Upcoming Election

[jimstras]

Hi Everyone,

This is an exchange between myself and Tony Leonhardt, LAX, who is a strong
supporter of Tommie Hutto-Blake for APFA President. I am just attempting to
play "devil's advocate" here with him in order to clarify issues. Really we
are looking at in this APFA election a choice between the "evil of two
lessers" rather than the "lesser of two evils"! Maybe this exchange will
help you in your decisions.

Trice Johnson MIA
-----Original Message-----
From: Trice Johnson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 9:17 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: Tommie Hutto-Blake

--- In [email protected], "Trice Johnson" <j_trice@b...> wrote:
Tony,

The problem for me with Tommie is NOT the John Ward alleged seniority "scare
tactic" issue that so many people are talking about. However, it IS a
legitimate question given the fact that Tommie has advocated for "dialogue"
with TWA. She needs to clarify and explain what she means by dialogue. What
does she want to see NOW with TWA? Furthermore, people DO have a
legitimate right to question why in the world 1500 people from TWA cast
their vote for THB in the initial balloting given the undisputed fact that
TWA F/A's interests are clearly in winning some seniority. This vote is now
ON RECORD and can not be ignored. These ARE legitimate concerns regarding
whose interest is representing who and where the alliances lay.

Tommie has no sense of strategy it seems which concerns me regarding her
future role in negotiating with AA. Why do I say this? If she had an ounce
of understanding of strategy she would have "dialogued"
with the TWA people and told them to NOT vote for her in the first round of
voting in order to avoid controversy. She should have "dialogued" with them
and told them to vote for her in the SECOND round (current voting climate)
and told them that this is the time when she needs their votes. I do believe
that she could have influenced them there if she had been strategically
"dialoguing"
with the TWA's leadership ie. Cooper and others.

More importantly, if I remove myself entirely from my role in negotiations
and knowing John Ward or THB, and just look at their voting records, Tommie
Hutto Blake does NOT get my vote hands down.

1)She advocated and voted FOR T/A I (Hedges); 2)she actively supported
voting FOR the Restructuring Agreement; 3)she advocated for early
preparations for post 9/11 concessions dialogue BEFORE the company came to
us; 4)she apparently has no understanding of political and election strategy
(see above) Other peripheral items that are not as important but marginally
relevant include 1) her seniority (too too senior and her voting record
confirms this concern as her YES votes always benefited the pre-retirement
people
primarily) and 2) she will be retiring shortly after her possible tenure as
President and will not have to work under any new agreements.

BTW, regarding point 3 above. I do not understand this "early" need for
post 9/11 concessionary preparations when in fact Ward and negot. team had
just completed negotiations with the company pre
9/11 and were fully aware of the cost valuations of items within the
contract. The other unions it seems to me needed to make these early
preparations as they had not been in active negotiations. Correct me if I am
wrong here. I was AGAINST early dialogue with the company given our
knowledge of the contract valuations from negotiations and I voted AGAINST
almost everything that Tommie has supposedly voted FOR (including her
alleged vote for B Scale many moons ago). A vote for Tommie from me would
be akin to me voting for Jesse Helms at his age of 90 plus if he suddenly
claimed to have seen the light and will now vote FOR (including gay
rights)issues he had spent his
entire tenure in the Senate voting AGAINST. One has to vote
primarily on RECORD and not on RHETORIC.

But, I am willing to hear Tommie in the debate for certain and not willing
to write Tommie off completely as I do think she is a better
consensus builder within APFA. Her communication skills and
overall personality are more engaging than John's. John sometimes does not
talk enough which leads to confusion; Tommie sometimes talks entirely too
much which leads to annoyance.

One should not read this email as an "endorsement" of John Ward either. No
endorsement from me or others can counteract the effect of a negative
impression created by a candidate and both John Ward and Tommie Hutto-Blake
leave many negative impressions. I do not feel strongly enough about either
candidate to consider a public stance by me at this time FOR either
candidate. I am merely attempting to use critical thinking skills to break
through the morass of distortion here.

Let's see what the debate brings as far as "dialogue."

Just my thoughts,

Trice in MIA

--- In [email protected], "Tony Leonhardt" <TonyLA1@a...> wrote:
> Dear 4m friends and adversaries,
>
> I have to say I had a wonderful day, today. I campaigned with THB
at
> LAX. It was unbelievably rewarding.
>
> While I have to say that almost everyone we approached expressed
> concern about what they perceived to be John Ward's only campaign
> issue, his "scare issue," they were all willing to stop and listen
to
> Tommie. She looked them all right in the eye and asked them to
look
> her back in the eye. She then told them - "Contrary to John
Ward's
> assertions" - and then she would say once again "look me in the
> eye..." - "I will not nor have I ever been willing to sacrifice
one
> minute of your seniority to TWA. It's a Ward campaign scare
tactic."
>
> I witnessed the shoulders drop, the tension subside, the true
relief
> that these F/A's felt. They didn't want to vote for JW but he had
> scared the hell out of them into believing that THB was going to
> sacrifice their (our) seniority to get elected. A brilliant campaign
> "scare tactic" but then again, what else does he have to campaign
> with? It's actually pitiful.
>
> I could sense the F/A's relief in knowing that what they had been
> hearing was not true - but that they just wanted to hear it from the
> "horse's mouth." Well, they heard it, loud and clear. We
also
> made several personal phone calls to some of these F/A's friends
who
> were also straddling the fence. Those calls made all the
difference
> in the world - these F/A's did not want to believe John Ward's
lies
> about the seniority issue but they wanted to hear it from Tommie
> themsleves. So she called them!
>
> People, Tommie, try as she may, can't speak to everyone
personally.
> It's impossible with a union of over 25,000 members, active and
> furloughed, who all have a vote. It's up to you to pass on this
> information about John Ward's lies and scare tactics to your
friends
> and colleagues. Your seniority is NOT in jeopardy, no matter who wins
> this elecion. Your future as a professional F/A, though,
is.
> You just have to vote - and so do your friends - call them - right now
> - and make them vote. Your future depends on ir.
>
> Please remember, Tommie Hutto-Blake was the first elected VP of
APFA,
> back when one could only be a white, female, single woman under 30 who
> worked as a "stewardess" for a maximum of 18 months. Tommie
> Hutto-Blake dedicated her life to ensuring that the F/A "job"
would,
> indeed, become a "career."
>
> Unfortunately, that "career" is quickly transforming itself back
into
> a "job."
>
> So... who do you trust with your future? One who has spent most
of
> her working life turning our "job" into a "career" or one who has
so
> arrogantly turned our "career" back into a "job?"
>
> John Ward gave you a hurried RPA and changed the vote, how many times?
> Now he is asking you to re-elect him. If that is your
choice,
> go for it. Tommie and her TEAM have one goal and goal only - to
> repair the damage done by the RPA and John Ward, to restore faith
in
> the APFA, to mentor a new generation of APFA leaders by including
> those who have so selfishly offered themselves up as candidates
for
> National Office and by including their ideas in the formulation of
> future APFA policy...
>
> So...
>
> Choose wisely.
>
> Be informed - and inform your colleagues.
>
> Tony Leonhardt - LAX
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Please - check out both sites:
>
> www.backontherighttrack.com
>
> and
>
> www.reelectward.com
>
> Your informed decision will shape the future of the APFA...
--- End forwarded message ---

 

[L1011Ret]

Jeeze, I used to respect Trice, but the idea that THB asked for the TWA vote and the TWA vote is solely about seniority lacks any credability whatsoever.

 

[IntelligentObserver]

Billy...

You have way too much time on your hands. Get a life, or get a new issue.

Neither AA nor APFA here. I have just observed how twisted you are about this whole issue WHICH DOES NOT AFFECT YOU ANYWAY.

Where is the BS filter on this board, anyway???? I'm tired of having to wade through your endless posts and threads to find something which actually has something to do with the airline.

 

[L1011Ret]

Look at the post I referred to and ask yourself if it is credible. Please be kind enough to show me one of my posts that does not refer to AA, its unions, or TWA personnel. If you can do that, then I will be happy to review my posts to see if they reply to the contents and issues being discussed on these threads. Be an "intelligent observer" in your reply.

 

[L1011Ret]

I want to add to my reply to "intelligentobserver" that I do have a stake in this matter. My spouse is a furloughed AA/TWA f/a and has been badly treated in this whole matter. A great injustice has been done.

It seems the main argument from AA f/as perspective is that they wanted to protect their seniority AT AMERICAN AIRLINES. I can fully understand that position. However, TWA f/as worked at TWA LLC and technically are still employees of TWA LLC. As American as acknowledged, TWA f/as were not employees of AA at the time the SIA was put into place. APFA represented that they represented the TWA f/as even though they were f/as of TWA LLC, no different than Eagle f/as that APFA does not represent. So in "representing" the TWA f/as not at AA but at TWA LLC, APFA should have had a duty to meet with the representatives of the TWA f/as. They did not. As one candidate formerly running for President of APFA noted, this may be Ward's stupidest, aarogant mistake.

It cannot be ignored that AA in the form of Carty made various promises to the TWA work groups including "fair and equitable" and "equal" layoffs. Those promises were made in writing and before Congress in hearings on the expedious purchase of TWA. The purchase was contingent upon those promises. AA and Carty did not keep those promises by any strech of the imagination. That alone is enough for a breech of contract claim.

I understand wanting to protect seniority at AA, but taking somebody else's at another company is an entirely different matter. It is expected that either JW or THB will defend the SIA to the hilt, but in many ways it is rrelevant if the promises of AA were not kept. JW will not tell you this because it impacts his use of the seniority argument to get re-elected. I also find it rather disconcerting that the elected leadership of APFA is not really making information about the status and claims in the seniority lawsuit to APFA members. In other words, an election is in progress in part over issues that the leadership of APFA is being less than forthcoming about. Politics will be politics. Hopefully a jury will decide.

 

[jsn25911]

belligerant observer - (did you mispell you title)

I wasn't aware that you could were "the one" to specify who can post on this board and who can not.

 

[jsn25911]

I want to add to my reply to "intelligentobserver" that I do have a stake in this matter. My spouse is a furloughed AA/TWA f/a and has been badly treated in this whole matter. A great injustice has been done.

It seems the main argument from AA f/as perspective is that they wanted to protect their seniority AT AMERICAN AIRLINES. I can fully understand that position. However, TWA f/as worked at TWA LLC and technically are still employees of TWA LLC. As American as acknowledged, TWA f/as were not employees of AA at the time the SIA was put into place. APFA represented that they represented the TWA f/as even though they were f/as of TWA LLC, no different than Eagle f/as that APFA does not represent. So in "representing" the TWA f/as not at AA but at TWA LLC, APFA should have had a duty to meet with the representatives of the TWA f/as. They did not. As one candidate formerly running for President of APFA noted, this may be Ward's stupidest, aarogant mistake.

It cannot be ignored that AA in the form of Carty made various promises to the TWA work groups including "fair and equitable" and "equal" layoffs. Those promises were made in writing and before Congress in hearings on the expedious purchase of TWA. The purchase was contingent upon those promises. AA and Carty did not keep those promises by any strech of the imagination. That alone is enough for a breech of contract claim.

I understand wanting to protect seniority at AA, but taking somebody else's at another company is an entirely different matter. It is expected that either JW or THB will defend the SIA to the hilt, but in many ways it is rrelevant if the promises of AA were not kept. JW will not tell you this because it impacts his use of the seniority argument to get re-elected. I also find it rather disconcerting that the elected leadership of APFA is not really making information about the status and claims in the seniority lawsuit to APFA members. In other words, an election is in progress in part over issues that the leadership of APFA is being less than forthcoming about. Politics will be politics. Hopefully a jury will decide.

L1011 - I enjoy reading your post. I appreciate that you keep up on things and kindly inform us of what is occurring. Thanks. (I am in school and do not have the time to stay up on the latest - so I appreciate your help).

 

[L1011Ret]

Thank you. There is one more interesting part that APFA is not informing you about, that the TWA f/as claim in Federal Court is not about the proceedures of the Railway Labor Act (RLA) but about a failure to live up to promises made at the time of purchase. That issue is not a RLA issue and is rather to irrelevant to what APFA said or did. I hope your schooling works out well for you.

 

[IntelligentObserver]

belligerant observer - (did you mispell you title)

I wasn't aware that you could were "the one" to specify who can post on this board and who can not.

Isn't it always the way of the intellectually deficient, such as yourself, jsn, that they must resort to name calling to get their point across?

Nice try, though.

 

[IntelligentObserver]

I want to add to my reply to "intelligentobserver" that I do have a stake in this matter. My spouse is a furloughed AA/TWA f/a and has been badly treated in this whole matter. A great injustice has been done.

It seems the main argument from AA f/as perspective is that they wanted to protect their seniority AT AMERICAN AIRLINES. I can fully understand that position. However, TWA f/as worked at TWA LLC and technically are still employees of TWA LLC. As American as acknowledged, TWA f/as were not employees of AA at the time the SIA was put into place. APFA represented that they represented the TWA f/as even though they were f/as of TWA LLC, no different than Eagle f/as that APFA does not represent. So in "representing" the TWA f/as not at AA but at TWA LLC, APFA should have had a duty to meet with the representatives of the TWA f/as. They did not. As one candidate formerly running for President of APFA noted, this may be Ward's stupidest, aarogant mistake.

It cannot be ignored that AA in the form of Carty made various promises to the TWA work groups including "fair and equitable" and "equal" layoffs. Those promises were made in writing and before Congress in hearings on the expedious purchase of TWA. The purchase was contingent upon those promises. AA and Carty did not keep those promises by any strech of the imagination. That alone is enough for a breech of contract claim.

I understand wanting to protect seniority at AA, but taking somebody else's at another company is an entirely different matter. It is expected that either JW or THB will defend the SIA to the hilt, but in many ways it is rrelevant if the promises of AA were not kept. JW will not tell you this because it impacts his use of the seniority argument to get re-elected. I also find it rather disconcerting that the elected leadership of APFA is not really making information about the status and claims in the seniority lawsuit to APFA members. In other words, an election is in progress in part over issues that the leadership of APFA is being less than forthcoming about. Politics will be politics. Hopefully a jury will decide.

Billy...

The way I understand it, though, is that the TWA flight attendants' desire for Date of Hire integration would result in the furlough of thousands of incumbent AA flight attendants.

You say, "I understand wanting to protect seniority at AA, but taking somebody else's at another company is an entirely different matter." That is exactly what the TWA flight attendants appear to be hoping for...the exercise of seniority rights at AA, when, in fact, they never worked for AA, but for TWA LLC. Since the pie is only so big, this will result in incumbent AA flight attendants being forced to the streets.

Your argument reeks of hypocrisy, Billy.

 

[FA Mikey]

Its amazing that anyone could suggest that preparing for the eventuality of concessions wouldn't have been the most prudent move by the union president. Exactly how long do some of these so called scholar believe we could continue to bleed money and the company would not seek relief from some form of employee compensation. The determine factor would in the end have to be the financial health. The fact is that JW waited till the last second and even then told AA no way. Until he was pulled in to a room and told under no uncertain terms he would participate, through ultimatum given from the leaders of the other two unions in the discussions and present a package to his membership. They simply would not allow the idiot APFA president be the down fall of the corporation. Of course this is the same boob who was going to let us go to a PEB thinking that he could get a better deal there than he could actually negotiate at the table. Talk about Vegas odds and our future. No way JW you are going back to the line or to another company!

 

[jsn25911]

belligerant observer - (did you mispell you title)

I wasn't aware that you could were "the one" to specify who can post on this board and who can not.

Isn't it always the way of the intellectually deficient, such as yourself, jsn, that they must resort to name calling to get their point across?

Nice try, though.

Belligerant observer: I must have really hit the "nail on your head"


All I want to say to you is that you should not tell other people on this board - that they should get a life and quit posting as you did with L1011. If that isn't belligerant - I don't know what is.

Because I called you on your belligerant behavior - you didn't like being caught to the truth.

 

[IntelligentObserver]

belligerant observer - (did you mispell you title)

I wasn't aware that you could were "the one" to specify who can post on this board and who can not.

Isn't it always the way of the intellectually deficient, such as yourself, jsn, that they must resort to name calling to get their point across?

Nice try, though.

Belligerant observer: I must have really hit the "nail on your head"


All I want to say to you is that you should not tell other people on this board - that they should get a life and quit posting as you did with L1011. If that isn't belligerant - I don't know what is.

Because I called you on your belligerant behavior - you didn't like being caught to the truth.

jsn...

From the frequency, volume and tone of your posts, too, JSN, you are seriously in need of getting a life, as well...same as Billy.

You appear to be very tightly wound. There are meds for that, you know.

 

[jsn25911]

Thank you. There is one more interesting part that APFA is not informing you about, that the TWA f/as claim in Federal Court is not about the proceedures of the Railway Labor Act (RLA) but about a failure to live up to promises made at the time of purchase. That issue is not a RLA issue and is rather to irrelevant to what APFA said or did. I hope your schooling works out well for you.

L1011

I find it interesting that this is keep secret and not openly shared with the AA f/a's.

I would hope that someone would start sharing the real issue of this. I understand why Ward wouldn't want this information out - since his platform is the SIA. Some are blindly trusting him like they did with the voting, the negotiations, the ...........................I could go on and on! At what point does the real issues come to play?

 

[IntelligentObserver]

L1011

I find it interesting that this is keep secret and not openly shared with the AA f/a's.

I would hope that someone would start sharing the real issue of this. I understand why Ward wouldn't want this information out - since his platform is the SIA. Some are blindly trusting him like they did with the voting, the negotiations, the ...........................I could go on and on! At what point does the real issues come to play?

As an outsider, I really have no vested interest in this situation. However, I find this drama, as played out on this board, to be very interesting, especially when reading the obviously ridiculous assertions of the TWA people here who seem intent on beating down every person who dares disagree.

From what I gather, the "promises" to which Billy refers were made by AA, which were not binding upon the union, making his latest assertion rather ridiculous.