But you could have said no we are not signing away anything and waited for the next bidder. But I would guess that IAM knew that if the deal with AA didn't go through the other options for its members might not be so good. At that time most of the TWA'ers wanted the deal to go through. AA was giving TWA cash to stay alive. If the AA deal didn't go through then it would allow other bidders in to cut up the company and who knows what with the employees. No other bidder made any promises about keeping the employees let alone giving them a raise.
Come celebrate the first anniversary of AA's TWA purchase.
- Thread starter AAquila
- Start date
AC AA LA FA
Veteran
...and if your entire contract was to be thrown out by the judge..and you had not signed off?...then where would you be...certianly not at 100% senority on all fronts..Do you think giving up bidding senority would have even been a option on the part of APFA? Either way a battle and waste of time and money would be at hand..The way I see it is that you most certianly got one leg up on gaining issues, the other option would have been starting from zero on all fronts..I still after all this can not see why LLCers can just be content.. It is sooo much more than others could hope for..especially in these times and the given facts sourounding TWA and the purchase agreement...really.......
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 10/15/2002 10:34:05 PM MiAAmi wrote:
[P]But you could have said no we are not signing away anything and waited for the next bidder.[/P]
[P]----------------[/P][/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]In all honesty, what do you really think that would have done? I'll tell you: Judge Walsh would have just thrown out the entire contract and moved on. By this point, this deal was well past the point of no return. AA and TWA were going to merge--done deal. At that point, the [STRONG]only [/STRONG]options were to sign and keep most of the contract, or not sign and lose the whole contract.[/P]
[P]So, it's not literally a gun pointed at the head, but looking at the simple facts it's easy to see that there was definately more than a bit of corecion going on here, and tough decisions made under duress. Some here will disagree, but ultimately it's the judge who will decide. [/P]
[P] [/P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 10/15/2002 10:34:05 PM MiAAmi wrote:
[P]But you could have said no we are not signing away anything and waited for the next bidder.[/P]
[P]----------------[/P][/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]In all honesty, what do you really think that would have done? I'll tell you: Judge Walsh would have just thrown out the entire contract and moved on. By this point, this deal was well past the point of no return. AA and TWA were going to merge--done deal. At that point, the [STRONG]only [/STRONG]options were to sign and keep most of the contract, or not sign and lose the whole contract.[/P]
[P]So, it's not literally a gun pointed at the head, but looking at the simple facts it's easy to see that there was definately more than a bit of corecion going on here, and tough decisions made under duress. Some here will disagree, but ultimately it's the judge who will decide. [/P]
[P] [/P]
Cart Pusher
Advanced
- Aug 20, 2002
- 146
- 0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/15/2002 10:34:05 PM MiAAmi wrote:
AA was giving TWA cash to stay alive. If the AA deal didn't go through then it would allow other bidders in to cut up the company and who knows what with the employees.
----------------
[/blockquote]
This statement is taken completely out of context. Nobody every said anything about TW going up to the chopping block if AA didn't save the day. AA offered to buy TWA because they saw value in them. They ran into an obstacle, the Karabu agreement, and decided that the only way around the obstacle was for TW to file bankruptcy. Not only did that relieve AA of that burden but also much other debt. AA gave TW $$ after TW filed for bankruptcy as a condition of the purchase. If AA hadn't ridden in on their white horse, who can guess what may have happened. TW may have closed up after 9/11 and then again, they may have gone the way of America West and taken a different course. We'll never know. One thing we do know, TWA's death was not imminent without AA.
----------------
On 10/15/2002 10:34:05 PM MiAAmi wrote:
AA was giving TWA cash to stay alive. If the AA deal didn't go through then it would allow other bidders in to cut up the company and who knows what with the employees.
----------------
[/blockquote]
This statement is taken completely out of context. Nobody every said anything about TW going up to the chopping block if AA didn't save the day. AA offered to buy TWA because they saw value in them. They ran into an obstacle, the Karabu agreement, and decided that the only way around the obstacle was for TW to file bankruptcy. Not only did that relieve AA of that burden but also much other debt. AA gave TW $$ after TW filed for bankruptcy as a condition of the purchase. If AA hadn't ridden in on their white horse, who can guess what may have happened. TW may have closed up after 9/11 and then again, they may have gone the way of America West and taken a different course. We'll never know. One thing we do know, TWA's death was not imminent without AA.
AC AA LA FA
Veteran
I would think it only natural for there to be some..duress..while working thru an airline deal of this size? Where were these decisions to be made? After a weekend at the spa? This is business, airline business, with government and regulatory agiencies monitering the entire transaction...a sence of urgency is part of the gig.........
Cart Pusher
Advanced
- Aug 20, 2002
- 146
- 0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/16/2002 3
55 AM MiAAmi wrote:
However, had TWA been a profitable operation no one would have needed to ride in and make a deal. Everyone seems to forget that TWA approached AA, not the other way around.
----------------
[/blockquote]
AA isn't a profitable operation today, what's your point? Does AA need someone to ride in and make a deal? TWA was the last airline that wasn't a part of an alliance, and it didn't look like one was in the works. TWA realized there only hope was to align themselves with another major or to merge into one.
AA isn't in the business of saving failing airlines for sentimental reasons. They surely were sniffing around at TW and took over because they saw value in it. They didn't buy TWA just to save them from going the way of Braniff, Pan Am and Eastern.
----------------
On 10/16/2002 3
55 AM MiAAmi wrote: However, had TWA been a profitable operation no one would have needed to ride in and make a deal. Everyone seems to forget that TWA approached AA, not the other way around.
----------------
[/blockquote]
AA isn't a profitable operation today, what's your point? Does AA need someone to ride in and make a deal? TWA was the last airline that wasn't a part of an alliance, and it didn't look like one was in the works. TWA realized there only hope was to align themselves with another major or to merge into one.
AA isn't in the business of saving failing airlines for sentimental reasons. They surely were sniffing around at TW and took over because they saw value in it. They didn't buy TWA just to save them from going the way of Braniff, Pan Am and Eastern.
kirkpatrick
Veteran
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/15/2002 10:32:29 PM AC AA LA FA wrote:
...and if your entire contract was to be thrown out by the judge..and you had not signed off?...then where would you be...
----------------
[/blockquote]
Without any contract at all for the period between the acquisition and the takeover by AA unions this spring. An entire year without anything in writing concerning work rules, hours of service, vacation, rates of pay, etc. We all knew that the deal was almost certain to go through. It was a question of being protected for the interim period or having nothing at all in writing to protect us.
And remember, the company didn't want the scope clauses thrown out because they contained language about seniority preservation (as do AA's current contracts); they couldn't live with provisions such as the prohibition against foreign nationals flying our flights, etc.
MK
----------------
On 10/15/2002 10:32:29 PM AC AA LA FA wrote:
...and if your entire contract was to be thrown out by the judge..and you had not signed off?...then where would you be...
----------------
[/blockquote]
Without any contract at all for the period between the acquisition and the takeover by AA unions this spring. An entire year without anything in writing concerning work rules, hours of service, vacation, rates of pay, etc. We all knew that the deal was almost certain to go through. It was a question of being protected for the interim period or having nothing at all in writing to protect us.
And remember, the company didn't want the scope clauses thrown out because they contained language about seniority preservation (as do AA's current contracts); they couldn't live with provisions such as the prohibition against foreign nationals flying our flights, etc.
MK
kirkpatrick
Veteran
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/15/2002 10:34:05 PM MiAAmi wrote:
But you could have said no "we are not signing away anything" and waited for the next bidder.
----------------
[/blockquote]
There seems to be a misunderstanding about the whole process here. It wasn't a question of the deal not going through if we didn't sign away the scope clause. It was made clear that we would sign away the clauses that AA felt got in the way or the entire contracts would be thrown out and the deal would go through without them. What would you do in that case?
Throwing out scope clauses didn't prevent some of our pilots from getting some seniority, and it didn't stop some of our mechanics and ramp service from getting some seniority. I don't object to your wanting us stapled; you're entitled to think whatever you wish. Just don't use the signing away of the scope clause as your excuse. It's a bad argument and anyone who understands the situation knows it. If we had not signed off the scope clauses you'd still want us stapled. If we had not been in bankruptcy you'd still want us stapled.
Think what you wish. Just stop using those phony arguments.
MK
----------------
On 10/15/2002 10:34:05 PM MiAAmi wrote:
But you could have said no "we are not signing away anything" and waited for the next bidder.
----------------
[/blockquote]
There seems to be a misunderstanding about the whole process here. It wasn't a question of the deal not going through if we didn't sign away the scope clause. It was made clear that we would sign away the clauses that AA felt got in the way or the entire contracts would be thrown out and the deal would go through without them. What would you do in that case?
Throwing out scope clauses didn't prevent some of our pilots from getting some seniority, and it didn't stop some of our mechanics and ramp service from getting some seniority. I don't object to your wanting us stapled; you're entitled to think whatever you wish. Just don't use the signing away of the scope clause as your excuse. It's a bad argument and anyone who understands the situation knows it. If we had not signed off the scope clauses you'd still want us stapled. If we had not been in bankruptcy you'd still want us stapled.
Think what you wish. Just stop using those phony arguments.
MK
MileHighGuy
Member
- Oct 14, 2002
- 61
- 0
Did Compton (otherwise known as the sellout king of the century) attend the festivities? Probably not. He's too busy counting the millions he made for selling TWA to AA.
The choice was one of two. Sign away your rights to your occupational seniority. Which you did. The other option was to possibly work with out a contract. We all here how AA would have gutted there work rules and vactions and everything else they had. Not true. What would AA have done. Most likely continued to use the same work rules as you had. As it was your contract was continually amended to more closely match ours. So its possible AA could have even just instituted our agreement for yours. Had you choose this avenue and had you and IAM dropped your objection to the single carrier ruling. Working under our agreement pay, work and vaction would have been much sooner. The picture you all liks to cast of former TW people working 20 hour duty days, 10 days in a row. No vaction or medical coverage. Is nothing but absurd.
MK foreign nationals under our agreement could not work your flights. So that was not at issue.
MK foreign nationals under our agreement could not work your flights. So that was not at issue.
MK you are correct. NO matter who the carrier was we were going to take on. Butout, Merge or assest purchase. Occupational seniority, goverened by our CBA's would be handled exactly the same. You all knew it as well. Only a few short years ago Reno was bought out and merged in to AA. All Occupational seniority was started at day one.
We dont offer a free ride on occupational seniority. Not to new hires. Not to intercompany transfers. Not to employees of other companys. Nothing unique or different happened here. IAM knew full well what was going to happen. I say they choose the easy road and gave away the scope.
We dont offer a free ride on occupational seniority. Not to new hires. Not to intercompany transfers. Not to employees of other companys. Nothing unique or different happened here. IAM knew full well what was going to happen. I say they choose the easy road and gave away the scope.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/16/2002 2:30:37 AM Cart Pusher wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/15/2002 10:34:05 PM MiAAmi wrote:
AA was giving TWA cash to stay alive. If the AA deal didn't go through then it would allow other bidders in to cut up the company and who knows what with the employees.
----------------
[/blockquote]
This statement is taken completely out of context. Nobody every said anything about TW going up to the chopping block if AA didn't "save the day". AA offered to buy TWA because they saw value in them. They ran into an obstacle, the Karabu agreement, and decided that the only way around the obstacle was for TW to file bankruptcy. Not only did that relieve AA of that burden but also much other debt. AA gave TW $$ after TW filed for bankruptcy as a condition of the purchase. If AA hadn't ridden in on their "white horse", who can guess what may have happened. TW may have closed up after 9/11 and then again, they may have gone the way of America West and taken a different course. We'll never know. One thing we do know, TWA's death was not imminent without AA.
----------------
[/blockquote]
AA said more than once in the precedings, they were prepared to walk away. Karabu and scope among them. AA gave TW cash (DIP) in the begining of the process. AA had to go to court to provide a second loan to TW in BK court. So they could keep flying. I guess you believe TW would have tried chapter11 one more time. Third times the charm as they say. Would they be people lined up to offer money yet again to a carrier unable to make any sort of profit up to this point. There comes a time the people with the planes and money just take it back, and say No more.
----------------
On 10/16/2002 2:30:37 AM Cart Pusher wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/15/2002 10:34:05 PM MiAAmi wrote:
AA was giving TWA cash to stay alive. If the AA deal didn't go through then it would allow other bidders in to cut up the company and who knows what with the employees.
----------------
[/blockquote]
This statement is taken completely out of context. Nobody every said anything about TW going up to the chopping block if AA didn't "save the day". AA offered to buy TWA because they saw value in them. They ran into an obstacle, the Karabu agreement, and decided that the only way around the obstacle was for TW to file bankruptcy. Not only did that relieve AA of that burden but also much other debt. AA gave TW $$ after TW filed for bankruptcy as a condition of the purchase. If AA hadn't ridden in on their "white horse", who can guess what may have happened. TW may have closed up after 9/11 and then again, they may have gone the way of America West and taken a different course. We'll never know. One thing we do know, TWA's death was not imminent without AA.
----------------
[/blockquote]
AA said more than once in the precedings, they were prepared to walk away. Karabu and scope among them. AA gave TW cash (DIP) in the begining of the process. AA had to go to court to provide a second loan to TW in BK court. So they could keep flying. I guess you believe TW would have tried chapter11 one more time. Third times the charm as they say. Would they be people lined up to offer money yet again to a carrier unable to make any sort of profit up to this point. There comes a time the people with the planes and money just take it back, and say No more.
A
ART
Guest
Me thinks FU Mickey has ghost writer, or suddenly became quite literate in the aspects of aviation, employment and governmental law!
AC AA LA FA
Veteran
ART.....What F/A Mikey has done is responded clearly on the issues posted on this board with the facts as they are..In my opinion he has had the most acurate angle on all this with the FACTS of the intention of the agreement..We might not all like them..but they do speek for themselves..I would take his corner any day..............
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Investor looking for serious changes at Southwest- Latest: Jalsporteam
-
-