Hp And Usair Ceo's Backhand Slap Apfa, Apa And Aa

[JAMAKE1]

Try more like 60 S80s and 19 757s for a whopping grand total of 79 ex-TWA aircraft.

[post="275247"][/post]​

However many TWA aircraft are left in the AA fleet is COMPLETELY irrelevant. The POINT is, AA acquired, merged, etc., with TWA. USAir closed the entire PSA route system and grounded an entire fleet of BAe-146 aircraft, but they did not lay off all the PSA people. Reductions went by seniority and the former PSA people could volunteer to be furloughed when their respective stations closed or they could have transferred east, which many did.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but didn't AA acquire ALL of TWA? The condition of the STL hub, MCI maintenance base, etc. is also irrelevant. If they closed, the equitable thing would have been for the TWAers to transfer elsewhere with their seniority honored...and by that, I mean their years of service.

TWA employees were NOT hired off the street. Their company was ACQUIRED by AA, hence their seniority should have come with them. I'm sorry, but how they were integrated at AA is just WRONG.

 

[JAMAKE1]

The TW people from the buy out were not merged, there were set to start from the begining like every other AA employee before them.

[post="275194"][/post]​

Uh huh. Like Trans Carribean and Air Cal folks...

Like I just mentioned, the TWA people were NOT hired off the street. Their company was ACQUIRED by AA. Hence, they should NOT have started from the beginning. Their years of TWA service should have been recognized and honored. Period.

 

[aafsc]

Uh huh. Like Trans Carribean and Air Cal folks...

Like I just mentioned, the TWA people were NOT hired off the street. Their company was ACQUIRED by AA. Hence, they should NOT have started from the beginning. Their years of TWA service should have been recognized and honored. Period.

[post="275263"][/post]​

Jamake1, the ramp and AMTs got DOH in STL and MCI. This is what TWA brought to the deal. This is what the arbitrator ruled. It is basically a permanent fence that separates the two groups. We nAAtives were not going to willingly bend over and smile while some senior bitter TWAer comes into our hubs and bases and takes what is rightfully ours. Unlike PSA/US, AA did not buy TWA. It bought the parts it wanted in bk. AA could have altered the contract and offered the TWAers jobs at starting pay but instead gave them pay credit for their TWA time. That is what AA/Carty chose to do and one reason why AA is in the position it is in. Some of the TWAers openly gloat when they can push a nAAtive out. Yes, some of them get off when they can stick it to a nAAtive. I have spoken to these nAAtive victims personally. We nAAtives did everything possible to defend ourselves from these senior, bitter, bloodthirsty, seniority stealing TWAers. Our defensive actions were moral, righteous, and just.

 

[Skymess]

Their legal duty to protect the native F/As is understandable. But they went way beyond that and used them as furlough fodder. If the two airlines had stayed separate entities with TWA F/As flying the aircraft that yet remain at AA such an arrangement would have been relatively fair. Instead the AA F/As are flying those aircraft and have every job the TWA f/as brought to the merger. No, it was a giant injustice.

[post="274983"][/post]​

In a perfect world all of TWA would have been history and none of it would have marred AA as it did. APFA was the only union on the property that did it the right way.

 

[FA Mikey]

Uh huh. Like Trans Carribean and Air Cal folks...

Like I just mentioned, the TWA people were NOT hired off the street. Their company was ACQUIRED by AA. Hence, they should NOT have started from the beginning. Their years of TWA service should have been recognized and honored. Period.

[post="275263"][/post]​

They were acquired in a bankruptcy fire sale. AA bought certain assets of the bankrupt TWA.

This wasn't transcarib or aircal. Today AA and SWA have a different way of doing acquisitions. Reno and TW f/as started at the bottom like everyone else did and should. American Eagle people who come over get zero seniority. What about the TW people who came over on there own? They got nothing, should we grandfather them in now with there ex TW seniority, plus there AA seniority? Why should someone brought in from another airline move above them? You don't get points or service credit for working for the competition.

 

[JAMAKE1]

FA Mikey:

AA did not buy certains assets...they bought all of TWA. A former TWAer who quit and then was rehired off the street is a completely different matter. What occurred at AA with regard to the TW integration was unprecedented. Why is it that Air Cal was given D-O-H, yet not Reno and TWA?

United bought certain assets of Pan Am in 1986 (Pacific routes) and London Heathrow in 1991. The Pan Am people were not stapled at the bottom. In the case of the Pacific route purchase, the F/A's were not given D-O-H, but were ratioed in and retained most of their seniority, as it should of been. The Pan Am people that came over with the Heathrow purchase, I believe retained all of their seniority.

USAir, PSA, Piedmont...all D-O-H. How the TW people were integrated at AA was NOT the industry standard for seniority integration. And I very strongly disagree when you suggest that an employee with 30 years of service should start out at the bottom when their respective company was acquired. The TW employees were not new-hires.

Furthermore, if I'm not mistaken, as part of the purchase agreement with AA, TWA had to agree to a pre-packaged bankruptcy. The airline was still a going-concern and the company was acquired while still in operation. It was not a situation like United acquiring Pan Am Latin routes in a Chapter 7 liquidation. THAT was a fire sale....

 

[aafsc]

FA Mikey:

AA did not buy certains assets...they bought all of TWA. A former TWAer who quit and then was rehired off the street is a completely different matter. What occurred at AA with regard to the TW integration was unprecedented. Why is it that Air Cal was given D-O-H, yet not Reno and TWA?

United bought certain assets of Pan Am in 1986 (Pacific routes) and London Heathrow in 1991. The Pan Am people were not stapled at the bottom. In the case of the Pacific route purchase, the F/A's were not given D-O-H, but were ratioed in and retained most of their seniority, as it should of been. The Pan Am people that came over with the Heathrow purchase, I believe retained all of their seniority.

USAir, PSA, Piedmont...all D-O-H. How the TW people were integrated at AA was NOT the industry standard for seniority integration. And I very strongly disagree when you suggest that an employee with 30 years of service should start out at the bottom when their respective company was acquired. The TW employees were not new-hires.

Furthermore, if I'm not mistaken, as part of the purchase agreement with AA, TWA had to agree to a pre-packaged bankruptcy. The airline was still a going-concern and the company was acquired while still in operation. It was not a situation like United acquiring Pan Am Latin routes in a Chapter 7 liquidation. THAT was a fire sale....

[post="275299"][/post]​

AA did not buy TWA or even all of it's assets. They did not take the some of the 767s, they did not take future aircraft deliveries (A320 family), they did not take the JFK-TLV route (they did this to avoid TWAs pension and severence obligations in that country), they did not take TWA's terminal and hangar in JFK. TWA Inc. still exists as a shell company. AA's purchase of most of TW's assets is legally no different than it's purchase of EAL's Latin routes. AA renegotiated all contracts in bk and COULD HAVE legally offered former TW employees employement at new hire pay.

Regarding UA's purchase of Pan Am's Pacific and LHR routes. Did not the Pan Am employees have labor protection provisions regarding fragmentation? And when Delta got Pan Am's shuttle and European routes, they did not hire by seniority, they took what they wanted which was A310 pilots and not the senior 747 pilots, flight attendants with language skills, some AMTs and most of the ground staff in JFK. Except for pilots, everyone else there is non-union so seniority is not etched in stone. The point is in the PA Pacific and LHR asset sales to UA, the unions at PA did NOT waive their labor protections as to where the TWA people did, albeit with a gun to their heads. The outcome at AA/TW has survived numerous grievances and lawsuits, and that fact alone speaks volumes of the validity of the AA employees' position.

 

[nbmcg01]

You are correct. BK was a condition of the purchase agreement. The very things that the APFA stands side by side with the AFA-CWA over...the loss of CBAs, pensions, and LPPs are the very issues that AA(and the APFA) demanded we give up to allow a purchase that many of us never wanted. The hypocrisy is astounding. AA wanted us to mirror the APFA which meant losing our LPPs(which they pretty much copied in their last CBA) It makes me sad to see HP merge with US. We had hoped for a TWA,HP,Alaska Air alliance. How sweet that would have been. And AA could have gobbled someone else up and blamed them for all of the problems (instead of looking in their own mirrors). I guess rewriting history is their way of "justifying" their actions.








quote=JAMAKE1,Jun 3 2005, 10:49 PM]
FA Mikey:

AA did not buy certains assets...they bought all of TWA. A former TWAer who quit and then was rehired off the street is a completely different matter. What occurred at AA with regard to the TW integration was unprecedented. Why is it that Air Cal was given D-O-H, yet not Reno and TWA?

United bought certain assets of Pan Am in 1986 (Pacific routes) and London Heathrow in 1991. The Pan Am people were not stapled at the bottom. In the case of the Pacific route purchase, the F/A's were not given D-O-H, but were ratioed in and retained most of their seniority, as it should of been. The Pan Am people that came over with the Heathrow purchase, I believe retained all of their seniority.

USAir, PSA, Piedmont...all D-O-H. How the TW people were integrated at AA was NOT the industry standard for seniority integration. And I very strongly disagree when you suggest that an employee with 30 years of service should start out at the bottom when their respective company was acquired. The TW employees were not new-hires.

Furthermore, if I'm not mistaken, as part of the purchase agreement with AA, TWA had to agree to a pre-packaged bankruptcy. The airline was still a going-concern and the company was acquired while still in operation. It was not a situation like United acquiring Pan Am Latin routes in a Chapter 7 liquidation. THAT was a fire sale....

[post="275299"][/post]​

[/quote]

 

[aafsc]

No other airline was going to buy TWA and infect themselves with the Icahn problem. It would be like puposely injecting themselves with AIDS tainted blood. Another reason a TW/HP deal would not have happened is because HP farms out all their heavy maintanence. Do you think the IAM was going to approve a deal like this when it meant MCI would be completely shut down. That is why the IAM at TWA wanted nothing to do with HP. The AMTs at US are very worried about this now. And lastly, do you think all those HP employees would want to be below all those very high senior TWA people and lose their jobs when the TWAers stampede from STL and MCI to LAS and PHX? This is what they fear from a merger with US. The TWAers are upset because that huge "nAAtive cushion" got away from them.

 

[JAMAKE1]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I know the whole issue has been debated to death. But I certainly would not suggest that TWAers being stapled to the bottom was a fair and equitable way of merging seniority lists.

I personally find it very unjust and it is difficult for me to comprehend how many of the AAers on this board justify the way the whole senario played out. It certainly was not equitable. I feel it betrays what unionism is all about.

It is indeed very unfortunate that the TWA folks were cornered into signing away their labor protective provisions. I am greatful that the union that represents me and my work group incorporates a more equitable system for merging seniority lists, within its bylaws.

That's all I can say. Based on my experience, having been through two mergers and having had D-O-H as the standard for seniority integration, I have a strong opinion about it. And I truly feel for the TWA folks having had their years of service dismissed.

I do hope that the TWAers who have been furloughed have been able to move on with their lives and have a new-found purpose, without holding on to bitterness and resentment.

 

[FA Mikey]

FA Mikey:

AA did not buy certains assets...they bought all of TWA. A former TWAer who quit and then was rehired off the street is a completely different matter. What occurred at AA with regard to the TW integration was unprecedented. Why is it that Air Cal was given D-O-H, yet not Reno and TWA?

[post="275299"][/post]​

So How about someone whos worked for AA for years as a eagle fa and then flys AA? They get nothing but someone who worked for TW should get DOH?

United bought certain assets of Pan Am in 1986 (Pacific routes) and London Heathrow in 1991. The Pan Am people were not stapled at the bottom. In the case of the Pacific route purchase, the F/A's were not given D-O-H, but were ratioed in and retained most of their seniority, as it should of been. The Pan Am people that came over with the Heathrow purchase, I believe retained all of their seniority.

[post="275299"][/post]​

Well thats great for them. But this is not UAL or PAA. American and SWA do it a different way.

USAir, PSA, Piedmont...all D-O-H. How the TW people were integrated at AA was NOT the industry standard for seniority integration. And I very strongly disagree when you suggest that an employee with 30 years of service should start out at the bottom when their respective company was acquired. The TW employees were not new-hires.

[post="275299"][/post]​

There is no law that forces industry standard. How about career expectations? At the time of the buyout AA was strong and growing, we could fully expect the trend to continue. TW was not and was not, and not expected to survive. In that case should they still be put above those who chose AA as a career? Above those who worked hard to help make us what we are?

The TW people are newhires to AA. They did not work here prior to the buyout. If we don't give seniority to someone who already works here, someone from eagle flying for 2 or 10 years, forced to start over. So will every one coming from carriers and asset purchase's now and in the future.

Furthermore, if I'm not mistaken, as part of the purchase agreement with AA, TWA had to agree to a pre-packaged bankruptcy. The airline was still a going-concern and the company was acquired while still in operation. It was not a situation like United acquiring Pan Am Latin routes in a Chapter 7 liquidation. THAT was a fire sale....

[post="275299"][/post]​

Yes, the BK was prepackaged and AA did only purchase what it wanted and dropped or left the rest. It was a fire sale at that point. Even if it was not, it doesn't matter. Occupational seniority is earned on the job. Its not bought, sold, given, or traded. If I go on leave I stop acquiring occ seniority, When I return should I be given al that time back? No.

 

[MCI transplant]

No other airline was going to buy TWA and infect themselves with the Icahn problem. It would be like puposely injecting  themselves with AIDS tainted blood. Another reason a TW/HP deal would not have happened is because HP farms out all their heavy maintanence. Do you think the IAM was going to approve a deal like this when it meant MCI would be completely shut down. That is why the IAM at TWA wanted nothing to do with HP. The AMTs at US are very worried about this now. And lastly, do you think all those  HP employees would want to be below all those very high senior TWA people and lose their jobs when the TWAers stampede from STL and MCI to LAS and PHX? This is what they fear from a merger with US. The TWAers are upset because that huge "nAAtive cushion" got away from them.

[post="275311"][/post]​

<_< My! My! My! look what we've started!!!First aa, let me say, I don't enjoy seeing anyone layed off, either exTWA, or nAAtive employees! We've been over this ground so many times! Yes we were awarded 100% of our seniority at MCI, and STL! But what is happening here? SLT has been reduced to a mere line station with a hand full of employees! MCI, which at one point in time employeed 6,000, in a week will be down to 900! 500 are going out the door this time! Less than six months ago it was 300! How many next time aa? I'll spell it out for you aa!Put all your bad apples in one, maybe two baskets, and then get reed of the baskets!!!!Do we see an agenda at work here??? The work, and aircraft we brought to aa, are now being done in TUL to save NAAtive jobs at the expence of ourown! The Aircraft we brought to aa, are now flown and serviced by nAAtive employees, at the expence of ourown! This whole acustion was well planed out! It was not done as a spare of this moument thing! It was planed months in advance of TWA ever going into bankrupcy! And for the record aa, the Unions were in talks with others at the time to keep TWA going as an on going concern! And they were not another Airline, so Uncle Carl would not have been a factor!!!So you talked to "someone" here at what you call a Union, and he said "we" (exTWAers) wanted to staple the Ozark people but the IAM won't let us!!! It's all I can say about that is maybe the TWU should have taken a lesson from the IAM!!!!

 

[FA Mikey]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I know the whole issue has been debated to death. But I certainly would not suggest that TWAers being stapled to the bottom was a fair and equitable way of merging seniority lists.

[post="275312"][/post]​

Fair and equitable in whose eyes? In mine and those who work here it is and was. TW people got credit and seniority for everything else. They only lost bidding seniority. Again it was fair and equitable.

I personally find it very unjust and it is difficult for me to comprehend how many of the AAers on this board justify the way the whole senario played out. It certainly was not equitable. I feel it betrays what unionism is all about.

[post="275312"][/post]​

I hope unionism is not about giving away seniority. To me a union is a strong single voice of the work group. It is the representation and enforcement of the CBA. It for the protection of its members.

It is indeed very unfortunate that the TWA folks were cornered into signing away their labor protective provisions. I am greatful that the union that represents me and my work group incorporates a more equitable system for merging seniority lists, within its bylaws.

[post="275312"][/post]​

In the end it was a choice they made.

That's all I can say. Based on my experience, having been through two mergers and having had D-O-H as the standard for seniority integration, I have a strong opinion about it. And I truly feel for the TWA folks having had their years of service dismissed.

[post="275312"][/post]​

In the end it was that or certain death shortly there after. Was one a better outcome than the other?

I do hope that the TWAers who have been furloughed have been able to move on with their lives and have a new-found purpose, without holding on to bitterness and resentment.

[post="275312"][/post]​

There is a good chance that in the coming months the first of the TW people will be back in the air.

 

[JAMAKE1]

F/A Mikey:

American Eagle is a separate subsidiary of AA. Their operations haven't been merged into the operations of AA mainline. TWA's operations were. Therefore, seniority lists should have been merged accordingly. If not by D-O-H, then by a ratio of some sort, as were the Pan Am people that came over to United with the Pacific route purchase.

I strongly disagree with you, albeit respectfully, when you say that AA just does it a different way. I am sorry, but that is a weak argument. The point is, and I know you and many others will never see it a different way, is that TWA operations were acquired and merged into AA's mainline operations. A staple at the bottom of the seniority list is NOT an equitable way of integrating a workforce who has many years of service behind them.

TWA employees were not new-hires. Never before in a merger, were employees of the company being acquired, considered new-hires (except, perhaps Reno Air).

No one has answered the question; So why was it that Air Cal employees were given D-O-H, yet Reno Air and TWA were not?

 

[FA Mikey]

Jake Eagle is a part of AMR corp. The point was to say even working for this company when you go job to job you do not retain OCC seniority. If we wont do it for a person with in the corp, why on earth would we do it to someone who never worked a day to make AA a success?

AirCal was given DOH. That was a Pat Gibbs thing. Talk to the AirCal people they were shocked they go that. It was a very small number or f/a's and fairly junior. Compare that to TW whose 75% of there f/a's fell in to the top 20% of our seniority list. That would have been a big drop for a lot of people.
Transcarib was when we were still TWU.