July 8, 2004
Dear AMFA members and supporters:
Reference is made to the NYT article dated July 2, 2004. I have asked them to retract or make corrections to their article concerning some of my quotes. They have refused but they have submitted the letter to me which is below for your reading.
AMFA has a proud history of no concessions and we have been consistent since 1964. In 1983 all of the industrial unions gave the airlines concessions. Ozark Airlines had asked AMFA for the same concessions. The membership voted not to discuss concessions that was the end of concessions. In 1986 Ozark Airlines merged with TWA and our members inherited an inferior IAM contract. In 2002-03 NWA asked for concessions and our members refused, thus there were no talks to negotiate concessions on that carrier. AMFA members are the only ones that can authorize AMFA to discuss concessions.
No AMFA officer can unilaterally discuss any changes in the contract without membership approval. Our history proves that this is true - something that the industrial unions cannot prove.
I apologize that the article has caused panic and discontent. Because of the Fourth of July holiday it has taken five days for me to answer the many questions plus the fact that I was waiting for their statement. I thank you for your patience and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
/s/
O. V. Delle-Femine
National Director
===================================
From: Mary Walsh [mailto:
[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 3:19 PM
Mr. Delle-Femine:
Here's a copy of the recent article about United Airlines' pension funds. It's really very clear from my notes that when you spoke out about the pension funds, you were not in any way advocating that they be "gutted," but rather, giving a realistic appraisal of what could happen next, and how the unions might respond.
I should think that anyone concerned about their pension would appreciate your candor. If people would just take a few minutes and read the article to the end, they'd see that you are also thinking about possible joint action, and about the opportunity you and the others will have to test United's pension proposals in court.
I find it hard to believe that anyone would, in good faith, construe these remarks as an advocacy of givebacks. My notes (and, I thought, the story) make it clear that that wasn't what you were talking about.
Please let me know if we ought to discuss things further.
Mary Walsh
The New York Times
