It is encouraging that only a handful of the TWA'ers feel the way the ones on this board talk. Most of the TWA'ers I have spoken with say that DOH would be nice but they are happy to be with AA and are satisified with their increase in pay. For the few here on this board that scream conspiracy and always point the finger at everyone else for their situation, I say look in the mirror. When Braniff declared bankrupcy I did what I had to do at the time. I didn't blame everyone else for my situation.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/2/2002 4:51:44 PM MiAAmi wrote:
It is encouraging that only a handful of the TWA'ers feel the way the ones on this board talk. Most of the TWA'ers I have spoken with say that DOH would be nice but they are happy to be with AA and are satisified with their increase in pay. For the few here on this board that scream conspiracy and always point the finger at everyone else for their situation, I say look in the mirror. When Braniff declared bankrupcy I did what I had to do at the time. I didn't blame everyone else for my situation.
----------------
[/blockquote]
MIAAMI- YOu underestimate the LLcers thoughts, beliefs and fortitude. You are wrong.As much as you want to play NICE/NICE , we are not naiive. I do believe there are a number of NAAtives, who think that a seniority ratio would have worked. The straight staple is a slam to the core of Unionism nationwide. THe courts will decide.
Most LLCers are behind the force of DOH, yet they wont voice it as active f/a's. They choose to avoid the negative backlash from nAAtives. Sometimes feeling the need to 'hide' their ID upon boarding an aircraft as a passrider/jumpseater. NAAtive/TWllc ID's are blantantly different, this difference definately TAGS the person in the WHO's on board question. Blackballed, being treated differently, as a TWller seems to be the norm.
Honestly, over 3 years ago, watching AA for 25 years, as a TWA employee, I was in awe of their strides. Being a part of AA now, and seeing the mistakes , incompetance, the waste, on a daily basis, has painted a new picture. There is much work to be done.
Trust me, in this arena, recognising some of TWA's cost saving ideas would be beneficial to AA.
Changes involving future cost savings, does not require millions spent hiring analysts. JMHO.
----------------
On 12/2/2002 4:51:44 PM MiAAmi wrote:
It is encouraging that only a handful of the TWA'ers feel the way the ones on this board talk. Most of the TWA'ers I have spoken with say that DOH would be nice but they are happy to be with AA and are satisified with their increase in pay. For the few here on this board that scream conspiracy and always point the finger at everyone else for their situation, I say look in the mirror. When Braniff declared bankrupcy I did what I had to do at the time. I didn't blame everyone else for my situation.
----------------
[/blockquote]
MIAAMI- YOu underestimate the LLcers thoughts, beliefs and fortitude. You are wrong.As much as you want to play NICE/NICE , we are not naiive. I do believe there are a number of NAAtives, who think that a seniority ratio would have worked. The straight staple is a slam to the core of Unionism nationwide. THe courts will decide.
Most LLCers are behind the force of DOH, yet they wont voice it as active f/a's. They choose to avoid the negative backlash from nAAtives. Sometimes feeling the need to 'hide' their ID upon boarding an aircraft as a passrider/jumpseater. NAAtive/TWllc ID's are blantantly different, this difference definately TAGS the person in the WHO's on board question. Blackballed, being treated differently, as a TWller seems to be the norm.
Honestly, over 3 years ago, watching AA for 25 years, as a TWA employee, I was in awe of their strides. Being a part of AA now, and seeing the mistakes , incompetance, the waste, on a daily basis, has painted a new picture. There is much work to be done.
Trust me, in this arena, recognising some of TWA's cost saving ideas would be beneficial to AA.
Changes involving future cost savings, does not require millions spent hiring analysts. JMHO.
What a humorous thread.Bottom line: the courts will decide......I detect a few nervous twitches in cyberspace/and esp this board . Time will tell.
And even the APFA board is silent.go figure.
And even the APFA board is silent.go figure.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/2/2002 7:34:17 PM riptide44 wrote:
MIAAMI- YOu underestimate the LLcers thoughts, beliefs and fortutude. You are wrong.As much as you want to play NICE/NICE , we are not naiive. I do believe there is a numbers of NAAtives, who think that a senority ratio should have worked. The straight staple is a slam to the core of Unionism nationwide. THe courts will decide.
Most LLCers are behind the force of DOH, yet they wont voice it-being active f/a's, due to the backsplash of negativity from nAAtives. SOmetimes feeling the need to 'hide'their ID upon boarding an aircraft as passrider/jumpseater)IDs are so different ,it definately TAGS the person in the WHO's WHO question..Blackballed, being treated differently as a TWllers seems to be the norm.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Question:
So, do the LLCers have intestinal fortitude (as stated in paragraph 1), OR, are they cowards - hiding IDs etc. (as stated in paragraph 2)?
Comment:
A judge will most likely not care much for ... the core of unionism nationwide.
----------------
On 12/2/2002 7:34:17 PM riptide44 wrote:
MIAAMI- YOu underestimate the LLcers thoughts, beliefs and fortutude. You are wrong.As much as you want to play NICE/NICE , we are not naiive. I do believe there is a numbers of NAAtives, who think that a senority ratio should have worked. The straight staple is a slam to the core of Unionism nationwide. THe courts will decide.
Most LLCers are behind the force of DOH, yet they wont voice it-being active f/a's, due to the backsplash of negativity from nAAtives. SOmetimes feeling the need to 'hide'their ID upon boarding an aircraft as passrider/jumpseater)IDs are so different ,it definately TAGS the person in the WHO's WHO question..Blackballed, being treated differently as a TWllers seems to be the norm.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Question:
So, do the LLCers have intestinal fortitude (as stated in paragraph 1), OR, are they cowards - hiding IDs etc. (as stated in paragraph 2)?
Comment:
A judge will most likely not care much for ... the core of unionism nationwide.
Riptide,[BR]You underestimate the resolve of APFA. How quick you are to point out when someone else is wrong. Of course if everyone thought the same way you did then hunger, war and disease would cease to exist. However, there are those that beg to differ and yet the world still goes round. And if you don't intend on offering an explanation to your reasoning as to how you conclude that TWA has any right to maintain DOH then I really don't care who or what you think is right or wrong. Where, pray tell, do you find these nAAtives that are willing to concede the seniority that they've earned? And the fact IS that you clearly haven't a clue as to what unionism means. You are right about one thing, the courts will decide. Until then, I continue to wait in anticipation for an intelligent response.[BR][BR]And if so many LLC are behind DOH then why should they hide? If they feel that what they are fighting for is right, then by all means please be prepared to stand up for it. Don't continue to fault AA and APFA and then try to save face and change your story when you board AA metal. If you feel that you've got a leg to stand on then do so. You won't have a computer monitor to hide behind when you're 35,000 feet up. You allege that you're ostracized when identified as LLC. Blackballed? Treated differently? [STRONG]Do you really think if you keep your DOH that things are going to change for the better? [/STRONG]Keep in mind those numbers you love to throw around: 3,000 compared to 25,000. Remember, you'll be a grain of sand in the midst of Lake Michigan. What a perfect example of shooting yourself in the foot. Once again, you are Exhibit. A.[BR][BR]Of course you would be able to point out the mistakes, incompetence and waste now that you're with AA. It's like a bad case of De Ja Vu. Who are you to comment on how much work there is to be done at AA when all that you've done is contribute to the problem? You need not remind us that your cost saving ideas led to the demise of your airline. That's what got you on this free ride to begin with. And you want us to trust you? Of course there is much to be learned from TWA. And you have yet to learn it. What you quickly need to learn is that the money spent on your frivolous lawsuits is costing many employees their jobs. Don't you realize that airlines like US Airways would be glad to have a job once they've gone under... much less keep thier pay seniority. And you claim that you've been screwed under the guise that you can't keep your DOH. When you are furloughed as a result of your big bad ex-union squandering so much money in lawsuits you'll only have yourselves to thank. I highly advise you to learn from your mistakes because history will repeat itself until you correct it. And you might not get a third chance. The comment was made in an earlier post (If I recall correctly it was by your insistently craftful ART) that the courts don't like big boys hitting on the little ones. Rest assured they'll take that into consideration in relating the IAM to the APFA. Lest you forget that they're not your union anymore, and the point has been made that they don't intend on wasting money on your behalf. BAAM!, there goes your other foot. I honestly do feel sorry for you, not because you've lost so much but because you have yet to learn from your costly mistakes.[BR]-BH
My, my, where do I start? I'm by no means senior at TW, but we aren't asking to take YOUR seniority, it's the seniority I earned by flying with TWA, one of the assets in which AMR acquired. I would have been happy with some sort of integration, but stapling is beyond inhumane. You have people like me, or anyone under the age of 36, mathematically locked out of possibly being an active LLC f/a. With the announced overage coming early next year, that number will easily go over 40. I think we are due some respect, and not looked down upon like some outcast. If AA was in the position we are, they would be doing exactly the same, if not more, to help their cause. It doesnt matter if we stayed with a failing carrier, that type of dedication should be welcomed. I really wish I could figure out where AA get's it's ole holier than thou mentality. It's the reason I chose to LEAVE AA for TWA in '97, and to this day don't regret it. The IAM has done more than the APFA ever will to help our cause. TWA'ers have so much talent, and only a very few you call cowards would deny their association with our once proud carrier. I go to work in STL every day with a button on my backpack that says proud to be TWA, and my IAM union pin planted right above it. The wrapper may say AA, but underneath that uniform will always beat a TWA heart.
As someone who has been at AA for 13 years and has earned every day of senority and pay I (and others) can not stand by and watch the few of you ex-TWA Gods&Godesses chisle away at what I and thousands of others have worked so hard to achieve. You distructive attitude twards your new employer has NO place amognst those who now, more than ever are striving for perfection in our work lives-to bring this airline out of this funk and make things once again great..It is to the point now that it is simply pathetic to listen to you all whine and cry...the same old song..your half efforts at work..and threats of we'll show you..stickers/pins of TWA...worn for what? Do you think you are bringing TWA, the once great airline any glory with you self serving-pathetic cause? All bets are off now...this is a different areana we are playing in, post 9/11 and thousands of our co-workers out of work..AA is as much mine as anyones and I will protect what is mine from any threat to its success..It is time you lay down your swords and be thankful to be part of a team now that IS going to be in the winners circle..the choice is yours.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/3/2002 12:41:54 AM TWAB717 wrote:
It's the reason I chose to LEAVE AA for TWA in '97, and to this day don't regret it. ----------------
[/blockquote]
Anyone who left AA in 97 to join TWA needs some counseling.
----------------
On 12/3/2002 12:41:54 AM TWAB717 wrote:
It's the reason I chose to LEAVE AA for TWA in '97, and to this day don't regret it. ----------------
[/blockquote]
Anyone who left AA in 97 to join TWA needs some counseling.
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 12/3/2002 12:41:54 AM TWAB717 wrote: [BR][BR]]I think we are due some respect, and not looked down upon like some outcast. If AA was in the position we are, they would be doing exactly the same, if not more, to help their cause. It doesnt matter if we stayed with a failing carrier, that type of dedication should be welcomed. I really wish I could figure out where AA get's it's ole holier than thou mentality. It's the reason I chose to LEAVE AA for TWA in '97, and to this day don't regret it. TWA'ers have so much talent, and only a very few you call cowards would deny their association with our once proud carrier. I go to work in STL every day with a button on my backpack that says proud to be TWA, and my IAM union pin planted right above it. The wrapper may say AA, but underneath that uniform will always beat a TWA heart.[BR]----------------[BR][/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]Of course you think you are due respect. But let me remind you that you have to EARN it the same way I did. And let me point out that, at this point, I certainly wouldn't consider you an asset after all you've done to divide our company. If you don't want to be treated like an outcast then don't act like one. You're not asking to take my seniority, but the seniority that you earned at TWA? Scuse me, are we talking about the now DEFUNCT airline formerly known as TWA? Pardon? Come again? I'm sorry, I thought you were going to offer an explanation as to how you feel that your seniority should be rightfully carried over at American. Bitterness because your airline failed doesn't constitute a rightful reason either. Once again, false alarm. [BR][BR]You spent many years with TWA earning respect. When are you going to realize that TWA doesn't exist anymore? You're with AA now, only we call you LLC. It wasn't a merger. Like you said AA acquired TWA, meaning American bought TWA. It is time you come to the realization that you must start earning your respect from the bottom, now, like all of us did. I admire the dedication you showed by staying with the carrier through the very end, now you'll pay the consequences. Life isn't fair. That should alleviate your concern as to where our 'holier than thou' mentality comes from. Now let me ask you, where did you get yours? Was it on sale?[BR][BR]The TRULY admirable people are the ones who saw what was quite obvious and in 1997 chose to leave TWA and come to American when you were doing just the opposite. They too, had to EARN their respect at AA starting at the bottom. How is it that you feel that your time with TWA is worth more than theirs? I suppose you feel that we should give them credit for time with TWA and bump their seniority up a respective amount of years. And if there are so few that deny their association with TWA, then I can safely assume the rest are proud to work for American.[BR][BR]Know that as I smartly walk through the terminal in my dress blues, with every step taken I thank God that I was blessed to have been hired by American Airlines. And I assure you that for every single beat of your TWA heart, underneath the original wings with the AA logo (APFA pin proudly above) is a heAArt beating twice as fast in pride of that pivilege. [BR][BR]You're so proud of leaving AA? Exactly what drew you to TWA after leaving? Your inexplicable attraction to repeatedly bankrupt airlines? I hardly believe you have some noble reason for leaving American. That is if your reason for leaving was, in fact, by choice. Don't be shy; you're welcome to leave again. Quite frankly, if you're so miserable I encourage it. Do us a favor and save someone a job. Now there's a noble reason you can be proud of without regret.[BR]
I'm not trying to stir the pot, but again, since over 90% of the ex-TWA FAs will be on the street by the second anniversary of the asset purchase, what is the point of having this argument? It's counterproductive at a time when APFA needs to be focused on working with management to keep AMR from being in UAL's position this time next year.
TWAnr
Veteran
[BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE]----------------[BR]On 12/3/2002 3:18:03 PM avek00 wrote: [BR][BR]I'm not trying to stir the pot, but again, since over 90% of the ex-TWA FAs will be on the street by the second anniversary of the asset purchase...[BR][BR]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE][BR]Your math is way off. Even with the additional 400 TWA furloughs, which were announced yesterday, there will be approximately 2,300 to 2,400 TWA LLC flight attendants still employed. When that figure is compared to the 4,100 who were employed at the time of the acquisition, the percentage of those furloughed works out to approximately 44%.
[BLOCKQUOTE]----------------[BR]On 12/3/2002 3:18:03 PM avek00 wrote: [BR][BR]I'm not trying to stir the pot, but again, since over 90% of the ex-TWA FAs will be on the street by the second anniversary of the asset purchase...[BR][BR]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE][BR]Your math is way off. Even with the additional 400 TWA furloughs, which were announced yesterday, there will be approximately 2,300 to 2,400 TWA LLC flight attendants still employed. When that figure is compared to the 4,100 who were employed at the time of the acquisition, the percentage of those furloughed works out to approximately 44%.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/2/2002 1:42:40 PM AAirMale wrote:
Sorry FA TWAA, I see that I hit a nerve there. I just thought I'd add a little of my own flava up in this piece. Things were getting entirely too serious. Why should everyone else be allowed to have all the fun? And a bit of advice: If you're gonna be on the runway with me at 35,000 feet you'll need more than strapping good looks. Don't forget to pack your personality too. Surely you haven't lost THAT in your 25 years of flying.
----------------
[/blockquote]
And a bit of advice: If you're gonna be on the runway with me at 35,000 feet you'll need more than strapping good looks.
___________________________________________
Hmm, I have to admit, I have never been on the runway at 35,000 feet.
That said, who asked for your advice?
----------------
On 12/2/2002 1:42:40 PM AAirMale wrote:
Sorry FA TWAA, I see that I hit a nerve there. I just thought I'd add a little of my own flava up in this piece. Things were getting entirely too serious. Why should everyone else be allowed to have all the fun? And a bit of advice: If you're gonna be on the runway with me at 35,000 feet you'll need more than strapping good looks. Don't forget to pack your personality too. Surely you haven't lost THAT in your 25 years of flying.
----------------
[/blockquote]
And a bit of advice: If you're gonna be on the runway with me at 35,000 feet you'll need more than strapping good looks.
___________________________________________
Hmm, I have to admit, I have never been on the runway at 35,000 feet.
That said, who asked for your advice?
- Thread Starter
- #44
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/2/2002 2:53:58 PM La Treal wrote:
LOL!!!! That was a good one, especially the
Artfully on Crack I reamain!!!!
ROTFLMAO!
----------------
[/blockquote]
The crack is facing outward and backward, lookking at you'all. Too much Ovaltine was the controlled substance.
LA Trinel - Those TW employees with Super Seniority earned their time and job with their own credentials. AA earned TW with cash and promises. It took both from AA to make the deal. Let's see how quickly the courts see the same picture.
Also, the hollow 400 bottom of the deck dealing will be handled simply by an examination never do the fingers leave the hands. Look @aa crew scheduling last summer (everyone note the time frame and data, it will be called for in discovery)(HINT to all requesting discovery). aa CHOSE to fly STL H-E-A-V-Y and on overtime extension as well. It did this because TW flew literally hundreds of hours and flights that were pure aa and virtually never touched STL. (Segments cited earlier message)
aa can and has scheduled its crews at will. Examine the use of reserves, please cite, if you dare the Flight Attendant actual hard hours flown vs the 65+8 or whatever it is they are paid for the last 7 months. (HINT to all requesting discovery).
So these people you are attempting to disenfranchise, have earned their longevity at aa. Some aa employees cannot say the same.
----------------
On 12/2/2002 2:53:58 PM La Treal wrote:
LOL!!!! That was a good one, especially the
Artfully on Crack I reamain!!!!
ROTFLMAO!
----------------
[/blockquote]
The crack is facing outward and backward, lookking at you'all. Too much Ovaltine was the controlled substance.
LA Trinel - Those TW employees with Super Seniority earned their time and job with their own credentials. AA earned TW with cash and promises. It took both from AA to make the deal. Let's see how quickly the courts see the same picture.
Also, the hollow 400 bottom of the deck dealing will be handled simply by an examination never do the fingers leave the hands. Look @aa crew scheduling last summer (everyone note the time frame and data, it will be called for in discovery)(HINT to all requesting discovery). aa CHOSE to fly STL H-E-A-V-Y and on overtime extension as well. It did this because TW flew literally hundreds of hours and flights that were pure aa and virtually never touched STL. (Segments cited earlier message)
aa can and has scheduled its crews at will. Examine the use of reserves, please cite, if you dare the Flight Attendant actual hard hours flown vs the 65+8 or whatever it is they are paid for the last 7 months. (HINT to all requesting discovery).
So these people you are attempting to disenfranchise, have earned their longevity at aa. Some aa employees cannot say the same.
- Thread Starter
- #45
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/3/2002 3:18:03 PM avek00 wrote:
I'm not trying to stir the pot, but again, since over 90% of the ex-TWA FAs will be on the street by the second anniversary of the asset purchase, what is the point of having this argument? It's counterproductive at a time when APFA needs to be focused on working with management to keep AMR from being in UAL's position this time next year.
----------------
[/blockquote]
AVEK - You have to be in your last year of this program. DOn't stop now and please stay or continue for at least another 3 to 4 for a MS, MBA or JD, PHD program somewhere else. I'll never pick on you. (Remember me?) Same email address!
APFA top leadership, now that we've determined what they are we only need to determine the price. If you head a company, be wary of one of the OJ's hit songs from the '70s.
Glad you lived thru China!
Regards
----------------
On 12/3/2002 3:18:03 PM avek00 wrote:
I'm not trying to stir the pot, but again, since over 90% of the ex-TWA FAs will be on the street by the second anniversary of the asset purchase, what is the point of having this argument? It's counterproductive at a time when APFA needs to be focused on working with management to keep AMR from being in UAL's position this time next year.
----------------
[/blockquote]
AVEK - You have to be in your last year of this program. DOn't stop now and please stay or continue for at least another 3 to 4 for a MS, MBA or JD, PHD program somewhere else. I'll never pick on you. (Remember me?) Same email address!
APFA top leadership, now that we've determined what they are we only need to determine the price. If you head a company, be wary of one of the OJ's hit songs from the '70s.
Glad you lived thru China!
Regards
