Last Day of a Former TWA FA Who's Being Furloughed

[HottootrotNyc]

It's sad all this is still going on at AA this many years later. While I wish everyone back to work quickly, I will agree with other posts stated, about people hired off the street for AA, that will never ever have a chance to come back on property.

I am a current member of the IAM and I will say they are in my opinion, the biggest thieves out there. When the talk of a UAL and CAL merger came about. I had a feeling in the pit of my stomach, us at CAL would be lost to UAL's huge numbers. While our marriage would be a full on merger, if it actually had happen, and not a buy-out like TWA, date of hire would not of worked for us because UAL is so big.

I think in my opinion, AA should of just sat back and watched the entire US Airways and UAL mess pan out, instead of buying an airline that would of died on it's own. While harsh to say, anyone who knows anything about the airline industry knew where TWA was headed, before AA rescued what was left of the company. I only wish the TWA people could finally face what they knew all along and better planned ahead for the future. I wish all of you much luck, and hope even those with no recall rights somehow get them back and AA expands. AA was once my dream airline to work for. I even kept the invite to training I got after I had finished training with Delta, AA at the time was the place to be!

 

[Maark767]

It's sad all this is still going on at AA this many years later. While I wish everyone back to work quickly, I will agree with other posts stated, about people hired off the street for AA, that will never ever have a chance to come back on property.

I am a current member of the IAM and I will say they are in my opinion, the biggest thieves out there. When the talk of a UAL and CAL merger came about. I had a feeling in the pit of my stomach, us at CAL would be lost to UAL's huge numbers. While our marriage would be a full on merger, if it actually had happen, and not a buy-out like TWA, date of hire would not of worked for us because UAL is so big.

I think in my opinion, AA should of just sat back and watched the entire US Airways and UAL mess pan out, instead of buying an airline that would of died on it's own. While harsh to say, anyone who knows anything about the airline industry knew where TWA was headed, before AA rescued what was left of the company. I only wish the TWA people could finally face what they knew all along and better planned ahead for the future. I wish all of you much luck, and hope even those with no recall rights somehow get them back and AA expands. AA was once my dream airline to work for. I even kept the invite to training I got after I had finished training with Delta, AA at the time was the place to be!

Very WELL said.... It was just a matter of time before TWA was going to fold... we all knew that but once AA bailed them out and TWA was on AA property, TWA employee's attitudes changed over night. They believed that TWA was going strong and the outlook was good. Nobody mentions that AA had to front TWA 200mil to keep it going until the purchase was complete. They also sing the song that other carriers were interested in buying them....
Aside from all that, I do hope AA recalls all furloughed F/A's .... Good luck..

 

[aafsc]

AA fronted a lot more than $200 million to TWA in order to keep it alive until the deal closed. You might want to add another $125 million in cash in addition to letting the aircraft manufacturers keep the deposits on flight equipment.

With respect to the furloughs, I still believe that AA should offer 5 and 5. This might induce enough people to retire allowing for recalls and eventual hiring from the street.

 

[FA Mikey]

Its really not going to be enough. They would have to do a deal like Delta did, and I dont see that happening at all. Plus where are the people taking a out going to go? The Bush recession sucks and there is not much out there to get into.

I do have 2 more friends who are back in school and looking to make the break in the next year or so. But even they are a rarity.

 

[jimntx]

With respect to the furloughs, I still believe that AA should offer 5 and 5. This might induce enough people to retire allowing for recalls and eventual hiring from the street.

There is no financial advantage to a buyout. Because the former TW f/as were given pay seniority, most of them are at top of scale. So offering buyout packages to top-of-scale senior f/as would cost money, but not really save any. In fact, it might cost the company and the pension plan a good bit of cash if a lot of people retired and opted for the lump sum option in fear that the pension plan might be gutted/eliminated after they retire, as has happened at other airlines.

I know if I were retiring right now, I would rather have a known amount of cash now that I could then invest as I see fit rather than a monthly annuity that may or may not be a "lifetime" annuity.

 

[IORFA]

Where you getting a lump sum from? Texaco? Not AA.

 

[HottootrotNyc]

Thanks Maark767.... I know this subject is a very difficult one and usually these end up being blocked. It is nice how so far opinions expressed, have also been tied in with all factual information. Out of all the former TWA people I have ever met, only one actually said what I felt was true about the company. She said in her 30 years at TWA she really got nothing and when she was able to, took her retirement and ran. Thankfully her time came just before the buy-out went into place.

I understand that alot of TWA people are upset because they feel AA promised them certain things but I feel they need to remember, it's important for a company to protect the current workforce first. I agree, that is what AA did. I also think had 9/11 not happened, and bush not voted in, the TWA people although junior, would be sitting pretty. Sadly, it doesn't always go that way and I really hope that last few who just can't seem to move on do. I would love to sit down and show them the facts of TWA's position right before the take over. AA not only fronted the company 200 Million to keep operating, but over 100 million to keep aircraft leases, and TWA also had no money left for fuel. AA also footed TWA's fuel bill, for aslong as needed.

I met a guy who was on the TWA's board and I struck up a conversation with him, he stated "TWA basically ran out of time". They had great plans for the company but Flight 800 made a HUGE impact on the company, and from then on the company really only had positive operating quater's, almost never full positive operating years. The lease rates on all the new aircraft were extremely high, and they had no assets. He also stated if the partnership and merger had happened with AWA, TWA would of been in no better of a position. It basically came down to the AA deal, or Chapter 7. They chose the AA deal to save what they could.

 

[jimntx]

Sorry, most Defined Benefit pension plans include a lump sum distribution option. I assumed that AMR's did also. At most companies they actually prefer for you to take the lump sum because then they are done with you and don't have to worry about paying "over" if you live longer than the actuarial tables said you were going to live.

In any case, my point still stands. Offering a buyout to top-of-scale people is of no advantage unless you are replacing them with people (aka, saving furloughs) who are less than top-of-scale. There would have to be over what? 2000 f/as? take the buyout before it would do more than break even.

Besides, a buyout might be something that f/as might actually want. We can't have AMR offering anything like that, now can we?

 

[HottootrotNyc]

Isn't it true that almost all 17,000 of AA's Flight Attendant's are at top pay? What is the last year of hired F/A's on the list, aside from the 2001 TWA people? Anyone hired around 95 and before, should be at top pay if it's a 14-15 year pay scale. Or am I wrong?

 

[AAStew]

Isn't it true that almost all 17,000 of AA's Flight Attendant's are at top pay? What is the last year of hired F/A's on the list, aside from the 2001 TWA people? Anyone hired around 95 and before, should be at top pay if it's a 14-15 year pay scale. Or am I wrong?

We are at a 17 year pay scale if I am not mistaken. So those from 95 who lost a year or two from furlough are at 12-13 years. (I think.) I for one would take a buy out. Give me my retirement and flight benefits and I am gone.

 

[jimntx]

No, an AA f/a reaches TOS at 15 years. There are at least 4700 active f/as who are not TOS. This is out of 16899 f/as on the active roster. The most junior active f/a is seniority 16,899. The most senior f/a not yet at 15 years (she reaches 15 years in July this year) is seniority, 12,199. Do the math.

There might be more than that if some of those whose bidding seniority (aka, original hire date and which never changes) is prior to 01APR94 were ever furloughed thereby changing their company seniority as happened to me. My bidding seniority is, and always be in Sept. 2000; however, my company seniority which determines my pay rate is January, 2002 to account for my 17 month furlough.

Anyone hired after 01APR94 by simple math has not yet reached 15 years whether furloughed or not. So, approx. 28% of the active corps are not at top of scale.

 

[AAStew]

No, an AA f/a reaches TOS at 15 years. There are at least 4700 active f/as who are not TOS. This is out of 16899 f/as on the active roster. The most junior active f/a is seniority 16,899. The most senior f/a not yet at 15 years (she reaches 15 years in July this year) is seniority, 12,199. Do the math.

Nope, I am too tired to do the math...thanks for doing it!

 

[Royal Ambassador]

I really hope things pick up and we wind up calling people back as opposed to sending more out.

How ironic that these sentiments are expressed by the same person who posted this message only a few days earlier:

Here's the unpopular thought of the week: Why don't they just furlough the 1500 that we're still over now?

...Those of us flying are also well aware that we have a major overage that hasn't even been dented with the latest furloughs.

 

[Skymess]

How ironic that these sentiments are expressed by the same person who posted this message only a few days earlier:

Take it out of context, why don't you?

Here's the thought process: If they'd furlough what they really need now and trim all the waste we would do well enough that we could call all the people we need to call back sooner. If we just keep canning a few at a time, we're gonna be doing this for a long time to come.

To further dilute the point of this thread I'll reiterate that I make no bones about my stance on seniority. I never have. I got what I wanted. When I fly with or meet former TWA people I don't antagonize them or treat them poorly. There are quite a few of them who would probably blow your mind by telling you that they really enjoyed meeting me and flying with me.

I don't want anyone furloughed for various reasons. I just can't see how it does us any good to keep running along overstaffed and announcing a furlough every other month. But I'm not in charge so this is going to be how it is, apparently.

Now, Ralph, I really think another thread needs to be killed off. Thanks to all those duds who ruined the sentiment of my original post. The usual suspects.

 

[Ralph]

As requested.