Don't Forget TW Cabin Crew Still At AA

klwright69 · Tue Nov 24, 2015 1:14 am

As AA rolls out the TW retrojet, don't forget the TW cabin crew still employed there. Here is an article detailing how many are still there and their challeneges. They are the end of an era!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/...ht-attendants-still-bear-a-burden/

gdg9 · Tue Nov 24, 2015 1:49 am

Not to start a huge war or argument, but aren't most of these TWA people lucky to have held on to a job rather than having TWA inevitably liquidate without a merger? Or AA simply buying TWA and shutting it down?

Braniff747SP · Tue Nov 24, 2015 1:53 am

Quoting gdg9 (Reply 1):

The flight attendants?

Not really. They were all stapled to the bottom of the seniority list and were all out of a job within months -- they got callbacks a little over decade after.

They got screwed.

global1 · Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:01 am

My previous post on this topic was deleted by moderators from the TWA retro jet thread as being "off topic", so here goes:

I wonder how TWA employees still at AA ,feel about this aircraft. Does it have some kind of cathartic effect or does it bring up feelings about the raw hand that most TWA employees ( especially FA) were dealt at AA?

Although not truly a "merger" but rather a liquidation sale, the same could be said of UA and DL purchases of PanAm assets. Although those groups were not afforded date-of-hire at their new respective carriers, they were blended into the overall seniority list and fared much better over all.

The treatment of TWA employees was draconian and shameful. So much so that it ultimately resulted in legislation.

Best of luck in court.

[Edited 2015-11-23 18:20:17]

DeltaB717 · Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:02 am

Am I correct in taking from the article that the ex-TWA flight attendants are once again ending up 'stapled' at the bottom of the list, with the HP flight attendants slotting in amongst the AA-but-not-TWA flight attendants?

I know the US / CO merger is still going on as far as labour issues (particularly flight attendants). How did the DL / NW merger go, compared to AA/ TWA, AA / HP & UA / CO?

longhauler · Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:18 am

Quoting gdg9 (Reply 1):
aren't most of these TWA people lucky to have held on to a job rather than having TWA inevitably liquidate without a merger?

The other side of the coin would be that AMR Corp is not a charity and saw value in TWA and that is why they bought it. Employees included. Those employees that, in spite of management, made TWA something worthwhile to purchase.

If it were only the assets AMR was after, then yes, they would have waited for liquidation .... but they didn't, there was value in a respected, working, running airline.

UA444 · Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:20 am

Quoting longhauler (Reply 5):

AA bought the whole airline and had a duty to make sure thier employees were all treated fairly. They failed. Everyone who took part in the decisions that screwed TW employees has a special place in hell for them.

global1 · Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:30 am

TWA FA with decades of service and stapled to the list were the first to be laid off in a subsequent economic downturn, while the most junior AA flight attendants remained. Many were laid off for years. Financial ruin, depression, and in some cases, suicide, was the result for many.

We have not forgotten about you.

EA CO AS · Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:39 am

Quoting UA444 (Reply 6):
AA bought the whole airline

Except Karabu.

Or TLV.

Or the operating certificate.

Or the company as an entity.

But y'know, other than those rather HUGE parts, you're right...

ripcordd · Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:40 am

The only reason they took the employees was to pass the DOJ hurdle...While I feel for those employees if were not for AA they wouldn't have had a job and their final paychecks from TWA would have bounced since AA floated TWA'S payroll. There was 2 options for those employees the street or a job with AA at that time. I think most of those that did retire from TWA AA is paying for their retirement and they have travel on AA..

jc2354 · Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:42 am

I would really like to believe that Doug Parker would have done something for the TWA flight attendants, but I think they were already involved in a civil case in courts, that had to be played out first. I do know that the case was appealed, and is now awaiting a court date.

ripcordd · Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:45 am

If DP would do something then 90% of FA'S flying for AA that were hired by AA would be calling for his head to make the 10% if even that amount of TWA FA'S left happy you talk about labor problems with CO/UA - AA would have made that look like childsplay the last thing he would want

ASFlyer · Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:48 am

Quoting global1 (Reply 7):
TWA FA with decades of service and stapled to the list were the first to be laid off in a subsequent economic downturn, while the most junior AA flight attendants remained. Many were laid off for years. Financial ruin, depression, and in some cases, suicide, was the result for many.

We have not forgotten about you.

Indeed, we have not forgotten about our TWA colleagues. When we talk about the "good ole days" of aviation, Pan Am and TWA are two names that come to mind. Both world wide carriers, representing the best of the glory days. These airlines are iconic. Nothing but respect for both groups in my mind. Sad to see how the TWA Flight Attendants were left out in the cold.

UA444 · Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:51 am

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 8):

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 8):
Except Karabu.

Or TLV.

Or the operating certificate.

Or the company as an entity.

But y'know, other than those rather HUGE parts, you're right...

Tiny problem there...you're wrong.

jc2354 · Tue Nov 24, 2015 3:08 am

Quoting ripcordd (Reply 11):
If DP would do something

That was meant to be something moral, as maybe negotiating with the union on the TWA behalf, along those lines. Besides I don't think he can do anything to change their seniority without help from the union. As US purchased AA, not merged but purchased, maybe he could gently remind them that things could have turned out different.

doulasc · Tue Nov 24, 2015 3:21 am

Is there anyone working for American Airlines that started their career with Ozark Airlines that's been through two
mergers.

global1 · Tue Nov 24, 2015 3:51 am

Note to my Delta colleagues:

Q: Who was the union representing the TWA FA's at the time?

A: IAM

catiii · Tue Nov 24, 2015 3:55 am

Quoting UA444 (Reply 6):

AA bought the whole airline and had a duty to make sure thier employees were all treated fairly. They failed. Everyone who took part in the decisions that screwed TW employees has a special place in hell for them.

AA didn't have a duty to make sure the employees were treated fairly. The UNION did. It failed.

global1 · Tue Nov 24, 2015 4:02 am

Which union? The IAM who represented them, or their new "family", APFA?

[Edited 2015-11-23 20:18:49]

spinkid · Tue Nov 24, 2015 4:15 am

I enjoyed this article.

I've seen this argument played out here on A.net since the merger with strong arguments from both sides, but its interesting to see and hear about a human person attached to these numbers and that they love their job so much they would fight for it.

AA, must still have all kinds of employees merged into its list from Air Cal, Reno, PSA, Allegheny? USAirways, America West, TWA, Ozark, Piedmont

N1120A · Tue Nov 24, 2015 9:24 am

Quoting DeltaB717 (Reply 4):
Am I correct in taking from the article that the ex-TWA flight attendants are once again ending up 'stapled' at the bottom of the list, with the HP flight attendants slotting in amongst the AA-but-not-TWA flight attendants?

No, staples are illegal now. If they can't agree on a methodology between all of the groups, one will be imposed on them by arbitrators. This is why the United FAs still don't have a contract - despite sUA being the larger work group, sCO and Air Mike get a say.

Quoting catiii (Reply 17):
AA didn't have a duty to make sure the employees were treated fairly. The UNION did. It failed.

Quoting global1 (Reply 16):
Note to my Delta colleagues:

Q: Who was the union representing the TWA FA's at the time?

A: IAM

The union had no real choice. AA was a much larger carrier than TWA and the laws at the time allowed a straight up and down vote on integration.

BravoOne · Tue Nov 24, 2015 11:37 am

Quoting global1 (Reply 3):
Although not truly a "merger" but rather a liquidation sale, the same could be said of UA and DL purchases of PanAm assets. Although those groups were not afforded date-of-hire at their new respective carriers, they were blended into the overall seniority list and fared much better over all.

Generally agree with your assessment of the DAl/PAA "acquisition" and the fact that a lot of former PAA 747 crews were unable to come over. As a side note there a number of PAA pilots who did make the cut and were senior to existing DAL pilots in terms of date of hire. Generally these pilots were referred to as the "dirty-thirty" as they had manipulated their qualifications so as to make them eligible to cross over to Delta. A case of ALPA looking the other way instead of watching out for the over all membership at PAA.

longhauler · Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:45 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 20):
The union had no real choice. AA was a much larger carrier than TWA and the laws at the time allowed a straight up and down vote on integration.

This is interesting, and exactly why such a vote is not legal under Canadian Labour Laws. The larger group would always "gang up" on the smaller group. Have things changed in the United States?

ont 737 · Tue Nov 24, 2015 3:19 pm

Could we get some clarification on why the TWA employees were stapled? Acquisition rather than merger? Differences between union organizations? Taking advantage of smaller group which you can out-vote?

Is it correct that seniority list integration is up to the labor groups to decide?
Were any other work groups at TWA stapled?

In the end it worked out beautifully for the AA FA's. I guess that boost in seniority prevented ~3,000 from being laid off for a decade.

BravoOne · Tue Nov 24, 2015 3:25 pm

Quoting Reply 23):
In the end it worked out beautifully for the AA FA's. I guess that boost in seniority prevented ~3,000 from being laid off for a decade

Well you might get some argument from the TWA FA's and pilots. I believe the pilots sued ALPA national and won but I'm not sure what they got out of it. I know several junior TWA Capts that wound up furloughed for a number of years but they are back now and hopefully have some good years left in their careers.

ripcordd · Tue Nov 24, 2015 3:33 pm

Most of those layoff's came from downsizing STL

rbavfan · Tue Nov 24, 2015 4:55 pm

Quoting UA444 (Reply 6):
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/...ht-attendants-still-bear-a-burden/

Agree it was sad seeing the way they were tossed around like bad turbulence.

aloha73g · Tue Nov 24, 2015 5:00 pm

Quoting Reply 23):
Could we get some clarification on why the TWA employees were stapled?

The AA union (APFA) said that the TWA union (IAM) had to vote to give up their seniority protections (Allegheny-Mohawk), but not to worry since APFA would treat them fairly. The TWA union voted to give up their seniority protections and then APFA stapled them.

Quote:
TWA employees, particularly the pilots and flight attendants represented by their respective unions, agreed, again at the request of American, to waive the Allegheny-Mohawk provisions in their contracts in exchange for written promises and assurances from American Airlines that they would be integrated fairly into American Airlines' workforce.

The Allegheny-Mohawk provisions in their contracts guaranteed TWA pilots and flight attendants the option to have their integration into a purchaser's workforce decided by an independent neutral third party provided no agreement on integration could be reached between TWA's and the purchaser's unions. According to the provisions, this independent arbitration would be binding.

from: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-10...rg88585/html/CHRG-108shrg88585.htm

At the time (pre 9/11) it didn't seem like as big of a deal because the TWA F/As maintained their pay rate based on years of service, and they were all based at STL so their "relative seniority" within the base was that same as before the merger. It was only after 9/11 when the furloughs happened that it became apparent they had been screwed.

The other way the TWA F/As were screwed is that their recall rights expired after 5 years of being furloughed, so many of them were never able to come back to AA as they recovered and grew. Also, APFA changed its rules at the time to require furloughed employees to pay union dues. Therefore the few TWA F/As who were recalled all had to pay the union thousands of dollar in outstanding dues to bring themselves current after years of being unemployed.

-Aloha!

diverdave · Tue Nov 24, 2015 5:07 pm

Quoting aloha73g (Reply 27):
The other way the TWA F/As were screwed is that their recall rights expired after 5 years of being furloughed, so many of them were never able to come back to AA as they recovered and grew.

The Forbes story says Laurel Fitzwater was laid off in 2003 and recalled in 2011. Just wondering, how did that happen if the recall rights expired in 5 years?

David

sccutler · Tue Nov 24, 2015 5:22 pm

Quoting Braniff747SP (Reply 2):

They got screwed.

No they didn't. Well, yes they did, but not by AA.

The first dollar any of the TWA folks got from AA was a dollar more than they'd have gotten from TWA, had AA not bought the assets.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 5):

If it were only the assets AMR was after, then yes, they would have waited for liquidation .... but they didn't, there was value in a respected, working, running airline.

Not much, by that point. AA bought assets, and bet on the operation (a bad bet, as it worked out, because of 9/11, not because of the TWA people, one must emphasize).

Quoting UA444 (Reply 6):

AA bought the whole airline and had a duty to make sure thier employees were all treated fairly.

No they didn't.

Polot · Tue Nov 24, 2015 5:53 pm

Quoting longhauler (Reply 22):
Have things changed in the United States?

Yes, as a direct result of the AA/TWA integration the McCaskill Bond Act, as the article mentions, was passed in 2007 which requires seniority lists to be integrated in a "fair and equitable matter."

Quoting jc2354 (Reply 10):
I would really like to believe that Doug Parker would have done something for the TWA flight attendants, but I think they were already involved in a civil case in courts, that had to be played out first. I do know that the case was appealed, and is now awaiting a court date.

Quoting ripcordd (Reply 11):
If DP would do something then 90% of FA'S flying for AA that were hired by AA would be calling for his head to make the 10% if even that amount of TWA FA'S left happy you talk about labor problems with CO/UA - AA would have made that look like childsplay the last thing he would want

I don't think there is any that DP (or any airline executive) could/can do. Seniority integration is a union, not an airline management, issue so must be settled between the unions/labor groups. There is not much the airline executives can do other than try and get the two unions to cooperate and come to a deal.

aloha73g · Tue Nov 24, 2015 6:14 pm

Quoting diverdave (Reply 28):
The Forbes story says Laurel Fitzwater was laid off in 2003 and recalled in 2011. Just wondering, how did that happen if the recall rights expired in 5 years?

If I recall, many TWA F/As were recalled within the 5 years and then re-furloughed when the economy crashed in 2008, then re-recalled in 2011. Many TWA F/As were not recalled within the initial 5 years and therefore lost their recall rights.

-Aloha!

BHMNONREV · Tue Nov 24, 2015 6:17 pm

Quoting sccutler (Reply 29):
Quoting Braniff747SP (Reply 2):
They got screwed.
No they didn't. Well, yes they did, but not by AA.

The first dollar any of the TWA folks got from AA was a dollar more than they'd have gotten from TWA, had AA not bought the assets.

While the APFA screwed over the TWA FA's, the TWU and IAM played nice with each other and as a result TWA ground staff saw a substantial raise in their paychecks once they started wearing AA colors. Not all aspects of the merger were negative..

Braniff747SP · Tue Nov 24, 2015 7:18 pm

Quoting sccutler (Reply 29):
No they didn't. Well, yes they did, but not by AA.

The union screwed them. The airline could have been more proactive, sure, but I'm not sure what incentive they had to do so.

UA444 · Tue Nov 24, 2015 7:21 pm

This myth that AA bought assets needs to stop. TWA filed Chapter 11, not chapter 7. There is a huge difference. AA even initially had to fight the Karabu deal in court and won. Yes, there were a few things that eventually did not end up at AA, but things like aircraft, slots, leases, gates and all fees associated with did get assumed by AA. it was after that they got rid of things like the 717s, TLV, etc. They even bought TW's 26% share in their res system then sold it.

AA became the legal successor to TW and therefore was responsible for things TWA didn't get rid of in the CH.11. That's why AA had to settle with TWA employees in TLV

[Edited 2015-11-24 11:29:25]

Polot · Tue Nov 24, 2015 7:32 pm

Quoting UA444 (Reply 34):
This myth that AA bought assets needs to stop. TWA filed Chapter 11, not chapter 7. There is a huge difference. AA even initially had to fight the Karabu deal in court and won. AA didn't pick and choose what they wanted, they bought the whole thing and then got rid of things like the 717s, TLV, etc.

TWA filed for Chapter 11 (under an agreement with AA) and then sold assets to AA who formed a new company (TWA Airlines LLC) to hold the them until they were integrated. It was basically a pre-arranged Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The use of Chapter 11 was to make it easier for AA to acquire the assets without the risk of someone coming along and out bidding them (Chapter 7 is just about getting as much money as possible with fewer antitrust risks as you will be liquidating anyways, Chapter 11 you have to present business cases).

[Edited 2015-11-24 11:33:02]

EA CO AS · Tue Nov 24, 2015 7:45 pm

Quoting UA444 (Reply 13):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 8):Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 8):Except Karabu.

Or TLV.

Or the operating certificate.

Or the company as an entity.

But y'know, other than those rather HUGE parts, you're right...
Tiny problem there...you're wrong.

Prove me wrong. Cite your sources.

ckfred · Tue Nov 24, 2015 8:53 pm

AA buying TWA was a response to the proposed UA-US merger, as well as the miserable summer of 2000 at ORD.

If UA-US had gone through, AA would have been considerably smaller without TWA.

By the same token, AA and UA had agreed to swap 757s. AA would have delivered the TWA 757s to UA in exchange for the US 757s, because of the engines.

Also, AA was going to lease some of the F100 fleet to start-up DC Air, owned by Robert Johnson of the BET Network, which was going to take over some of US's slots at DCA.

If the UA-US merger had gone through, it would have been a benefit to AA. But, AA got stuck with the TWA 757s, which later went to DL. The F100s stayed around, while the 717s went back to Boeing.

And the delays of 2000 at ORD, due to severe storms all summer, weren't an issue in 2002, as flying declined at ORD.

But, I'm curious. Is STL still a crew base for pilots and F/As? I had read that the STL pilot base was going to close, as a result of AA's trip through Chapter 11.

OzarkD9S · Wed Nov 25, 2015 12:43 am

Quoting doulasc (Reply 15):

Is there anyone working for American Airlines that started their career with Ozark Airlines that's been through two
mergers.

A few that I know of personally. A couple gate agents still work in STL that started with Ozark. A good friend of the family does and he's 61 now so won't be there in 4 years time. He was hired in 1972 as a res agent in Peoria. He took a 22% pay cut when TWA bought Ozark, now makes much more per hour at AA but is part time. 20-25 hours a week but he picks up extra shifts when people want time off. He has another part time job and does fine for himself.

He always says OZ was better to work for than TWA, and AA is about the same as TWA.

uberflieger · Wed Nov 25, 2015 1:56 am

A dear family friend started as a stewardess with TWA in 1970, before losing her job going on strike in 1986. Let me share her views with you.
'The majority of TWA flight attendants either crossed the picket line in 1986 or were hired as replacements. They are strikebreakers, better known in our job as 'scabs'. They need to go to the bottom.'
Jane started with AA in 1987 as a new hire. She had 15 years of seniority at the time of the acquisition.

superjeff · Wed Nov 25, 2015 7:09 am

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 36):

A U.S. Chapter 11 is a reorganization. It is different than Chapter 7 in that the company has a say in the process. If assets are sold, the creditors have a say. And the shareholders usually get wiped out. American bought assets, not liabilities. TLV was a different issue as Israeli law is different from U.S. That simple

b727fa · Wed Nov 25, 2015 7:10 am

TWA filed a pre-packaged BK to make the deal with AA work. AA didn't "save" them out of BK--that was the vehicle by which the deal could work.

And your "dear family friend" has a faulty knowledge of labor law (and the facts surrounding the strike). VERY few FA's crossed and, not for nothing, strike breakers in any industry are called a "scab." MOST of the TWA FA's left at the time of AA/TW were NOT scabs but "regular hires" and yes, replacement FA's. But they made peace and moved forward to protect their rights. Your friend had every right to stick with the strike, cross the line, or move on. She abandoned her colleagues and started over at another airline. That doesn't give her the right to determine the lack of value for those she left behind. There but for the grace of God go I. She was looking out for herself; she doesn't get to fault them for doing the same.

uberflieger · Wed Nov 25, 2015 1:00 pm

Quoting b727fa (Reply 41):
your "dear family friend" has a faulty knowledge

Jane lived it, while you were in your early teens?

global1 · Wed Nov 25, 2015 3:24 pm

"They deserve to be stapled" is just self talk to justify in your mind that they got what was coming to them.

Wrong.

It was a sad and shameful chapter in the history of the IAM, APFA, and AA.

Now the IAM is offering to "protect me" at DL (for a nominal monthly fee). Ahh.....No thanks.

b727fa · Wed Nov 25, 2015 3:26 pm

Hardly my early teens--but thank you for the age reduction. I'm told I don't look my age. LOL. As for Jane, she's justifying her decision which is unnecessary. She didn't want to scab, didn't want to strike, so she went to AA. But to declare her superiority over those who DID stay at TWA is unkind at best and downright cruel at worst. AA folks have a reputation for gauche behavior with AAquired carriers for good reason.

N1120A · Wed Nov 25, 2015 6:03 pm

Quoting longhauler (Reply 22):
This is interesting, and exactly why such a vote is not legal under Canadian Labour Laws. The larger group would always "gang up" on the smaller group. Have things changed in the United States?

The AA/TWA debacle was the impetus for changes that have prevented this from happening again.

Quoting Reply 23):

Could we get some clarification on why the TWA employees were stapled? Acquisition rather than merger? Differences between union organizations? Taking advantage of smaller group which you can out-vote?

The last two.

Quoting BravoOne (Reply 24):
Well you might get some argument from the TWA FA's and pilots. I believe the pilots sued ALPA national and won but I'm not sure what they got out of it.

The TWA pilots received $53 million in settlement of their duty of fair representation claims.

questions · Wed Nov 25, 2015 9:18 pm

Quoting global1 (Reply 43):

Now the IAM is offering to "protect me" at DL (for a nominal monthly fee). Ahh.....No thanks.

How much are union dues?

global1 · Wed Nov 25, 2015 9:46 pm

generally $600. to $800. per year.

N1120A · Wed Nov 25, 2015 9:53 pm

Quoting questions (Reply 46):
How much are union dues?

It is usually a formula based on salary amount and other factors.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net