I will prove you wrong! The new TWU seniority lists just came out and I count a total of 2,569 TWU represented people that were TWA. I have not looked at the agents list yet but I would say there are about 900-1000 ex-TWA agents ( I'll look at these lists later). Pilots about 300-500 and management about 1000-1500. So it is way more than 3,000. If AA had not acquired TWA all TWAers would be on the street and most AAers would have been recalled. Just compare the number of flights in AA's hubs and large cities before 9/11 to today. AA has been and will continue to grow in MIA, DFW, LAX, and JFK. STL being totally liquidated would have given the industry a capacity decrease it desperately needed and AA probably would have laid off a lot fewer of it's people. Before the TWA deal in 2001, AA had about 750 aircraft, today, after grounding about 200 (the size of TWA's fleet) AA again has about 750 aircraft.MCI transplant said:<_< No, when aa aquired TWA there were Approx. 22,000 TWA employees! 5 years later there maybe 3,000!!!! ( prove me wrong aa!) The TWA empolyees have acted as a buffer for the now active nAAtives in hard times!! We have gone out to the street in their place! If aa had not aquired TWA, the same people that cry the loudest, about us stealing their jobs, would be out in the street themselfs!!!!! Talk about hypocrisy!!!!!!
[post="290069"][/post]
Nwa On Strike
- Thread starter Skymess
- Start date
- Status
From the AP.
"But it also wanted to lay off about 2,000 workers, almost halving a workforce that is already half the size it was in 2001. And the cuts would be concentrated among the cleaners and custodians.
So in other words the A&Ps are going on strike to protect the nonA&Ps. So much for the claims by the IAM and TWU that the A&Ps will screw other workers once they get to AMFA.
"Northwest has said that other airlines get that work done more cheaply with contractors."
And what airline might that be? Guess who got rid of those workers back when the company was making money? If you guessed the TWU at AA you would be right!!!
"But it also wanted to lay off about 2,000 workers, almost halving a workforce that is already half the size it was in 2001. And the cuts would be concentrated among the cleaners and custodians.
So in other words the A&Ps are going on strike to protect the nonA&Ps. So much for the claims by the IAM and TWU that the A&Ps will screw other workers once they get to AMFA.
"Northwest has said that other airlines get that work done more cheaply with contractors."
And what airline might that be? Guess who got rid of those workers back when the company was making money? If you guessed the TWU at AA you would be right!!!
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #19
Just because you keep repeating the lies, dosen't make it true.
Delusional. We bought you guys and gave you a job. We didn't make 9/11 happen. If it didn't you'd still be working. If we never bought you we'd have had more money to weather 9/11 a little better.
[post="290039"][/post]
Delusional. We bought you guys and gave you a job. We didn't make 9/11 happen. If it didn't you'd still be working. If we never bought you we'd have had more money to weather 9/11 a little better.
Bob, don't you think that if NWA AMFA made a deal with NW that included eliminating all non-A@P jobs, like UA AMFA did, that it would give those same non-A&Ps solid proof in a DFR lawsuit against AMFA? I'm not a lawyer, but if that would have been the case, one could show a pattern of discriminatory behavior aimed at non-A&Ps at these two airlines by AMFA. I think AMFA defended the non-A&Ps at NW (and they made sure everyone knew that they did) in order to NOT have a certain "pattern of behavior".Bob Owens said:
aafsc said:
Perhaps, it depends on how they handled those displaced.
The TWU and AA were defendants in such a lawsuit brought forward by our building cleaners who saw their jobs eliminated by the TWU/AA. They won, and they were awarded full back pay. Of course they have not been paid yet.
In the TWU/AA case there were no special considerations such as liscence requirements to do the job, the workers could have been moved to Fleet Service but the TWU/AA chose to simply put them on the street despite the fact that they had manyyears of service.
From the NY Times:
"Of one thing I am absolutely certain," said Terry Trippler, an industry travel expert. "This is the battle between management and labor that will set the tone for airline-labor relations for many years to come, many years."
Did labor learn anything from Patco, Lorenzo etc?
If you ask the TWU they will tell you that their concessionary history has increaed membership.
If you look at what has happened to workers in this industry it looks as if they do not have unions.
"Of one thing I am absolutely certain," said Terry Trippler, an industry travel expert. "This is the battle between management and labor that will set the tone for airline-labor relations for many years to come, many years."
Did labor learn anything from Patco, Lorenzo etc?
If you ask the TWU they will tell you that their concessionary history has increaed membership.
If you look at what has happened to workers in this industry it looks as if they do not have unions.
kirkpatrick
Veteran
If TWA had not been purchased, thousands would have been furloughed in the aftermath of 9/11 anyway. Who would have gone then?aafsc said:
MK
kirkpatrick said:
Sorry Mark, I responed to Skymess's original posting in a moment of weakness. It really was not my intention to turn this thread into flames. I know that you're a true gentleman, and it's not your style, but I was feeling a bit feisty today.
I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of running to another airline's picket line in order to show support, while you've got a dirty little mess right in your own backyard. What a big bunch of phonies.
I guess what I've learned these past 2 years as an unemployed APFA member, is that, union or no union, it's every man/woman for themself. It's the AA union way to do things.
STL totally liquidated would have decreased the overcapacity in the market place and all of the 20,000 ex-TWA people would be gone. AA would probably still have laid people off but the TWA people would not have been included because they never would have been at AA in the first place. All of the origional AA hubs and focus cities are at pre 9/11 levels and growing. And like I posted earlier, the fleet count is now about where it was before 9/11 and before the TWA deal. So I would venture to say that if AA had never bought TWA's assets, AA would have laid people off after 9/11 like all the others but they would all or almost all have been recalled a while ago due to AA growing and attrition.kirkpatrick said:
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2003
- 5,311
- 584
- Banned
- #29
<_< aa---- Boy, I wish I had your Christal Ball!!! It told you all that??? Anyone can "speculate" at "what if"!!! What if Trans World Corp. hadn't spon off the Airline! TWA would still own: Hilton Inernational Hotels, Spartain Foods, "Hardy's Hambergers, Cetury 21 realestate, and others! All bought, and paid for with TWA money!!! "What if" Uncle Carl Ichan had bought aa when he was looking at it in the 80's?? Now, there's a thought!! "What if" TWA had continued to fly though 9/11??? Now I know where you get all your information! From that Christal Ball!! Boy! Wouldn't it be nice if we all had one!!! But we don't! And neither do you!!!aafsc said:
NewHampshire Black Bears
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 10,154
- 681
buhbye said:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I"ve got news for you buhbuy,
The ONLY ****ING Union AA has now is,
THE CREDIT "UNION" !!
NH/BB's
- Status
