So TWAer's signed away their protections to get the deal done, and now are whinning and crying about how it's not fair, and trying to sue to get evrything they signed away back.
Am I right?
Am I right?
Seniority?
- Thread starter geardoorsflapsclear
- Start date
- Status
TWAnr
Veteran
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 9/8/2002 9:12:44 AM FA Mikey wrote: [BR][BR]The whole idea of had you not waived this claues. AA would have thrown out your whole contract is absurd. [BR]----------------[BR][/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]Mikey,[BR][BR]Just how short is your memory?[BR][BR]Here is our exchange from another message board, on that subject, from less that a year ago. The law has not been changed since that day.[BR][BR][BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]TWAnr, Thanks for the links. My request was can you show me in writing where it says a judge can not waive a clause in a contract, of a company in bankruptcy court.[BR][BR][/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]And my reply:[BR][BR][BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]U.S. Code : Title 11 : Section 1113[BR][BR]Section 1113. Rejection of collective bargaining agreements[BR][BR](a) The debtor in possession, or the trustee if one has been[BR]appointed under the provisions of this chapter, other than a[BR]trustee in a case covered by subchapter IV of this chapter and by[BR]title I of the Railway Labor Act, may ***ume or reject a collective[BR]bargaining agreement only in accordance with the provisions of this[BR]section.[BR](B)(1) Subsequent to filing a petition and prior to filing an[BR]application seeking rejection of a collective bargaining agreement,[BR]the debtor in possession or trustee (hereinafter in this section[BR]'trustee' shall include a debtor in possession), shall -[BR](A) make a proposal to the authorized representative of the[BR]employees covered by such agreement, based on the most complete[BR]and reliable information available at the time of such proposal,[BR]which provides for those necessary modifications in the employees[BR]benefits and protections that are necessary to permit the[BR]reorganization of the debtor and ***ures that all creditors, the[BR]debtor and all of the affected parties are treated fairly and[BR]equitably; [BR][BR]....[BR][BR]© The court shall approve an application for rejection of a[BR]collective bargaining agreement only if the court finds that -[BR](1) the trustee has, prior to the hearing, made a proposal that[BR]fulfills the requirements of subsection (B)(1);[BR](2) the authorized representative of the employees has refused[BR]to accept such proposal without good cause; and[BR](3) the balance of the equities clearly favors rejection of[BR]such agreement.[BR][BR][BR]...[BR][BR](f) No provision of this title shall be construed to permit a[BR]trustee to unilaterally terminate or alter any provisions of a[BR]collective bargaining agreement prior to compliance with the[BR]provisions of this section.[BR][BR][A href=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=11&sec=1113]http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=11&sec=1113[/A][BR][BR][/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]The code, very clearly, specifies: ...may ***ume or reject a collective bargaining agreement... [BR][BR]Because it does not specifically authorize ***umption or rejection of clauses of a CBA, it has repeatedly been interpreted by the courts to mean that a piecemeal process, of rejecting only certain portions, is not within the authority of the Bankruptcy Court.[BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]TWAnr, Thanks for the links. My request was can you show me in writing where it says a judge can not waive a clause in a contract, of a company in bankruptcy court.[BR][BR][/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]And my reply:[BR][BR][BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]U.S. Code : Title 11 : Section 1113[BR][BR]Section 1113. Rejection of collective bargaining agreements[BR][BR](a) The debtor in possession, or the trustee if one has been[BR]appointed under the provisions of this chapter, other than a[BR]trustee in a case covered by subchapter IV of this chapter and by[BR]title I of the Railway Labor Act, may ***ume or reject a collective[BR]bargaining agreement only in accordance with the provisions of this[BR]section.[BR](B)(1) Subsequent to filing a petition and prior to filing an[BR]application seeking rejection of a collective bargaining agreement,[BR]the debtor in possession or trustee (hereinafter in this section[BR]'trustee' shall include a debtor in possession), shall -[BR](A) make a proposal to the authorized representative of the[BR]employees covered by such agreement, based on the most complete[BR]and reliable information available at the time of such proposal,[BR]which provides for those necessary modifications in the employees[BR]benefits and protections that are necessary to permit the[BR]reorganization of the debtor and ***ures that all creditors, the[BR]debtor and all of the affected parties are treated fairly and[BR]equitably; [BR][BR]....[BR][BR]© The court shall approve an application for rejection of a[BR]collective bargaining agreement only if the court finds that -[BR](1) the trustee has, prior to the hearing, made a proposal that[BR]fulfills the requirements of subsection (B)(1);[BR](2) the authorized representative of the employees has refused[BR]to accept such proposal without good cause; and[BR](3) the balance of the equities clearly favors rejection of[BR]such agreement.[BR][BR][BR]...[BR][BR](f) No provision of this title shall be construed to permit a[BR]trustee to unilaterally terminate or alter any provisions of a[BR]collective bargaining agreement prior to compliance with the[BR]provisions of this section.[BR][BR][A href=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=11&sec=1113]http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=11&sec=1113[/A][BR][BR][/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]The code, very clearly, specifies: ...may ***ume or reject a collective bargaining agreement... [BR][BR]Because it does not specifically authorize ***umption or rejection of clauses of a CBA, it has repeatedly been interpreted by the courts to mean that a piecemeal process, of rejecting only certain portions, is not within the authority of the Bankruptcy Court.[BR][BR]
My memory is fine. You just ***ume that AA would work TW with out a contract. I am here to say it wouldn't happen. There would be no way the current employees would allow AA to operate TW as a non union operation.
AA would most likely chane the contract, remove the seniority clauses and re instate the former agreement until such time as they are represented by the current on property unions and under our contracts.
AA would most likely chane the contract, remove the seniority clauses and re instate the former agreement until such time as they are represented by the current on property unions and under our contracts.
TWAnr
Veteran
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 9/8/2002 3:40:25 PM FA Mikey wrote:
[P]AA would most likely chane the contract, remove the seniority clauses and re instate the former agreement until such time as they are represented by the current on property unions and under our contracts.[BR][BR]----------------[/P][/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P] [/P]
[P][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma]Mikey,[?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice /][o][/o][/SPAN][/P]
[P][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma]I know that you are a union info rep. Fortunately, here you are preaching to those that actually do know the law and are not about to buy your false propaganda, lock, stock and barrel.[o][/o][/SPAN][/P]
[P][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma]The law simply does not provide for the company to be able to pick and choose which terms of the contract to abide by and which to [SPAN style=mso-spacerun: yes] [/SPAN]discard. It is deliberately an all or nothing proposition to prevent the repetition of what Frank Lorenzo did to Continental's unions.[o][/o][/SPAN][/P]
[P][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma]Neither AMR nor its in house unions have the powers to change the provisions of the bankruptcy laws no matter how often or how vehemently you state a contrary view.[o][/o][/SPAN][/P]
[P cl***=MsoNormal][o] [/o][/P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 9/8/2002 3:40:25 PM FA Mikey wrote:
[P]AA would most likely chane the contract, remove the seniority clauses and re instate the former agreement until such time as they are represented by the current on property unions and under our contracts.[BR][BR]----------------[/P][/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P] [/P]
[P][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma]Mikey,[?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice /][o][/o][/SPAN][/P][P][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma]I know that you are a union info rep. Fortunately, here you are preaching to those that actually do know the law and are not about to buy your false propaganda, lock, stock and barrel.[o
][/o][/SPAN][/P][P][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma]The law simply does not provide for the company to be able to pick and choose which terms of the contract to abide by and which to [SPAN style=mso-spacerun: yes] [/SPAN]discard. It is deliberately an all or nothing proposition to prevent the repetition of what Frank Lorenzo did to Continental's unions.[o
][/o][/SPAN][/P][P][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma]Neither AMR nor its in house unions have the powers to change the provisions of the bankruptcy laws no matter how often or how vehemently you state a contrary view.[o
][/o][/SPAN][/P][P cl***=MsoNormal][o
] [/o][/P]I never said we could change the bankruptcy laws. I said we wouldn't stand by and allow AA to operate TW as a non contract or non represetned second airline. If nothing else the pilots SCOPE clause comes in to play.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/8/2002 8
45 PM xsqueezeme wrote:
let me get this straight...someone had been working 30 years at company1 whose main goal was to profit and gain an advantage over its competition, company2 [/blockquote]
As bad as your analogy is, that's exactly what has happened in virtually every airline acquisition in the history of commercial aviation.
MK
----------------
On 9/8/2002 8
45 PM xsqueezeme wrote: let me get this straight...someone had been working 30 years at company1 whose main goal was to profit and gain an advantage over its competition, company2 [/blockquote]
As bad as your analogy is, that's exactly what has happened in virtually every airline acquisition in the history of commercial aviation.
MK
let me get this straight...someone had been working 30 years at company1 whose main goal was to profit and gain an advantage over its competition, company2 & others in the same line of business as well(business 101). Company2 has a worker who just joined them 5 years ago, main objective was the same: gain profit and gain advantage over its competition, company1 and others.
Company2 ends up with the advantage, thanks to its employees whether they be 5, 10, 15 years or 1 year seniority, company1 falters and puts up a for sale sign. Company2 buys up company1.
Now Company1 30-yr employee wants to be slotted into the seniority ranks after 30 years of trying to make company2 fail??
I don't get it...to me this sounds like an Al-Qaeda fighter, when faced with the reality of defeat, trying to mingle in with a unit of US Army Rangers and because of his many years experience of resistance fighter demands to be called general.
Company2 ends up with the advantage, thanks to its employees whether they be 5, 10, 15 years or 1 year seniority, company1 falters and puts up a for sale sign. Company2 buys up company1.
Now Company1 30-yr employee wants to be slotted into the seniority ranks after 30 years of trying to make company2 fail??
I don't get it...to me this sounds like an Al-Qaeda fighter, when faced with the reality of defeat, trying to mingle in with a unit of US Army Rangers and because of his many years experience of resistance fighter demands to be called general.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/8/2002 8
59 PM Wild Onion wrote:
Not only is that analogy incredibly poor, it's in even worse taste (That's from someone who is a "Native American" as well).
----------------
[/blockquote]
well excuse me, wasn't PC enough for you because it mentions Al-Qaeda?
still does not make sense whatsoever for someone from a competing airline to come in and demand to be slotted in after spending the last decade or two trying to run AA out of business.
----------------
On 9/8/2002 8
59 PM Wild Onion wrote: Not only is that analogy incredibly poor, it's in even worse taste (That's from someone who is a "Native American" as well).
----------------
[/blockquote]
well excuse me, wasn't PC enough for you because it mentions Al-Qaeda?
still does not make sense whatsoever for someone from a competing airline to come in and demand to be slotted in after spending the last decade or two trying to run AA out of business.
Not only is that analogy incredibly poor, it's in even worse taste (That's from someone who is a Native American as well).
The terrorist thing is extreme.
But lets face it. IAM and the former TWers are suing AA and APFA right now. They are looking to bankrupt us. They want all there occupational seniority that the IAM signed off on. And as much money as they can extract from AA and APFA. So this way there in a win win situation. Either they get there seniority and push the AAers to the street and on to reserve while they bide there time on easy street. In the company we built. Or they walk away with $$$$.
But lets face it. IAM and the former TWers are suing AA and APFA right now. They are looking to bankrupt us. They want all there occupational seniority that the IAM signed off on. And as much money as they can extract from AA and APFA. So this way there in a win win situation. Either they get there seniority and push the AAers to the street and on to reserve while they bide there time on easy street. In the company we built. Or they walk away with $$$$.
It has nothing to do with me trying to be 'PC'. Simply put, it's in extremely poor taste to compare an ex-TWA employee with a terrorist.
The TWA'ers that I work with are good folks who are just trying to support themselves and their families. They're not hell bent on the destruction of the western world, nor are they intent on the destruction of American Airlines. Just because you personally can't get along doesn't mean they're evil. Sure, they want the best outcome possible for their own self-interests, but don't we all?
The TWA'ers that I work with are good folks who are just trying to support themselves and their families. They're not hell bent on the destruction of the western world, nor are they intent on the destruction of American Airlines. Just because you personally can't get along doesn't mean they're evil. Sure, they want the best outcome possible for their own self-interests, but don't we all?
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/8/2002 11:40:48 PM Wild Onion wrote:
It has nothing to do with me trying to be 'PC'. Simply put, it's in extremely poor taste to compare an ex-TWA employee with a terrorist.
The TWA'ers that I work with are good folks who are just trying to support themselves and their families. They're not hell bent on the destruction of the western world, nor are they intent on the destruction of American Airlines. Just because you personally can't get along doesn't mean they're evil. Sure, they want the best outcome possible for their own self-interests, but don't we all?
----------------
[/blockquote]
oh puh-leeze, spare me the holier than thou attitude. I was just pointing out the irony of it all, and granted the comparison may sound extreme to you, you just have to get off your high horse and look at the context.
did I say the ex-TWA'ers were like Al-Qaeda terrorists? I merely pointed out the the whole idea of employees of an airline, which was considered competition a couple of years ago, are now part of their competition and want everything handed to them on a silver plate and knock original employees into the street or a lesser quality of life, and this is after spending the past 30 years trying to run them out of business.
The real problem here is that they still see TWA as a major player today, that they're a separate entity, and cannot face the fact that TWA died on April 9, 2000, lost their jobs that very same day and then were re-hired on April 10. what makes a TWA FA any different from a Reno FA or an AA gate agent who becomes a Flight Attendant? Aside from the courtesy of giving them something even before they completed training on AA metal, and that's a good year and a half better than what new hires and transfers get from AA.
harsh as it sounds, they just need to face reality and that when one mentions TWA, it bears the same essence as when one mentions PanAm and Eastern, Babe Ruth or Joe Montana, giants of yesteryear. Great names yesterday but this is today and life moves on.
----------------
On 9/8/2002 11:40:48 PM Wild Onion wrote:
It has nothing to do with me trying to be 'PC'. Simply put, it's in extremely poor taste to compare an ex-TWA employee with a terrorist.
The TWA'ers that I work with are good folks who are just trying to support themselves and their families. They're not hell bent on the destruction of the western world, nor are they intent on the destruction of American Airlines. Just because you personally can't get along doesn't mean they're evil. Sure, they want the best outcome possible for their own self-interests, but don't we all?
----------------
[/blockquote]
oh puh-leeze, spare me the holier than thou attitude. I was just pointing out the irony of it all, and granted the comparison may sound extreme to you, you just have to get off your high horse and look at the context.
did I say the ex-TWA'ers were like Al-Qaeda terrorists? I merely pointed out the the whole idea of employees of an airline, which was considered competition a couple of years ago, are now part of their competition and want everything handed to them on a silver plate and knock original employees into the street or a lesser quality of life, and this is after spending the past 30 years trying to run them out of business.
The real problem here is that they still see TWA as a major player today, that they're a separate entity, and cannot face the fact that TWA died on April 9, 2000, lost their jobs that very same day and then were re-hired on April 10. what makes a TWA FA any different from a Reno FA or an AA gate agent who becomes a Flight Attendant? Aside from the courtesy of giving them something even before they completed training on AA metal, and that's a good year and a half better than what new hires and transfers get from AA.
harsh as it sounds, they just need to face reality and that when one mentions TWA, it bears the same essence as when one mentions PanAm and Eastern, Babe Ruth or Joe Montana, giants of yesteryear. Great names yesterday but this is today and life moves on.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/8/2002 11:58:30 PM FA Mikey wrote:
The terrorist thing is extreme.
But lets face it. IAM and the former TWers are suing AA and APFA right now. They are looking to bankrupt us. They want all there occupational seniority that the IAM signed off on. And as much money as they can extract from AA and APFA. So this way there in a win win situation. Either they get there seniority and push the AAers to the street and on to reserve while they bide there time on easy street. In the company we built. Or they walk away with $$$$.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Aloha Mike,
You are sounding a little paranoid. All this talk about the poor TWA LLC F/As bankrupting big AA & APFA and getting seniority or walking away with $$$$. What are you talking about. You cant possibly believe that the APFA/AA could lose could you??? Come on look at the Reno case. As you, an APFA Info Rep say,by signing away your rights to seniority. You waived all guarantees to that. You all knew when you waived that, it was to say you had no rights to get it back. If thats true then what are you worried about? Do you believe that it might, just might, not be true? That the only reason the TWA F/As signed off on their rights to seniority in THEIR contract was that their seniority guarantees were REPLACED by the purchase agreement and verbal promises from Carty before the courts. Remember, fair & equitable? Lets see you said, Carty said fair and Equitable Ok so. As far as AA and APA and APFA are concerned. Thats exactly what you got. Fair and equitable is not judged on your scale, but on AA's. They laid out the money and they pay the bills. So, as far as AA,APA, & APFA are concerned, are you concerned what an unbias Judge or Jury might judge on their, scale(s), of justice. You know how the public thinks of CEOs today and the promises made and broken. Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing, and others. Not a very good climate to say a CEO didnt honor his promise before a court. OK so, wont cut it.
Mikey says,
Please spares me the APFA refused to even meet with the IAM. Like the great white knights there were at the APFA door and on the phone just begging to meet with us. Not true.
Really? You are an APFA Info Rep and you really believe this? So how do you explain the FACT that the APFA did not meet ONCE with the IAM? Was the APFA to busy? I have seen the letters sent to the APFA asking for meetings. All ignored. Mike your the rep, tell us the real reason APFA refused to meet with the IAM with a facilitator as promised by the contract. The courts would like to know.
Mikey says,
I have a feeling that your case like the precedent ones before it. Will not make it. Its line after line of fluff. Did you really read the complaint. If as you say, it wont make it, why all this talk about it bankrupty the APFA & AA, or TWA F/As getting seniority and/or $$$$. Are you getting nervous? Dont worry about the APFA. The $100,000/ month the TWA LLC F/As pay each month in dues should cover court costs. There is no way that the TWA F/As could win so what is your concern then? You dont beleive that there is a chance in hell, (testing the stupid censor), that they might? Do you? Who really cares about occupational seniority? You say, its really not that important. So why worry about it.
ALOHA, 007
----------------
On 9/8/2002 11:58:30 PM FA Mikey wrote:
The terrorist thing is extreme.
But lets face it. IAM and the former TWers are suing AA and APFA right now. They are looking to bankrupt us. They want all there occupational seniority that the IAM signed off on. And as much money as they can extract from AA and APFA. So this way there in a win win situation. Either they get there seniority and push the AAers to the street and on to reserve while they bide there time on easy street. In the company we built. Or they walk away with $$$$.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Aloha Mike,
You are sounding a little paranoid. All this talk about the poor TWA LLC F/As bankrupting big AA & APFA and getting seniority or walking away with $$$$. What are you talking about. You cant possibly believe that the APFA/AA could lose could you??? Come on look at the Reno case. As you, an APFA Info Rep say,by signing away your rights to seniority. You waived all guarantees to that. You all knew when you waived that, it was to say you had no rights to get it back. If thats true then what are you worried about? Do you believe that it might, just might, not be true? That the only reason the TWA F/As signed off on their rights to seniority in THEIR contract was that their seniority guarantees were REPLACED by the purchase agreement and verbal promises from Carty before the courts. Remember, fair & equitable? Lets see you said, Carty said fair and Equitable Ok so. As far as AA and APA and APFA are concerned. Thats exactly what you got. Fair and equitable is not judged on your scale, but on AA's. They laid out the money and they pay the bills. So, as far as AA,APA, & APFA are concerned, are you concerned what an unbias Judge or Jury might judge on their, scale(s), of justice. You know how the public thinks of CEOs today and the promises made and broken. Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing, and others. Not a very good climate to say a CEO didnt honor his promise before a court. OK so, wont cut it.
Mikey says,
Please spares me the APFA refused to even meet with the IAM. Like the great white knights there were at the APFA door and on the phone just begging to meet with us. Not true.
Really? You are an APFA Info Rep and you really believe this? So how do you explain the FACT that the APFA did not meet ONCE with the IAM? Was the APFA to busy? I have seen the letters sent to the APFA asking for meetings. All ignored. Mike your the rep, tell us the real reason APFA refused to meet with the IAM with a facilitator as promised by the contract. The courts would like to know.
Mikey says,
I have a feeling that your case like the precedent ones before it. Will not make it. Its line after line of fluff. Did you really read the complaint. If as you say, it wont make it, why all this talk about it bankrupty the APFA & AA, or TWA F/As getting seniority and/or $$$$. Are you getting nervous? Dont worry about the APFA. The $100,000/ month the TWA LLC F/As pay each month in dues should cover court costs. There is no way that the TWA F/As could win so what is your concern then? You dont beleive that there is a chance in hell, (testing the stupid censor), that they might? Do you? Who really cares about occupational seniority? You say, its really not that important. So why worry about it.
ALOHA, 007
Paranoid, No tired of people lucky enough to be saved prior to Chapter 7, Running up legal bills here. Worried about nothing more than themselves.
You want fair and equitable. You got it. Just because you dont agree with it. Sorry charlie. 100% pay and 100% company seniority. I say you are a bit greedy. For someone who just started here.
Refused to meet with the IAM. Yea, Ok if you say so it must be true. That is the same union who wouldnt meet with AA until hours before the BK judge was set to rule. They all of a sudden had the need for meeting with APFA. I am glad you were able to read all there propaganda. I have read the BS and lies before myself.
What was a facilitator going to do. APFAs job, was clear. And as the courts have already ruled. Its to there own members. I want the TW cash drain to stop. You people want one thing to see us in BK court. I guess you all are so used to being there. You dont know what its like outside of it.
You want fair and equitable. You got it. Just because you dont agree with it. Sorry charlie. 100% pay and 100% company seniority. I say you are a bit greedy. For someone who just started here.
Refused to meet with the IAM. Yea, Ok if you say so it must be true. That is the same union who wouldnt meet with AA until hours before the BK judge was set to rule. They all of a sudden had the need for meeting with APFA. I am glad you were able to read all there propaganda. I have read the BS and lies before myself.
What was a facilitator going to do. APFAs job, was clear. And as the courts have already ruled. Its to there own members. I want the TW cash drain to stop. You people want one thing to see us in BK court. I guess you all are so used to being there. You dont know what its like outside of it.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/10/2002 12:32:39 PM TWAFA007 wrote:
Really? You are an APFA Info Rep and you really believe this? So how do you explain the FACT that the APFA did not meet ONCE with the IAM? Was the APFA to busy? I have seen the letters sent to the APFA asking for meetings. All ignored. Mike your the rep, tell us the real reason APFA refused to meet with the IAM with a facilitator as promised by the contract. The courts would like to know.
----------------
[/blockquote]
what difference would it have made if the APFA met with the IAM or not...the results would have been the same, the APFA saying this is the way it's going to be and the IAM threatening to sue.
it turned out that way whether they met or not. any decision the APFA would have made would be deemed unacceptable, unfair, and unequitable by the IAM. Even if the APFA decided to give everything the IAM wanted, it still would not be enough for you folks. it seems the only way it would be deemd fair and equitable is IF everything was business as usual and we all pretended it was AA that went bankrupt and TWA bought AA out & kept the TWA name...it's just too bad that most of AA'rs don't live in the fantasy world you guys do, then maybe we all could get along.
----------------
On 9/10/2002 12:32:39 PM TWAFA007 wrote:
Really? You are an APFA Info Rep and you really believe this? So how do you explain the FACT that the APFA did not meet ONCE with the IAM? Was the APFA to busy? I have seen the letters sent to the APFA asking for meetings. All ignored. Mike your the rep, tell us the real reason APFA refused to meet with the IAM with a facilitator as promised by the contract. The courts would like to know.
----------------
[/blockquote]
what difference would it have made if the APFA met with the IAM or not...the results would have been the same, the APFA saying this is the way it's going to be and the IAM threatening to sue.
it turned out that way whether they met or not. any decision the APFA would have made would be deemed unacceptable, unfair, and unequitable by the IAM. Even if the APFA decided to give everything the IAM wanted, it still would not be enough for you folks. it seems the only way it would be deemd fair and equitable is IF everything was business as usual and we all pretended it was AA that went bankrupt and TWA bought AA out & kept the TWA name...it's just too bad that most of AA'rs don't live in the fantasy world you guys do, then maybe we all could get along.
- Status
