Come celebrate the first anniversary of AA's TWA purchase.
- Thread starter AAquila
- Start date
B
bagsmasher
Guest
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.
No he's not busy counting his 1.5 million, I heard he was inducted into the Used Car Salesman Hall of Fame for selling that lemon to AA just before the bottom dropped out of the market.
No he's not busy counting his 1.5 million, I heard he was inducted into the Used Car Salesman Hall of Fame for selling that lemon to AA just before the bottom dropped out of the market.
kirkpatrick
Veteran
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/16/2002 4:56:48 PM AC AA LA FA wrote:
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..----------------
[/blockquote]
It is Mikey's opinion that we should be stapled. His facts are about as good as his spelling. For example, he continues to insist that our signing away our scope clauses was signing away our right to receive any seniority. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just look at the pilots. They signed away the same scope clauses in their contract, yet slightly under half of them were feathered in with AA pilots beginning at about seniority #2500 at a ratio of 8.17 to 1 after that. The IAM-represented mechanics and ramp service people received some seniority in an arbitration although they signed away their scope clauses as well.
Staple me if you wish. Just cut out the stupid argument that we signed away our rights. We did no such thing. We signed away language which REQUIRED that we receive date of hire seniority, virtually the same language your current contract contains. We did NOT sign away the right to negotiate an agreement different from the one imposed on us.
MK
----------------
On 10/16/2002 4:56:48 PM AC AA LA FA wrote:
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..----------------
[/blockquote]
It is Mikey's opinion that we should be stapled. His facts are about as good as his spelling. For example, he continues to insist that our signing away our scope clauses was signing away our right to receive any seniority. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just look at the pilots. They signed away the same scope clauses in their contract, yet slightly under half of them were feathered in with AA pilots beginning at about seniority #2500 at a ratio of 8.17 to 1 after that. The IAM-represented mechanics and ramp service people received some seniority in an arbitration although they signed away their scope clauses as well.
Staple me if you wish. Just cut out the stupid argument that we signed away our rights. We did no such thing. We signed away language which REQUIRED that we receive date of hire seniority, virtually the same language your current contract contains. We did NOT sign away the right to negotiate an agreement different from the one imposed on us.
MK
kirkpatrick
Veteran
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/16/2002 10:17:12 AM FA Mikey wrote:
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.
----------------
[/blockquote]
We didn't think AA would eliminate vacation or medical coverage. It was the uncertainty as to just what they would do. Nobody knew. As it was, we were protected by the provisions of our contract until yours took over, a scenario which was definitely better than no contract at all.
We never feared foreign nationals would work our flights. But our contract prevented the company from using any foreign nationals at all. Obviously AA could not take on a contract which contained such language, even though they had no plans to use Argentinians between STL and IND.
Remember, our contracts were agreements between our unions and TWA. When AA bought us they became a party to those contracts, and reviewed them carefully, insisting that certain clauses they could not agree to abide by be thrown out. AA doesn't give a damn about occupational seniority.
MK
----------------
On 10/16/2002 10:17:12 AM FA Mikey wrote:
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.
----------------
[/blockquote]
We didn't think AA would eliminate vacation or medical coverage. It was the uncertainty as to just what they would do. Nobody knew. As it was, we were protected by the provisions of our contract until yours took over, a scenario which was definitely better than no contract at all.
We never feared foreign nationals would work our flights. But our contract prevented the company from using any foreign nationals at all. Obviously AA could not take on a contract which contained such language, even though they had no plans to use Argentinians between STL and IND.
Remember, our contracts were agreements between our unions and TWA. When AA bought us they became a party to those contracts, and reviewed them carefully, insisting that certain clauses they could not agree to abide by be thrown out. AA doesn't give a damn about occupational seniority.
MK
Unlike the pilots. A flight attendant can be qualified to fly any number of planes. Pilots can not. Flight attendants can work any position. Pilots can bid only the position they are current on.
The pilots and the company had to work out something, that keeps the LLC operational. They may be feathered in at eight to one. There are restrictions as to what they can fly over their career is limited to protect the AA pilots, who picked this company to fly for.
The pilots and the company had to work out something, that keeps the LLC operational. They may be feathered in at eight to one. There are restrictions as to what they can fly over their career is limited to protect the AA pilots, who picked this company to fly for.
A
ART
Guest
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/17/2002 10:54:35 AM FA Mikey wrote:
Unlike the pilots. A flight attendant can be qualified to fly any number of planes. Pilots can not. Flight attendants can work any position. Pilots can bid only the position they are current on.
The pilots and the company had to work out something, that keeps the LLC operational. They may be feathered in at eight to one. There are restrictions as to what they can fly over their career is limited to protect the AA pilots, who picked this company to fly for.
----------------
[/blockquote]
1. Ever hear of common cockpits, some airlines actually have the foresight to arrange their fleets so at least 2 a/c?
2. Ever hear of a captain flying seat #2?
3. Are you a cockPit member as well?
----------------
On 10/17/2002 10:54:35 AM FA Mikey wrote:
Unlike the pilots. A flight attendant can be qualified to fly any number of planes. Pilots can not. Flight attendants can work any position. Pilots can bid only the position they are current on.
The pilots and the company had to work out something, that keeps the LLC operational. They may be feathered in at eight to one. There are restrictions as to what they can fly over their career is limited to protect the AA pilots, who picked this company to fly for.
----------------
[/blockquote]
1. Ever hear of common cockpits, some airlines actually have the foresight to arrange their fleets so at least 2 a/c?
2. Ever hear of a captain flying seat #2?
3. Are you a cockPit member as well?
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/17/2002 6:49:30 PM ART wrote:
1. Ever hear of common cockpits, some airlines actually have the foresight to arrange their fleets so at least 2 a/c?
2. Ever hear of a captain flying seat #2?
3. Are you a cockPit member as well?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Art,
Mikey is correct. The aircraft at TWA are common with AA, howsomevercomma the differences are enough to prevent a swapping of crews between companies.
1. So not always does this mean you can switch back and forth like we can on our five types of 767 with the additional type that is at TWA.
2. I can refuse to fly #2.
3. He's not, I am.
Richard Kisselbach
----------------
On 10/17/2002 6:49:30 PM ART wrote:
1. Ever hear of common cockpits, some airlines actually have the foresight to arrange their fleets so at least 2 a/c?
2. Ever hear of a captain flying seat #2?
3. Are you a cockPit member as well?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Art,
Mikey is correct. The aircraft at TWA are common with AA, howsomevercomma the differences are enough to prevent a swapping of crews between companies.
1. So not always does this mean you can switch back and forth like we can on our five types of 767 with the additional type that is at TWA.
2. I can refuse to fly #2.
3. He's not, I am.
Richard Kisselbach
glasspilot
Member
FA Mikey said: >> Don Carty said and offered everyone at TW a fair deal in seniority. AA worked it out with our flight attendants, rampers, mechanics, pilots the gate, ticket and res agents.
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 10/19/2002 1:13:33 AM ART wrote:
[P]
[P]1. Who is Richard Kisselbach? [/P]
[P]----------------[/P][/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]If one were to use the common, abbreviated version of this supposed first name, you would have the precise word that many use to describe this individual.[/P]
[P]It's not Rich, it's not Rick--but that's only one letter off [/P]
[P] [/P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 10/19/2002 1:13:33 AM ART wrote:
[P]
[P]1. Who is Richard Kisselbach? [/P]
[P]----------------[/P][/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]If one were to use the common, abbreviated version of this supposed first name, you would have the precise word that many use to describe this individual.[/P]
[P]It's not Rich, it's not Rick--but that's only one letter off [/P]
[P] [/P]
A
ART
Guest
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/17/2002 7:18:19 PM Tharseo wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/17/2002 6:49:30 PM ART wrote:
1. Ever hear of common cockpits, some airlines actually have the foresight to arrange their fleets so at least 2 a/c?
2. Ever hear of a captain flying seat #2?
3. Are you a cockPit member as well?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Art,
Mikey is correct. The aircraft at TWA are common with AA, howsomevercomma the differences are enough to prevent a swapping of crews between companies.
1. So not always does this mean you can switch back and forth like we can on our five types of 767 with the additional type that is at TWA.
2. I can refuse to fly #2.
3. He's not, I am.
Richard Kisselbach
----------------
[/blockquote]
1. Who is Richard Kisselbach?
2. Say hi to Robin!
3. Some airlines even had the foresight to have common cockpits in some of their fleet mix so they can cross fly A/C. Not such a bad idea these days.
4. Smith, I dont got to show you no stinkin Smith!
4.1. Why would anyone refuse to fly #2, better than street.
5. Bye
Regards - follow the ----->
----------------
On 10/17/2002 7:18:19 PM Tharseo wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/17/2002 6:49:30 PM ART wrote:
1. Ever hear of common cockpits, some airlines actually have the foresight to arrange their fleets so at least 2 a/c?
2. Ever hear of a captain flying seat #2?
3. Are you a cockPit member as well?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Art,
Mikey is correct. The aircraft at TWA are common with AA, howsomevercomma the differences are enough to prevent a swapping of crews between companies.
1. So not always does this mean you can switch back and forth like we can on our five types of 767 with the additional type that is at TWA.
2. I can refuse to fly #2.
3. He's not, I am.
Richard Kisselbach
----------------
[/blockquote]
1. Who is Richard Kisselbach?
2. Say hi to Robin!
3. Some airlines even had the foresight to have common cockpits in some of their fleet mix so they can cross fly A/C. Not such a bad idea these days.
4. Smith, I dont got to show you no stinkin Smith!
4.1. Why would anyone refuse to fly #2, better than street.
5. Bye
Regards - follow the ----->
The TWA people don't want everything, we just want what was promised to us. We were promised no LESS favorable benefits, including seniority, than our counterparts at AA in comparable classifications. We dont want your seniority, just to be EQUAL(key word),to our counterparts in similar classifications at AA.
Ok, something that hasnt been mentioned too is that AA raised their bid towards the end because of the offer of $500 million from JAG (Jet Aquisitions Group). So, why did AA care so much to raise their bid to $742 million, if they werent worried JAG was for real or they wouldnt get their hands on us?????
Oh yeah, and one last thing. Seems also that we had forgot our impending deal with America West before AA bought us. We already had a systemwide code share agreement set, which I believe would have turned into a merger down the road. Unfortunatly, we will never know what could have been with TWA (Totally Wasted by American)
JFK Fleet Service
Veteran
[BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][BR]----------------[BR]On 10/20/2002 1:01:04 AM TWAB717 wrote:[BR][BR] Unfortunatly, we will never know what could have been with TWA.[BR][BR]----------------[BR][BR][FONT size=1]Kind of like Red Sox fans wondering what could have been if they hadn't sold Babe Ruth to the Yankees?[/FONT][/P]
[P][BR][BR][BR][BR] [/P][FONT size=1][/FONT][/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][BR]----------------[BR]On 10/20/2002 1:01:04 AM TWAB717 wrote:[BR][BR] Unfortunatly, we will never know what could have been with TWA.[BR][BR]----------------[BR][BR][FONT size=1]Kind of like Red Sox fans wondering what could have been if they hadn't sold Babe Ruth to the Yankees?[/FONT][/P]
[P][BR][BR][BR][BR] [/P][FONT size=1][/FONT][/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]
B
bagsmasher
Guest
Ok, something that hasnt been mentioned too is that AA raised their bid towards the end because of the offer of $500 million from JAG (Jet Aquisitions Group). So, why did AA care so much to raise their bid to $742 million, if they werent worried JAG was for real or they wouldnt get their hands on us?????
TWA asked AA to raise it to $742 million to cover creditors. JAG wasn't for real, they never even deposited the amount needed to place a bid. I just wish SOMEONE besides Carty was interested in TWA, or they would have merged with America West, that would have been wonderful.
TWA asked AA to raise it to $742 million to cover creditors. JAG wasn't for real, they never even deposited the amount needed to place a bid. I just wish SOMEONE besides Carty was interested in TWA, or they would have merged with America West, that would have been wonderful.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Investor looking for serious changes at Southwest- Latest: Jalsporteam
-
-