Former TWA Pilots win suit against ALPA

Wrong... ALPA was in collusion with APA. It was all about the hope that the AA pilots would join ALPA. It is ALWAYS about the dues. To this date we have no evidence the IAM and the APFA colluded. The IAM was the IAM and the APFA......

And once again another court (as well as AA mangt. and even the APFA in former testimony) used the word merger.
TWA was acquired and the assets merged.

Make no mistake, the IAM lost the representation election at UAL-CAL because of the former TWA f/as. That is a lot of lost dues.
and the APFA.......performed it's legal obligation by dutifully representing the flight attendants of American Airlines (not the TWA flight attendants who were represented by the IAM). Had the APFA done otherwise and caved in to your DOH demands (which I believe violate their contract and constitution and by laws) the APFA would be experiencing what is now happening to ALPA, a huge lawsuit. For some strange reason, you feel that TWAers were the only ones deserving of DFR while denying it to the nAAtives. We nAAtives DEMANDED that our unions perform their legal obligation and protect us from the seniority predators of a liquidated/failed company; I for one did not want to be stapled and have 92% of the TWAers ahead of me.

Why do you keep rehashing the nature of the AA/TWA deal? TWA liquidated- AA bought the assets and placed them in a newly formed holding company called TWA llc. Here is the proof: 1. On the bankruptcy documents the transaction was described an an ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT. 2. Testifying before a congressional committee ( because of the endless crying and complaining of TWAers), a member of AA senior management (not sure but I believe it was Jeff Brundage) stated that its WAS NOT A MERGER BUT AN ASSET PURCHASE. 3. Bill Compton, TWA's CEO, stated it was a Chapter 11 that would end in Chapter 7 liquidation. 4. Your contracts were changed (loss of protections) BECAUSE it was a bankruptcy/liquidation; if it wasn't a Ch11/Ch7 but a merger as you claim, then YOU WOULD STILL HAVE YOUR PROTECTIONS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
aafsc: +1

Some "historians" spend their entire lifetime attempting to re-write history; the post to which you replied (your reply was an extremely well-written and historically accurate manner) is an excellent example.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Wrong... ALPA was in collusion with APA. It was all about the hope that the AA pilots would join ALPA. It is ALWAYS about the dues. To this date we have no evidence the IAM and the APFA colluded. The IAM was the IAM and the APFA......

And once again another court (as well as AA mangt. and even the APFA in former testimony) used the word merger.
TWA was acquired and the assets merged.

Make no mistake, the IAM lost the representation election at UAL-CAL because of the former TWA f/as. That is a lot of lost dues.
<_< ------- As it should be!!!!
 
Make no mistake, the IAM lost the representation election at UAL-CAL because of the former TWA f/as. That is a lot of lost dues.
[/quote]

I wouldn't be so fast to give yourself so much credit. UA is larger and AFA SHOULD have won the election just because of their larger numbers. I would have been shocked if AFA lost. It would have been a monumental defeat if AFA lost.
 
and the APFA.......performed it's legal obligation by dutifully representing the flight attendants of American Airlines (not the TWA flight attendants who were represented by the IAM). Had the APFA done otherwise and caved in to your DOH demands (which I believe violate their contract and constitution and by laws) the APFA would be experiencing what is now happening to ALPA, a huge lawsuit. For some strange reason, you feel that TWAers were the only ones deserving of DFR while denying it to the nAAtives. We nAAtives DEMANDED that our unions perform their legal obligation and protect us from the seniority predators of a liquidated/failed company; I for one did not want to be stapled and have 92% of the TWAers ahead of me.

Why do you keep rehashing the nature of the AA/TWA deal? TWA liquidated- AA bought the assets and placed them in a newly formed holding company called TWA llc. Here is the proof: 1. On the bankruptcy documents the transaction was described an an ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT. 2. Testifying before a congressional committee ( because of the endless crying and complaining of TWAers), a member of AA senior management (not sure but I believe it was Jeff Brundage) stated that its WAS NOT A MERGER BUT AN ASSET PURCHASE. 3. Bill Compton, TWA's CEO, stated it was a Chapter 11 that would end in Chapter 7 liquidation. 4. Your contracts were changed (loss of protections) BECAUSE it was a bankruptcy/liquidation; if it wasn't a Ch11/Ch7 but a merger as you claim, then YOU WOULD STILL HAVE YOUR PROTECTIONS.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Cherry-picking, out of context statements, incorrect "facts", bs and lies....

But go on repeating them, if it makes you feel better...