA,On 4/5/2003 6:44:13 PM IORFA wrote:
By the way what is your lovely wife''s name...
----------------
Let me suggest that you review two items:
1. American Airlines Rule of Conduct 32. It applies to behavior on and off the job which can be construed as intimidation or harassment:
“[color=" black"]Behavior that violates the company''s Work Environment Policy, even if intended as a joke, is absolutely prohibited and will be grounds for severe corrective action, up to and including termination of employment. This includes, but is not limited to, threatening, intimidating, interfering with, or abusive, demeaning, or violent behavior toward, another employee, contractor, or vendor, while either on or off duty. Behavior that is also hate-related will result in immediate termination of employment, regardless of length of service and prior employment record.†[/color]
2. USAviation Forum Rules and regulations, specifically the following language:
"We at USaviation.com also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or whatever information we know about you) in the event of a complaint or legal action arising from any message posted by you."
----------------
On 4/6/2003 8:48:17 AM L1011Ret wrote:
It would be hard to blame AA management. According to all recent press releases by Bruce Hicks, AA spokesperson, the seniority issue was totally the responsibility of the unions. That AA promised "fair and equitable", a mediated process and a bunch of other things seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle and spin doctoring. If you follow the AA press releases, it appears that they are out to totally lay this responsibility on the unions. In so doing they can attempt to avoid any legal and monetary responsibility for possible outcomes of any of the lawsuits by pilots and F/As. As for APFA, they refused to meet with the Vice President of the IAM, refused to meet with the mediator paid for by AA and have consistently shown hostility to the TWA F/As.
----------------
On 4/6/2003 8:48:17 AM L1011Ret wrote:
It would be hard to blame AA management. According to all recent press releases by Bruce Hicks, AA spokesperson, the seniority issue was totally the responsibility of the unions. That AA promised "fair and equitable", a mediated process and a bunch of other things seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle and spin doctoring. If you follow the AA press releases, it appears that they are out to totally lay this responsibility on the unions. In so doing they can attempt to avoid any legal and monetary responsibility for possible outcomes of any of the lawsuits by pilots and F/As. As for APFA, they refused to meet with the Vice President of the IAM, refused to meet with the mediator paid for by AA and have consistently shown hostility to the TWA F/As.
----------------
The refusal you speak of was at an official APFA meeting, Members only. Its great PR though, to know you cannot be seen, so thats time and place you show your self. AA offered to pay for a mediator if it was needed. Yes the TW employees were offered fair and equitable. You think it wasn''t, I think its was. Isn''t funny they never tell you what they got. Only what they didn''t get and want. Pay seniority at 100%, company seniority at 100%.
----------------
On 4/6/2003 8:48:17 AM L1011Ret wrote:
There is also a DFR in process in the courts for discriminatory treatment of the TWA F/As. AA tried to get APFA to relax some of the onerous terms of the integration (Sic) agreement and APFA refused. If there are monetary and other types of damages that are awarded should either of these major suits prevail, it appears that APFA will bear the major share of paying those damages. AA appears to be distancing themselves from these issues and perhaps APFA will end up being the fall guy just as APA was a few years back.
----------------
Luckly APFA and APA have always prevailed in protecting the seniority of there members in court.On 4/6/2003 8:48:17 AM L1011Ret wrote:
There is also a DFR in process in the courts for discriminatory treatment of the TWA F/As. AA tried to get APFA to relax some of the onerous terms of the integration (Sic) agreement and APFA refused. If there are monetary and other types of damages that are awarded should either of these major suits prevail, it appears that APFA will bear the major share of paying those damages. AA appears to be distancing themselves from these issues and perhaps APFA will end up being the fall guy just as APA was a few years back.
----------------
----------------
On 4/6/2003 5:05:49 PM firstamendment wrote:
I hope AA is never on the receiving end of this behavior. You know, UAL, the sponsors of AFA''s policy of date of hire, tried to pull that crap by trying to not only change the bylaws but get rid of AFA all together. ----------------
On 4/6/2003 5:05:49 PM firstamendment wrote:
I hope AA is never on the receiving end of this behavior. You know, UAL, the sponsors of AFA''s policy of date of hire, tried to pull that crap by trying to not only change the bylaws but get rid of AFA all together. ----------------
I totally agree with your letter except for this part. UAL told the employees (all work groups) that U and UAL seniorities would be merged by date of hire. The pilots were less than pleased, to say the least, but besides that everyone seemed to take it relatively well. The company never tried to get rid of AFA either, heck, AFA is a company union (our last contract was 10 years, no raises....hmmm? we voted for that???? NOT)
What AA has done to TW''s F/A is immoral. If you buy the company, the people are part of it, seniority and all! Period! Sue them before they go BK. PanAm flight attendants fought for and won their seniority back at UAL when some of their routes were bought, TWA will get their seniority back too! Don''t wait.
Yes, they have a very good chance of getting some form of seniority through either of their two lawsuits or some form of congressional mandate as appeared in the Senate on Friday. It is quite evident that several Senators do not feel it "fair and equitable." It will happen, just a matter of time now.
----------------
On 4/6/2003 9:17:47 PM L1011Ret wrote:
Yes, they have a very good chance of getting some form of seniority through either of their two lawsuits or some form of congressional mandate as appeared in the Senate on Friday. It is quite evident that several Senators do not feel it "fair and equitable." It will happen, just a matter of time now.
----------------
On 4/6/2003 9:17:47 PM L1011Ret wrote:
Yes, they have a very good chance of getting some form of seniority through either of their two lawsuits or some form of congressional mandate as appeared in the Senate on Friday. It is quite evident that several Senators do not feel it "fair and equitable." It will happen, just a matter of time now.
----------------
Sen Bond of MO. already tried to sneek a seniority steal thru another bill. IT FAILED to be included in the bill. I think people are more worried about whether or not the airline industry is headed toward collapse rather than what TWA f/a''s signed away over 2 years ago. I think a little consideration with the economy, war, 9/11 should be taken when looking back. Things changed drastically after the buyout of TWA. I don''t think anyone expects AA to keep TWA''ers while furloughing original AA''ers.
----------------
On 4/6/2003 5:05:49 PM firstamendment wrote:
Let''s see...AMR decided for what ever reasons that it wanted to buy TWA...AMERICAN decided. Nobody else. When they decided to buy the entire company that is TWA, they also bought the employees. If they didn''t want the employees, they could have waited for the eventual fire sale..BUT...they didn''t. They also could have bought a small enough percentage as to not take the employees.
----------------
No AA did not buy TWA. AA bought the assets of bankrupt TWA and agreed in the terms to offer employment to its 20,000 soon to be out of work employees. On 4/6/2003 5:05:49 PM firstamendment wrote:
Let''s see...AMR decided for what ever reasons that it wanted to buy TWA...AMERICAN decided. Nobody else. When they decided to buy the entire company that is TWA, they also bought the employees. If they didn''t want the employees, they could have waited for the eventual fire sale..BUT...they didn''t. They also could have bought a small enough percentage as to not take the employees.
----------------
----------------
On 4/6/2003 5:05:49 PM firstamendment wrote:
So now, as the airline industry goes to hell in a handbasket, your company decides to eliminate virtually every f/a from TWA because you did your "duty" to provide these employees a job for an extra two years? I have read this over and over on this board. So let me see...Granny ex-TWA f/a has 3-4 years left until retirement and the 30 something with 2 kids has flown for 30 years and 16 years should be on the bottom of a list because they weren''t original AA''ers? Some 20 year old twinky who knows crap about life is valued more for their one or two years of service than a veteran f/a who been devoted and loyal ? You people are sick. There is nothing anyone at AMR can say to justify the kind of BS and arrogance this represents. Go ahead and try. THAT IS SICK THINKING!!
----------------
On 4/6/2003 5:05:49 PM firstamendment wrote:
So now, as the airline industry goes to hell in a handbasket, your company decides to eliminate virtually every f/a from TWA because you did your "duty" to provide these employees a job for an extra two years? I have read this over and over on this board. So let me see...Granny ex-TWA f/a has 3-4 years left until retirement and the 30 something with 2 kids has flown for 30 years and 16 years should be on the bottom of a list because they weren''t original AA''ers? Some 20 year old twinky who knows crap about life is valued more for their one or two years of service than a veteran f/a who been devoted and loyal ? You people are sick. There is nothing anyone at AMR can say to justify the kind of BS and arrogance this represents. Go ahead and try. THAT IS SICK THINKING!!
----------------
I dont think you fully understand flight attendant job Vs retirement. Up to this point in Americans 60 plus years in the business we have had only 200 flight attendants retire. Basically we quit or die. When the veteran f/a you are referring to has been loyal and devoted to the competition. Why should I step aside and offer my seniority spot, or actually allow several thousand to be placed above me? I worked hard here at AA. I deserve something for remaining loyal to this company. This is not new to us. Everyone starts at the bottom. regardless of your previous status, whether you are a new hire, company transfer or currently employed for another carrier owned by AMR. We all start at the bottom.
----------------
On 4/6/2003 5:05:49 PM firstamendment wrote:
You''re union leadership does not represent all of your f/as. Yes, those TWA folks got raises and I''m sure they are grateful. You guys seem to think they are asking for special rights. I would think job security would not be looked upon as special rights, considering the number of old stews "real" AA has themselves. You mean to tell me that not one 20-40 year flight attendant had the guts to stand up for their age peers and fight against a system that would screw men and women so close to retirement? SHAME!!
----------------
After 40 years as a flight attendant you are dreaming if you think they are looking to retire. To come in NEW and be placed above all those who choose and have built a career here at AA is shameful. To be put above all those who made the tough choice to start over before the other shoe fell at TW, we all knew would, is shameful. On 4/6/2003 5:05:49 PM firstamendment wrote:
You''re union leadership does not represent all of your f/as. Yes, those TWA folks got raises and I''m sure they are grateful. You guys seem to think they are asking for special rights. I would think job security would not be looked upon as special rights, considering the number of old stews "real" AA has themselves. You mean to tell me that not one 20-40 year flight attendant had the guts to stand up for their age peers and fight against a system that would screw men and women so close to retirement? SHAME!!
----------------
The job of the APFA was and is, to represent the interests of the APFA members. AT the time of the integration there were no members from TWA. If the APFA had negotiated for protections for the TW people before they were members then they would have been in violation of the law by not representing the best interests of the members. Also at the time the TW f/as and the IAM were fighting the integration. It took a ruling by the NMB for the IAM to let go.
----------------
On 4/6/2003 5:05:49 PM firstamendment wrote:
I hope AA is never on the receiving end of this behavior. You know, UAL, the sponsors of AFA''s policy of date of hire, tried to pull that crap by trying to not only change the bylaws but get rid of AFA all together. Their 6 month and 2 years flight attendants were pitching a fit about senority. Where are they now? Unemployed. Where is UAL now? Bankrupt. Poor management may have landed US Airways into bankruptcy, but arrogance put UAL there. Now their f/a''s are losing thousands of jobs and no hope of leaving bk by years end. I can''t help but chuckle at those who fought so hard against the U merger and the f/a''s
----------------
You spend 2 paragraphs trying to shame AAer''s. Then in the end you share a laugh about the unemployment of some others. On 4/6/2003 5:05:49 PM firstamendment wrote:
I hope AA is never on the receiving end of this behavior. You know, UAL, the sponsors of AFA''s policy of date of hire, tried to pull that crap by trying to not only change the bylaws but get rid of AFA all together. Their 6 month and 2 years flight attendants were pitching a fit about senority. Where are they now? Unemployed. Where is UAL now? Bankrupt. Poor management may have landed US Airways into bankruptcy, but arrogance put UAL there. Now their f/a''s are losing thousands of jobs and no hope of leaving bk by years end. I can''t help but chuckle at those who fought so hard against the U merger and the f/a''s
----------------
Wow, after 5 CEO''s at UAL in the last 10 years it was arrogance that brought them into BK. I wonder what kind of creditors committees they have for collecting on something like that? Interesting if you really believe that.
----------------
On 4/6/2003 5:05:49 PM firstamendment wrote:
In otherwords, what goes around comes around...but don''t worry..within that time, all the TWA folk will be gone and anyway, out of sight...gone.. "they were going under anyway" Funny that the same people that are suppose to take CARE of people can''t even take care of their own..even if they are adopted. God help such arrogance.
----------------
Possibly many of the ex TW will be furloughed. But all those who want to return, will also be able too. AA will survive.On 4/6/2003 5:05:49 PM firstamendment wrote:
In otherwords, what goes around comes around...but don''t worry..within that time, all the TWA folk will be gone and anyway, out of sight...gone.. "they were going under anyway" Funny that the same people that are suppose to take CARE of people can''t even take care of their own..even if they are adopted. God help such arrogance.
----------------
----------------
On 4/6/2003 8:23:39 PM Fly wrote:
I totally agree with your letter except for this part. UAL told the employees (all work groups) that U and UAL seniorities would be merged by date of hire. The pilots were less than pleased, to say the least, but besides that everyone seemed to take it relatively well. The company never tried to get rid of AFA either, heck, AFA is a company union (our last contract was 10 years, no raises....hmmm? we voted for that???? NOT)
What AA has done to TW''s F/A is immoral. If you buy the company, the people are part of it, seniority and all! Period! Sue them before they go BK. PanAm flight attendants fought for and won their seniority back at UAL when some of their routes were bought, TWA will get their seniority back too! Don''t wait.
----------------
Not so. Seniority integration is something unique to the airlines coming from there regulated days as well as the fact at times less than a handful of unions all AFL-CIO represented the entire industry. Reno pilots fought and lost. Reno flight attendants fought and lost. The TW flight attendants have had a string of set backs as well.On 4/6/2003 8:23:39 PM Fly wrote:
----------------
On 4/6/2003 5:05:49 PM firstamendment wrote:
I hope AA is never on the receiving end of this behavior. You know, UAL, the sponsors of AFA''s policy of date of hire, tried to pull that crap by trying to not only change the bylaws but get rid of AFA all together. ----------------
On 4/6/2003 5:05:49 PM firstamendment wrote:
I hope AA is never on the receiving end of this behavior. You know, UAL, the sponsors of AFA''s policy of date of hire, tried to pull that crap by trying to not only change the bylaws but get rid of AFA all together. ----------------
I totally agree with your letter except for this part. UAL told the employees (all work groups) that U and UAL seniorities would be merged by date of hire. The pilots were less than pleased, to say the least, but besides that everyone seemed to take it relatively well. The company never tried to get rid of AFA either, heck, AFA is a company union (our last contract was 10 years, no raises....hmmm? we voted for that???? NOT)
What AA has done to TW''s F/A is immoral. If you buy the company, the people are part of it, seniority and all! Period! Sue them before they go BK. PanAm flight attendants fought for and won their seniority back at UAL when some of their routes were bought, TWA will get their seniority back too! Don''t wait.
----------------
TWAnr
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2002
- Messages
- 1,003
- Reaction score
- 0
----------------
On 4/6/2003 9:15:06 PM FA Mikey wrote:
Only what they didn't get and want. Pay seniority at 100%, company seniority at 100%.
----------------
100% of those seniorities are certainly worth a lot in the unemployement line, especially with the elimination of furlough pay and no realistic hope of returning to work prior to the expiration of the recall period.On 4/6/2003 9:15:06 PM FA Mikey wrote:
Only what they didn't get and want. Pay seniority at 100%, company seniority at 100%.
----------------
----------------
On 4/6/2003 9:15:06 PM FA Mikey wrote:
Luckly APFA and APA have always prevailed in protecting the seniority of there members in court.
----------------
Different situations, different facts, different legal principles. But then you never understood that and never will.
----------------
On 4/6/2003 10:36:13 PM FA Mikey wrote:
No AA did not buy TWA. AA bought the assets of bankrupt TWA and agreed in the terms to offer employment to its 20,000 soon to be out of work employees.
----------------
I must admit, you are consistent, but ever so wrong. This is a merger in the eyes of the law. Reread the ruling of the CAB in the Allegheny Mohawk case. The rationale of that case is still the legal standard that is used by the courts.
----------------
On 4/6/2003 10:36:13 PM FA Mikey wrote:
Possibly many of the ex TW will be furloughed. But all those who want to return, will also be able too.
----------------
In your dreams. I wish I could share your optimism, but reality dictates otherwise. Just look at the numbers for the flight attendants:
1. New proposed work rules that will reduce their numbers by 2,391.
2. Anywhere from 4,300 to 4,800 are currently out on OVL. The vast majority of them will return to the line on May 1, 2003, to keep their medical benefits.
3. Only 2,000 AA flight attendants are currently eligible to retire with full benefits.
Even assuming that all those who can will retire, which elsewhere in this forum you posted is an unrealistic expectation, the proposed contract will result in 5,000 furloughs on top of the current number which is pushing 3,000. That does not take into account likely additional cuts in capacity. Many industry experts maintain that there is a 20% oversupply of available seat miles in the industry (from this week's Business Week). Do you really expect attrition and growth in the next five years to equal half of what the active workforce will be should this contract be ratified? I don't. That does not even take into account that the five years recall period started running a year and a half ago for the first of those who were laid off.
----------------
On 4/5/2003 12:49:03 PM TWAnr wrote:
----------------
On 4/5/2003 12:49:03 PM TWAnr wrote:
----------------
On 4/4/2003 11:51:36 PM FA Mikey wrote:
You say, you heard that somewhere. Well, I have heard a lot of things too. Doesn''t necessarily make it true.
----------------
This particular information came from members of the BOD and the Executive committee of the APFA. Do you consider Jeff Bott to be a reliable source? I do. You can choose to believe whatever fairy tales you care to. There is a reason that this union is hiding from its membership the values of the specific work rule changes and the number of furloughs that will result from each particular concession. An ignorant constituency is more likely to follow the pied piper off the cliff.On 4/4/2003 11:51:36 PM FA Mikey wrote:
You say, you heard that somewhere. Well, I have heard a lot of things too. Doesn''t necessarily make it true.
----------------
----------------
Jeff Bott and John Ward hate eachothers guts. I would not believe anything one said about the other, without thinking their was an underlying issue somewhere.
And Bruce Hicks can blame the unions all he wants, but AA did the exact same thing to non-represented employees as the unions did. Do you think any originial TWA personnel in DFW are still there? No. They have all been laid off.
----------------
On 4/7/2003 1:58:55 PM s80dude wrote:
And Bruce Hicks can blame the unions all he wants, but AA did the exact same thing to non-represented employees as the unions did. Do you think any originial TWA personnel in DFW are still there? No. They have all been laid off.
----------------
TWANR is pinning his entire hope for victory on the Allegheny-Mohawk ruling by the old C.A.B. Which was a ruling on a merger of equals. This is everything but.On 4/7/2003 1:58:55 PM s80dude wrote:
And Bruce Hicks can blame the unions all he wants, but AA did the exact same thing to non-represented employees as the unions did. Do you think any originial TWA personnel in DFW are still there? No. They have all been laid off.
----------------
----------------
On 4/7/2003 3:18:58 PM Fly wrote:
----------------
On 4/7/2003 3:18:58 PM Fly wrote:
----------------
On 4/6/2003 10
40 PM FA Mikey wrote:
----------------
Not so. Seniority integration is something unique to the airlines coming from there regulated days as well as the fact at times less than a handful of unions all AFL-CIO represented the entire industry. Reno pilots fought and lost. Reno flight attendants fought and lost. The TW flight attendants have had a string of set backs as well.On 4/6/2003 10
40 PM FA Mikey wrote: ----------------
----------------
Wrong Again! It is not a perogative(sic) of the airline to decide. If the airline isn''t BK (which TWA was not) then the seniority will be integrated into the list, not stapled to the bottom. Had AA waited until TWA went Ch 7 THEN they could justify this seniority issue. AA could have gone to the fire sale just like all the others airlines but AA wanted all the routes, planes, etc so they could say they were the #1 airline now, not UAL...and that included the employees.
There really is no need to fight it out between us, we obviously don''t agree. But when the TWA f/a''s decide to sue, be prepared to lose! It''s not about the economy, 9/11, Iraq War, etc....the judge won''t look at those factors. The law is black and white. AA did NOT wait for a TWA liquidation.
----------------
Well, One TW was bankrupt. In fact AA had to go to court to provide the airline with a second DIP loan to keep it in the air long enough to close the deal. Two there is no Law that requires a seniority merge. Again it is simply something unique to this industry. As far if the TW flight attendants sue. Well, you are too late. They have many lawsuits pending. But they are finding continued set backs, due to the facts of the case. AA and its unions were not only with in there rights to decide seniority issues. It was there duty to protect there dues paying members.
Similar threads
