St Louis hub endangered

[MCI transplant]

We could go back and forth on that one, and you know it! Do you really want to go there! This is getting us nowhere! At the time of "Purchase" A.A. promised jobs for the 20,000 TWA employees! Today there are Approx. 6,000!!! So much for A.A.''s promises!!!!This attiude of getting reed of all of what''s left of TWA, will fix everthing, is a pipe dream!!! Feel fortionate, that you had them to take "your" place out on the street! and you, and I,know that''s exactly the way it is!!!!!

 

[MCI transplant]

----------------
On 7/3/2003 12:57:55 PM FWAAA wrote:

----------------
On 7/3/2003 1208 PM MCI transplant wrote:

We could go back and forth on that one, and you know it! Do you really want to go there! This is getting us nowhere! At the time of "Purchase" A.A. promised jobs for the 20,000 TWA employees! Today there are Approx. 6,000!!! So much for A.A.''s promises!!!!This attiude of getting reed of all of what''s left of TWA, will fix everthing, is a pipe dream!!! Feel fortionate, that you had them to take "your" place out on the street! and you, and I,know that''s exactly the way it is!!!!!

----------------​

Had AMR known that OBL would attack us on September 11, the board would never have approved the purchase of TWA. Nobody saw the disaster coming. If September 11 had not happened, AA would not have laid off nearly all the TWA employees. AA would still be flying nearly 1000 planes instead of 770. Hindsight is truly 20-20.

----------------​

You know, Sept.11 is a good handle to put all our blame on, and to a point, rightfully so, but the truth of the matter is that the slump in the ecconomy, and the Airline Industry, started before that. The point I''ve been trying to make here, is the fact that the TWA Employees, had no say in the discision to be "bought out"! But we are now bearing the consiqences of that decision!!! And on a humman level, that''s not fair! I know, I know! "Who said life was fair?" And to be singled out TWA, as the couse of A.A.''s eccononomic failures is not only unfair, but totally wrong!!!!

 

[MCI transplant]

----------------
On 7/3/2003 1:15:23 PM Hopeful wrote:

And if you remember, CAARTY said the seniority issues would be settled by the respective unions.

----------------​

Come on Hopeful! Carty and the Unions were working hand in hand on that one! You know it, and so do we!!!!

 

[Hopeful]

And if you remember, CAARTY said the seniority issues would be settled by the respective unions.

 

[FWAAA]

----------------
On 7/3/2003 1208 PM MCI transplant wrote:

We could go back and forth on that one, and you know it! Do you really want to go there! This is getting us nowhere! At the time of "Purchase" A.A. promised jobs for the 20,000 TWA employees! Today there are Approx. 6,000!!! So much for A.A.''s promises!!!!This attiude of getting reed of all of what''s left of TWA, will fix everthing, is a pipe dream!!! Feel fortionate, that you had them to take "your" place out on the street! and you, and I,know that''s exactly the way it is!!!!!

----------------​

Had AMR known that OBL would attack us on September 11, the board would never have approved the purchase of TWA. Nobody saw the disaster coming. If September 11 had not happened, AA would not have laid off nearly all the TWA employees. AA would still be flying nearly 1000 planes instead of 770. Hindsight is truly 20-20.

 

[BDLDFW]

----------------
Come on Hopeful! Carty and the Unions were working hand in hand on that one! You know it, and so do we!!!!
----------------​

Yeah, Carty and the Unions were always such friends!

 

[IORFA]

MCItransplant,

You DID have a choice about being bought out. Your union and ALL the others had the choice of giving up your scope and Allegheny-Mohawk provisions to your contract, or AA said they wouldn''t proceed with the purchase. There was a choice in that. If you didn''t want to change your contract, you should have been more forcefull with your union. If the unions said NO, AA would have walked away. Yes, the judge might have changed them for you, but then you could have gone on strike. That threat might have forced AA to walk away. Never know. Bottom line, YOU did have a choice. Everyone chose to go along for the ride and hope for the best.

 

[kirkpatrick]

----------------
On 7/3/2003 3:40:21 PM IORFA wrote:

MCItransplant,

You DID have a choice about being bought out. Your union and ALL the others had the choice of giving up your scope and Allegheny-Mohawk provisions to your contract, or AA said they wouldn''t proceed with the purchase. There was a choice in that.
----------------​

There was no choice. We could have waived the scope clauses or seen the judge throw the contracts out in their entirety. In either event, the purchase would have taken place. If we hadn''t waived scope we would have gone into AA with NO CONTRACTS until joined with the AA unions as much as a year later.

MK

 

[IORFA]

You could have gone on strike if the judge had changed your contract unilaterally without the unions consent. That would have made AA at least question the outcome.

 

[rampguy]

----------------
On 7/3/2003 6:33:16 PM IORFA wrote:

You could have gone on strike if the judge had changed your contract unilaterally without the unions consent. That would have made AA at least question the outcome.

----------------​

Yeah, right

 

[L1011Ret]

About as much choice as the labor groups had in agreeing to the concessionary contracts. They could have gone on strike...

 

[kirkpatrick]

----------------
On 7/3/2003 6:33:16 PM IORFA wrote:

You could have gone on strike if the judge had changed your contract unilaterally without the unions consent. That would have made AA at least question the outcome.

----------------​

I don''t believe a strike was legal even if we all could have gotten together and organized it. There was no 30 day cooling off period declared, none of the provisions of the Railway Labor Act had been followed.

A strike was not feasible and certainly wouldn''t have helped us any.

MK

 

[L1011Ret]

AA insisted that the TWA labor contracts mirror AA contracts in many ways. The scope issue was just one issue. Other issues included changing TWA seniority to reflect AA policies such as the "butterfly leaves" given on TWA at the time of pregnancy and childbirth. At TWA seniority accrued during such leaves but at AA it did not. Thus a fair number of TWA F/As had their TWA seniority reduced. In exchange for these concessions, threatened to be implemented through the Bankruptcy Code, AA and Don Carty provided written and verbal promises to the BK court and the U.S. Senate that the integration of TWA workers into AA would be "fair and equitable." In return, the Senate gave AA the green light to purchase TWA. This made AA the "world''s largest airline, something AA and its management coveted. It was also a reaction to the threatened UAL/US Air merger.
At one point early on when furloughs began to happen, Carty promised to furlough "equitably" from TWA and AA. Is is imagined that these promises will be revisited during legal proceedings. The TWA workers strongly and vehemently believe AA did not adhere to its promises. So I guess that there is a long line of parties who are upset with AA about its promises including cities like Nashville and St. Louis. Probably many of these parties were given "verbal" promises that would be difficult to enforce.

 

[Hopeful]

PROMISES! PROMISES!

Get over this promises crap. Weren''t the folks at TWA promised certain things like we all were when he hired on with our employers?

The world has changed my TWA friends. 9/11 COMPOUNDED AN ALREADY WEAKENING AIRLINE INDUSTRY.

I suppose that since AA promised the 20,000 TWA people jobs, AA should just lay off AA people because we were not promised jobs for life as you were, ISN''T THAT RIGHT?

 

[L1011Ret]

You do not sound very hOPEFUL!!!