Twa Seniority Lawsuit Dismissed

[FA Mikey]

Correction:

In TWA's heyday that had close to 14 or more 747's.

[post="206004"][/post]​

At least 18 for TWA around the same time AA had 14 747's themselves

 

[MCI transplant]

At least 18 for TWA around the same time AA had 14 747's themselves

[post="206030"][/post]​

<_< In fact, a.a. least two 747SP's from TWA for a short period of time!

 

[aafsc]

You must be assuming that if AA is acquired, management won't come to you and say, "Well, you either have to give up this Scope clause or the deal won't go through. The company will be out of business and you will be out of a job. But, don't worry, the acquiring company's unions are going to negotiate with you."

[post="206002"][/post]​

Two alternatives:

1. No waiving of scope and let the company shut the doors.
2. Waive scope, be stapled, and ACCEPT it (no whining, crying, or lawsuits).

 

[MCI transplant]

My point was that the statements made by the TWA people about using their TWA seniority to go to AA cities (TUS) and fly AA aircraft (777) show that they fully expected to keep their full seniority (even though the labor protective provisions were removed from their contracts). As far as the former TWA aircraft AA is still flying (about 64 MD-80's and 19 757's, with the remainder of the former TWA MD-80's sitting in the desert) they were basically the F-100 replacement. If AA had not purchased the TWA assets, then the F-100s would probably still be around. As for pilots, according to an ex-TWA pilot on the SJ board ( and I think that this man was a union offical at TWA), there are about 600 ex-TWA pilots still flying for AA and another 400 retired from AA. If you subscribe to the TWA pilots with TWA aircraft theory, then 83 former TWA aircraft that AA currently operates should equal 830 TWA pilots. (83 aircraft times 5 crews per aicraft times 2 pilots per crew.) So you have 600 pilots still flying plus the 400 that retired from AA equals 1000 pilots. So we have an excess of 170 former TWA pilots. If TWA would have shut down completely, all TWA people would have been out of work and that is a capacity reduction that the industry could have used. If the TWA people kept their full seniority at AA, then the AA people would have served as a cushion for the TWA people. Yes, the TWA people would have went straight to the top of the seniority lists at the airline we built and enjoyed (at that time) the highest wages and benefits that we fought for.

[post="205961"][/post]​

<_< Speaking about all those ex-TWA aircraft! I believe I've heard that a greavance was written last week. It contends that under the Kasher rulling, all former TWA aircraft should be maintained by exTWA people! In other words
here in MCIe, and STL, not TUL, or AFW!!! Most of these Aircraft were converted to a.a. configuration here, then the work, and jobs, were taken to TUL, and AFW! The same people who converted these same exTWA aircraft were then layed off!!!!!!! :down: Another example of "fair and equidable?"

 

[aafsc]

Correction:
1. TWAers transfering to AA cities where TWA never operated, loose all their AA job senority.
2. Iin TWA's heyday that had close to 14 or more 747's.

[post="206004"][/post]​

1. I was talking about right after the deal was announced that the TWA rampers were talking about using their TWA seniority to go to citites where TWA did not operate (and be on the top of the seniority list of that city).

2. Just like TWA, AA at one time HAD just as many 747s (Passenger and Cargo).

 

[MCI transplant]

<_< And yes, I realise some were convered at TUL also! But that's not the point! Point is they are "ex-TWA" aircraft!!!!

 

[aafsc]

<_< Speaking about all those ex-TWA aircraft! I believe I've heard that a greavance was written last week. It contends that under the Kasher rulling, all former TWA aircraft should be maintained by exTWA people! In other words
here in MCIe, and STL, not TUL, or AFW!!! Most of these Aircraft were converted to a.a. configuration here, then the work, and jobs, were taken to TUL, and AFW! The same people who converted these same exTWA aircraft were then layed off!!!!!!! :down: Another example of "fair and equidable?"

[post="206054"][/post]​

I thought that AA swapped the 737s (from MCI to TUL) in exchange for some MD-80s (TUL to MCI). Maybe the announced groundings of the MD-80s (15 upcoming plus the 24 now sitting in the desert) have someting to do with it. Also doesn't MCI still do the ex-TWA 757s? I would think that they would have to use the Pratt and Whitney test cell (which is in MCI) for the engines on those planes. Also, have all the ex-TWA MD-80's sitting in the desert been converted to AA or are they still under the TWA specifications?

 

[AAquila]

1. I was talking about right after the deal was announced that the TWA rampers were talking about using their TWA seniority to go to citites where TWA did not operate (and be on the top of the seniority list of that city).

2. Just like TWA, AA at one time HAD just as many 747s (Passenger and Cargo).

[post="206055"][/post]​

You're right, that's all there is in those Ramp break-rooms, TALK, never any real substance. The TWU has done little to educate it's members on the Kasher ruling, they would much rather sit on their hands and do nothing.

Allowing this hatred to build up between the two groups during an upcoming RIF, is the worse kind atmosphere to work under.

Management's answer: Any problems, go see the union, first.

 

[aafsc]

You're right, that's all there is in those Ramp break-rooms, TALK, never any real substance. The TWU has done little to educate it's members on the Kasher ruling, they would much rather sit on their hands and do nothing.

Allowing this hatred to build up between the two groups during an upcoming RIF, is the worse kind atmosphere to work under.

Management's answer: Any problems, go see the union, first.

[post="206071"][/post]​

First, there is absolutely no hatrid between the nAAtives and former TWA at my city. In fact we all go out to eat and go to parties together. Obviously, the former TWA people are not happy with the seniority. Some blame the company and some blame the union. But there is no animosity between individuals. The seniority issue is a passionate issue for both groups. The few times the issue was discussed, we respectfully listened to each others views. Most people think we spend all day yelling and screaming at each other. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The TWA people I work with are good people and I feel just as bad for them getting laid off as I do for myself and the other nAAtives.

 

[MCI transplant]

I thought that AA swapped the 737s (from MCI to TUL) in exchange for some MD-80s (TUL to MCI). Maybe the announced groundings of the MD-80s (15 upcoming plus the 24 now sitting in the desert) have someting to do with it. Also doesn't MCI still do the ex-TWA 757s? I would think that they would have to use the Pratt and Whitney test cell (which is in MCI) for the engines on those planes. Also, have all the ex-TWA MD-80's sitting in the desert been converted to AA or are they still under the TWA specifications?

[post="206059"][/post]​

<_< To best answeer you, yes, we did continue working MD-80's, we always have! So it wasn't really a swap! The two MD80 lines we currently are working are winding down, and at this time, there are no further aicraft schduled in here after june of next year! But I'll quote a curtain indivigual, "there are 64 exTWA MD80's flying arround" If they're not being worked here, than where? The point of the grevance is, that "ALL" former TWA aircraft are our work!!!! Although, I don't claim to know all the pros. & Cons. of this greavance, because I personally haven't read it! Talk arround the floor is that a.a. is only interested in signing a lease on our two larger "Super Bays"!

 

[aafsc]

<_< To best answeer you, yes, we did continue working MD-80's, we always have! So it wasn't really a swap! The two MD80 lines we currently are working are winding down, and at this time, there are no further aicraft schduled in here after june of next year! But I'll quote a curtain indivigual, "there are 64 exTWA MD80's flying arround" If they're not being worked here, than where? The point of the grevance is, that "ALL" former TWA aircraft are our work!!!! Although, I don't claim to know all the pros. & Cons. of this greavance, because I personally haven't read it! Talk arround the floor is that a.a. is only interested in signing a lease on our two larger "Super Bays"!

[post="206077"][/post]​

I don't know the details of this grievence, in fact, this is the first time I heard of it. Overall, I agree with you on this one because Kasher seems to have based his ruling on "what the respective groups brought to the table". He might rule that since there are currently 83 former TWA aircraft (64 MD-80s and 19 757s) flying around in the AA system that there has to be a commensurate number of former TWA overhaul mechanics to perform heavy maintanence on these aircraft. I'm speculating, but if it is true that AA will only sign a lease for the two "super bays", would that not be just enough hangar space to perform heavy maintanence on 83 planes?

 

[bradybyrnes]

Well, not quite F/A TWA. The promise was not for arbitration of the seniority issue, the process was for a facilitator to facilitate a process between APFA and IAM over seniority and a process to integrate the work groups. AA agreed to use its reasonable best efforts to see that that process took place and to abide by the results of that process. Then AA secretly met with APFA without IAM or the facilitator and signed the SIA. AA broke many of its promises, APFA only one that I am aware of and that was that there would be no stapling. In my mind, the greater liability lies with AA who made their promises to Congress and failed to uphold them.

[post="205915"][/post]​

I would like to know with whom from the APFA ever made a statement promising not to staple TWA at the bottom. Why has this person never been mentioned in your complaints filed in court. Again may you all find peace with your April 2001 seniority date. For your own health and happiness move on. This is a dead issue. Appeal for the next 50 years. The IAM/TWA flight attendants waived all SCOPE and protection language and that is a fact you can try to spin, but will never convince native AA, or the courts otherwise. L-1011 you need to check your facts. You have drank to much TWA kool-aid. TWA was dead in the water. Accept reality people.

 

[aafsc]

<_< And yes, I realise some were convered at TUL also! But that's not the point! Point is they are "ex-TWA" aircraft!!!!

[post="206058"][/post]​

Since were talking about division of work, you are correct TUL did convert some TWA aircraft to AA specifications. But MCIe for a while did the new 737s and they still do overhaul AA's 767-200s.

 

[L1011Ret]

I would like to know with whom from the APFA ever made a statement promising not to staple TWA at the bottom. Why has this person never been mentioned in your complaints filed in court. Again may you all find peace with your April 2001 seniority date. For your own health and happiness move on. This is a dead issue. Appeal for the next 50 years. The IAM/TWA flight attendants waived all SCOPE and protection language and that is a fact you can try to spin, but will never convince native AA, or the courts otherwise. L-1011 you need to check your facts. You have drank to much TWA kool-aid. TWA was dead in the water. Accept reality people.

[post="206086"][/post]​

The evidence that APFA told the TWA F/As that they would not be stapled WAS submitted with the complaint. True the TWA F/As waived the right to an arbitrated seniority settlement under Allegheny-Mohawk procedures BUT only in response to AA's promise to hire a facilitator and use their reasonable best efforts to achieve a "fair and equitable" seniority integration so that TWA F/As received benefits equal to similarly situated AA F/As. That included seniority. The TWA F/As DID NOT WAIVE ALL SCOPE AND PROTECTION LANGUAGE - check the court rulings. In fact the court was convinced that the TWA F/As did not waive all protections.
You really ought to check the facts before you embarass yourself with your lack of knowledge.

There were about 10 charges in the lawsuit. The Judge dismissed charge #1 because the TWA F/As did not file a grievance under the RLA. She dismissed the other 9 charges because she said the Railway Labor Act takes precedence over civil suits for damages. If you read it closely, she found he charges have merit but cannot be processed under tort laws.

 

[kirkpatrick]

Half of the TWA workforce are SCABS anyway. It would be no shock if they crossed. Once a SCAB, always a SCAB!!!!!!!!!

[post="205801"][/post]​

It would be difficult to find a workforce anywhere in any industry that showed the strength and solidarity shown by the TWA FA's in the strike of '86. Of 6800 FA's, only about thirty crossed on the first day. Of 444 FA's stranded on international, with all expenses including hotels halted by the company, only six worked or volunteered to work their flights home.

The company was back to near 100% capacity within a month of the strike, but when the strike ended weeks later, eleven weeks total, 80% of the FA's were still honoring the strike. 5400 of us lost our jobs in that action. And remember: the president of the United States didn't call Icahn and say, "Hey, Carl, let's end this thing."

You guys are justifiably proud of the expert way your strike was handled. It was one of the finest examples of effective striking I've ever seen, both in its planning and in its result. But it only lasted five days. What percentage of your people crossed in those five days? How many would have crossed if it had dragged into weeks?

You owe the TWA FA's an apology for your remarks.

MK