Sorry but AA was the only airline willing to take over the entire TWA operation.
well that is sort of kind of true..
Continental was not going to take TWA as whole entity and how AA assumed all the debt, what they had intended to do
was basically offer the 400 million for the assets and then TWA would have been reorganized and kept as..
a stand alone airline..(that would have preserved the name and kept a lot of employees on payroll) to me, it appears they really had no intention merging the entire operation into the airline but certainly their plan was not to gut it like AA ended up doing.
there was something about a deadline not being met..and AA ended up the winning bid.
If I am remembering correctly there was also a regional airline that was also willing to pay cash for TWA I think around that same time.. along with NWA's cash bid.
the bottom line was it wasn't that AA was the only airline willing to take TWA as a whole, they were just the successful bidder meeting the deadline, I believe there was an extension that was asked by the regional..and the judge did not allow it.
Delta wanted the 757's back then and now they have them today for a much cheaper price. Not one single airline wanted to "Merge" with TWA, EXCEPT AWA, and AA offered the better deal to purchase the company and not merge with it. So no matter what you say, no one wanted TWA and it's debt and could afford to handle it's debt aside from AA at the time.
the way it played out ..well the other bids should have been considered..
The key word in all of this is ASSETS, AA was willing to take the employee's and not one other bidding airline was willing to do so. TWA had/has alot of dormant routes from the NYC area, that was the reason for the bidding war, as you can see the direction airlines were going in.
If Continental was going to keep TWA as a stand alone, of course the employees would still have jobs, so it was not just AA that was willing to take on the employees, to my understanding under Continental's plan, someone would have to man the ship during the process..correct?
TWA employee's were not screwed, they were given as fair a shake as possible under the conditions.
there was nothing fair in how it played out, but then of course that is JMO.
I think it's sad you would of been o.k. with placing a few thousand more of your own co-workers on the street during NWA's furlough, had NWA done what AA did. Then again if it was happening to you, I bet you would be singing a different tune. As for this McCaskill-Bonds deal, there are plenty of way's around law's. TWA employee's did not deserve there seniority for being employeed at a new company AA. So if that was in place at the time, the fair way was to staple them to the bottom of the AA seniority list. Just like they should of been stapled to any other airlines to protect it's own employees first.
my idea is to respect seniority, that does not mean I am "o.k." with someone getting furloughed, but I am definitely not OK with a Flight Attendant losing all seniority because someone doesnt think they deserve it..
or the forfeiture of Seniority Protections and LPP's like what happened at TWA and their union.
The IAM did what they could do to protect the members, TWA employee's were given as fair a deal as possible given the fact no one besides AA wanted them. I would expect the IAM to have protected myself and co-worker's in the same manner, and stapled the TWA people at the bottom.
I do not think they were treated fairly..
So you are right Diginity, no sugar coating and no lieing from my part. Tired of hearing how unfair it was for them and how everyone but themselves screwed them. They screwed themselves and thought other's should be screwed to protect them, yeah right.
you are interpreting the facts of how it happened completely differently mixed in with your personal opinion.. that seniority is irrelevant in these situations, that is absolutely your right, I can respect an opinion as long as it is taken from all perspectives and a sense of fairness is made available for all.
I interpret the way it was handled as screwing up on both unions part, maybe not intentional for one or another.. but a screw up non-the-less.
it was a learning lesson.