Aal Nwa Merger? Forbes Magazine

[MCI transplant]

The only "fair and equitable" way to merge any seniority list would be a staple job according to the AA unions. So if there were another merger on the horizon between AA and NWA, Those NWA folks would have to be under the TWA folks. All on the street of course.

[post="289185"][/post]​

<_< People, I really don't want to go there! We've been over this ground so many times. Besides, I really don't feel aa's mamagement really wants another
Airline, with all it's problems! If Arpy really did this, it would be the same thinking Carty had when he aquired TWA, and look where it got him!!! No, I really don't think there is much chance of it happening!!!!

 

[MCI transplant]

Hey MCI, you said that you would file a lawsuit if AA merged with another airline and those employees were dovetailed. Who would you sue? Kasher? After all, he is the one who decided legally. The unions or AA did not make the decision.

[post="289279"][/post]​

<_< aa----- If you read what I said, you'de know who I'de sue, and why! And that "why" would have nothing to do with the Kasher ruling!!!! Read Boy, Read!!!!

 

[Hopeful]

And who at the former TWA would want to go to an AA base with the aaitudes the naatives have?

[post="289278"][/post]​

They have no problem coming to JFK and preach the "we got screwed" mantra!
What a country, TWAers have almost a total of 4 1/2 years with an AA paycheck since 4/10/01 where they got 25% occupational seniority, 100% company time for vacation picks, they ALL got grandfathered in under the pre 1989 reitiree medical prefunding which have much lower rates regardless of age than most AAers hired after 1989 and they ALL got the pension credit TO THE DAY WITHOUT LOSING THE FIRST YEAR OF VESTING!

They never mention the original AAers who were displaced by them to the street!

I wish AA would adopt the NWA plan: GET RID OF HALF THE MECHANICS AND OUTSOURCE!

 

[Wretched Wrench]

I wish AA would adopt the NWA plan: GET RID OF HALF THE MECHANICS AND OUTSOURCE!

[post="289313"][/post]​

Have you thought that through?

 

[Hopeful]

Have you thought that through?

[post="289335"][/post]​

Yes I have. The AA takeover of TWA destroyed morale. especially at JFK. That coupled with the industry leading concession package put the icing on the cake.

I don't believe changing unions of any name can undo the damage to morale. AMFA. TEAMSTERS, TWU will never repair the damage.
AA ers were affected by the TWA takeover. I don't hear any complaints there!

And now we hear of a potential merger with NWA to top it off?

 

[operaations]

yes AAers were affected. I will not see a prime shift with weekends or holidays off for at least 10 years. I work in Operations SOC and the TWA people we got all have 30 plus years seniority. They got raises. They get the good shifts..holidays...and do not even try to become better more effecient employees. I have never said this because i didnt want to complain about the merger. But every topic MCI and others bring it up. I got screwed. ...life goes on

 

[Wretched Wrench]

"If anything, start listening for talk about even more mergers and consolidations come next spring.

"That's what the industry turns to as a logical solution for survival," he says.


From:

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2005-0...e-outlook_x.htm

 

[Hopeful]

yes AAers were affected. I will not see a prime shift with weekends or holidays off for at least 10 years. I work in Operations SOC and the TWA people we got all have 30 plus years seniority. They got raises. They get the good shifts..holidays...and do not even try to become better more effecient employees. I have never said this because i didnt want to complain about the merger. But every topic MCI and others bring it up. I got screwed. ...life goes on

[post="289358"][/post]​

Why should they?

They resort to lawsuits and the "poor us" defense!

 

[WorldTraveler]

Given that AA will never get its hands on UA's Pacific routes, if they want anything else they will have to go after NW.

The coming year will see lots of capacity cut from the industry and AA will be no exception. Cuts at other carriers like NW and DL which carry lots of connecting passengers will provide opportunities for AA to strengthen its position. However, the MD-80 is in the top tier of most expensive planes to operate on a fuel CASM basis; fuel cost compared to the 737-800 is almost 50% higher. If fuel remains as high as it is now, AA has no choice but to start ditching Super 80s. Although AA has a very strong network and large local markets, the large number of MD-80s is an issue that will factor into AA's future. Picking up the best assets from another airline and their best airplanes could well be what American needs to do.

 

[FWAAA]

Given that AA will never get its hands on UA's Pacific routes, if they want anything else they will have to go after NW.

[post="289391"][/post]​

Agreed. As I've posted many times, NW is really cheap now compared to five years ago when Carty explored buying NW. NW demanded about $100/sh and AA said too expensive. Not long afterward, the TWA purchase was announced.

With NW at under $6/sh, those China frequencies and the NRT operation are really cheap. AA should move quickly to tie this up.

As you point out, buying the UA asian operations doesn't look as likely as it did a year and a half ago.

 

[eolesen]

However, the MD-80 is in the top tier of most expensive planes to operate on a fuel CASM basis; fuel cost compared to the 737-800 is almost 50% higher. If fuel remains as high as it is now, AA has no choice but to start ditching Super 80s.

[post="289391"][/post]​

No, we do have a choice -- we can start re-engining them. Engineering has been looking at that for some time now.

There's nothing wrong with the airframe -- Douglas built their aircraft to run for forty or fifty years. There are still a hundred or so DC3/4/5/6 in commercial service. Compare that to the number of Boeing props still in service.... or the number of DC8's vs 707's.

 

[Wretched Wrench]

.... or the number of DC8's vs 707's.

[post="289428"][/post]​

Got any numbers on that?

 

[MCI transplant]

No, we do have a choice -- we can start re-engining them. Engineering has been looking at that for some time now.

There's nothing wrong with the airframe -- Douglas built their aircraft to run for forty or fifty years. There are still a hundred or so DC3/4/5/6 in commercial service. Compare that to the number of Boeing props still in service.... or the number of DC8's vs 707's.

[post="289428"][/post]​

<_< Somehow didn't aa aquire some new DC-9 Aircraft, with state of the art avionics, fuel effent engines, from TWA? And didn't they dump them as quick as posible? I believe they were called 717's!!!!!! :down: Whoops!!!!!!

 

[aafsc]

Agreed. As I've posted many times, NW is really cheap now compared to five years ago when Carty explored buying NW. NW demanded about $100/sh and AA said too expensive. Not long afterward, the TWA purchase was announced.

With NW at under $6/sh, those China frequencies and the NRT operation are really cheap. AA should move quickly to tie this up.

As you point out, buying the UA asian operations doesn't look as likely as it did a year and a half ago.

[post="289402"][/post]​

Yes, AA could get NW for a pretty good price right now. The route systems are very complimentary. AA does not have a large presence in Asia. NW does and they have an all freigher operation (16 747 freighters I believe) and they don't have that much competition from the SWs and Jetblues in their domestic hubs (MSP, DTW, and MEM).But would AA want to assume all their debts, pensions, leases, their non-matching fleet types, their terrible labor relations, deal with seniority integration, and the large cost of integrating operations? Would the pain be worth the gain?

 

[aafsc]

<_< Somehow didn't aa aquire some new DC-9 Aircraft, with state of the art avionics, fuel effent engines, from TWA? And didn't they dump them as quick as posible? I believe they were called 717's!!!!!! :down: Whoops!!!!!!

[post="289460"][/post]​

I agree. The 717s were said to be very fuel efficient and I think AA should have kept them. There are many routes that would have been perfect for that aircraft. I think AA got rid of them because the leases were too high and they wanted to eliminate a fleet type. AA did their analysis and they determined it would save more money by dumping this fleet type. I have to wonder, if they knew that oil was going to be $65 a barrel (compared to $30 a barrel when they did the analysis) would they have come to a different conclusion and decided it would have been better to keep them?