We voted twice because a no vote would have sent AA to BK and we would be working under very different agreement. I think he protected the membership by pushing for the RPA... he knew what things would look like if AA had a BK judge on their side.
Also John did not screw the TWA f/as .... It ALL came from AA and made the union look like the bad guy...
We didn't vote twice. We voted once and it was a "no" vote. You go back to the table. The ONLY reason the vote had to be "done" by a certain date was the SEC report. AA knew that when the rank and file employees found out about the planned bonus payouts and other executive "perks" there would be no shared sacrifice. How can you begin to say that opening the vote and only allowing yes votes is honorable?
This issue has NOTHING to do with the SIA. This has to do with the treatment of all AA f/as. He "protected" the membership? He is not our father. If the company had negotiated in good faith, I would have no problem with the outcome. But the whole process was filled with childish antics which only served the elite executives. F/as are at the bottom of the labor food chain and for anyone to say that AA would have filed because of them just isn't so. Sometimes you need to know when to play hard ball and unfortunately JW was only up to T-ball. JW didn't screw the TWA f/as, he shared the "wealth". He screwed his entire membership.
As for voting blocks, it all boils down to how apathetic the f/as are in any given election. TH=B has been very benign compared to JW. "Do no harm"? I have been "disappointed" that LOAs have been signed without securing anything in return (extended recall or the addition of single block reserve spread days, any number of items) for the "help". In the end, I would "pit" her LOAs vs JWs loss of 6000 jobs, plus the illegal vote and TH-B would come out WAY on top.
I hope there will be someone with superior leadership qualities that will agree to throw their name into the mix for the next election. Unfortunately, people tend to vote for names they know and in many instances are "afraid" of anyone new. And then they complain about the same old being the same old.
And to clear up any misunderstanding re: RENO. They (especially) should have been given DOH. Under Allegheny-Mohawk it speaks to "remaining the same" which is why TWA should have been slotted, NOT DOH. It all boils down to relative seniority and the example I have always used is my own seniority. I haven't looked at the overall list so this is just an example. I was 1-14-1970. At TWA, I was approximately 1/4 down the seniority list out of 4200. DOH I would have been in the low 1000s out of 24000, which would equal "super seniority". Slotted by % I would have been around 6000. RENO by virtue of their being more junior to begin with would have had a different % value. Probably DOH. So please don't EVER think that we thought we were superior to RENO. Just the opposite. Your own past precedent of DOH to Air Cal and Trans Carib indicates a different approach (and everyone survived and now are happily entwined..lol) Had this issue gone to an arbitrator, I believe the outcome would have been different because of those other two. (and RENO would have benefited) It is what it is and those returning are doing just fine at the bottom so this is really a moot issue.
