AA recalls starting to increase

[waveflyer]

bored

the only question is why do we set it up so that our experience counts for nothing if our company goes under. with companies as large as ours- it's always going to be something as murky as this deal

 

[pkober]

American would most certainly allow the furloughed pilots to be stapled.

I doubt APA would.

It'll be irrelevant if AA buys more than 50% since it would go to an arbitrator. Thanks, Kit and Claire! TC

I will probably catch a wrath of shi+ from my fellow TWA'ers but here goes.

I agree with you. From what I've seen the APA has always made it a priority to include furlough issues in there contract talks. They want furlough longevity. I haven't seen that were I fly at now, it may be in there but I just haven't seen it. Nor do I remember seeing that at TWA ALPA.

I believe that the APA will do the stand up thing for its furloughees in a merger, even though they are mostly TWA.

 

[Prog 2/2]

So you are trying to tell me that the CEO has the power to cut a deal all on his own without running it by the BOD, I don't think so.

Never said that.

Compton presented the board the deal that he and Carty came up with, and the board took action on that proposal in exactly the same way that they would have handled any plan presented them.

This occured well prior to any bankruptcy filing, and the plan as presented by Boeing, and others, was designed to specifically preclude that course of action.


That's my point the AA deal had to be better. If as some here suggest the alleged Boeing offer was better then it would have been acceted by the BOD

Your focus on which deal was "better" clouds the issues, I think.

The AMR asset acquisition plan was judged to be in the best interests of the corporation, as the board saw those interests.

Once again, an alleged Boeing deal would have provided an influx of cash, new leadership and the continued independent operation of TWA, which would have protect all the jobs.

It would have continued the operation of TWA and was contingent upon the participation of the unions, the aircraft lessors, and others. This participation had been secured, to some extent, prior to presentation of the plan "term sheet".

Yet this was not accepted by the BOD? Something doesn't make sense

It does if you consider that Compton/Carty brought cold cash to the table, and that Compton still held some sway with the board.

AMR simply made an offer that the BOD couldn't refuse.

They may not have wanted to sell, but there was cash and ancillary promises (re. employees, etc.) that they could not ignore and still fulfill their duty.


I remember an Ican offer and an unkonwn hedge fund with no funds.

And these occured after the bankruptcy filing that was a requirement of the AMR asset acquisition.

AMR and bankruptcy came on the scene long afte the Boeing plan was presented.


No TWA was going BK anyway and the deal was cooked up to fight off the Ican offer

You're mixing time frames here, again.

Icahn made an offer for the assets of TWA after TWA had entered bankruptcy as a condition of the AMR asset acquisition.

The Boeing plan would have continued the operation of TWA and replaced Compton, and was an alternative to acquisition by any one. It was not a competing offer to those that surfaced for the assets of TWA after the AMR inspired bankruptcy filing.


Don't agree, even with Compton paying down obligations instead of renegotiation. Debts had to be paid. TWA was burning through cash at a rate of how many millions per day? They just didn't have the cash flow, access to capital and assests to pull out on their own.

You're correct. The debts would, eventually, have to be paid.

But TWA faced no extraordinary cash crunch that could not have been alleviated by access to capital, and they were not in the corporate equivalent of "foreclosure" due to their debt structure.

The Boeing plan would have, with the participation of the debt holders, renegotiated that debt. It would have also provided access to capital, and capital markets, that TWA couldn't access without their backing.

No, you were pathetic and that's the point. TWA was the only major in all of 1999 not to record a profit (not just in the last couple of months when Carty and Compton started to work on a deal)

And this is exactly what the Boeing plan was aimed at stopping. Boeing, and the other entities behind this plan, saw that TWA, as a going concern, was a greater protection to their investment than doing nothing.


Without AA their was no way that this would ever get better as long as Ican had any ties to TWA.

Possibly true, but Boeing and others thought their plan would do exactly that.

This is what burns a lot of AA people up. The numbers were bad, they don't lie and Ican was just not going away without AA. No AA, no getting rid of Ican's cheap tickets

And what we are saying is that there were others, Boeing being the lead, that felt this could be overcome with changes.

So if you have access to the BOD minutes then you can do a simple cut and pase of the BOD breifing on the Boeing OFFER?

My point is and many at AA are tired of hearing the Boeing bailout BS. If their was such a deal and it was better? Why no public record of it, even the slightest blurb in any finaicial publication, someone would have leaked it?

I'll challenge you to find, in the public record, any mention of what was discussed at the last AMR BOD meeting.

You're asking for something that is not a matter of public record.

They unions could have leaked it if they honestly felt it was better.

Where do you think we heard it from first?


If their was such a deal in the first place.
Why did the BOD not accept it?

Explained above.

Just telling me that they wanted to give Compton some money doesn't cut it.

Nobody wanted to give Compton money. Compton's payout for the AMR deal had nothing to do with this, and was not the basis for the BOD decision.

Their JOB is to accept the best offer

Why did Compton risk perjury when he said, " AA was the only one that came forward"?

AA was the only one who came forward to make an offer for the company.

There were no other offers to purchase the company or its assets, prior to the bankruptcy filing.

The Boeing plan was not an offer of purchase, but a plan by an invested party to change the direction of the company.

This all started as a refutation of the commonly held belief that TWA was bankrupt, about to liquidate, and had no option but to surrender to a fire sale of its assets on whatever terms that AA dictated.

TWA was bankrupt because bankruptcy was an integral part of a very complex acquisition plan that was brought to the TWA BOD by Compton/Carty.

It was not a last resort, hail mary, that the BOD approved in desperation.

There were alternatives that would have preserved TWA as a going concern.

 

[G4G5]

We're going to have to do this over a few beers, because I still don't get.

The hardest thing for me to grasp is if the Boeing deal entailed, new mgt, influx of capital and keeping TWA independent (keeping all the jobs) why wasn't it accepted the BOD? If this was such a good deal and the unions leaked it as you suggest, they did a piss poor job because no one has any record of this. It was never brought up in the Bond hearings. One would think that the Senator from MO would have done anything possible to save TWA, yet not even a whisper of a deal that would have kept TWA independent and saved all the jobs was ever brought up.

Like I said, maybe it's me and someday I hope to meet the guy who can explain it to me on an over night. Because I just don't see why anyone would take the AA offer with an alleged offer like Boeings on the table.

Thanks for trying to explain it

 

[TWA Dude]

The hardest thing for me to grasp is if the Boeing deal entailed, new mgt, influx of capital and keeping TWA independent (keeping all the jobs) why wasn't it accepted the BOD?

Probably because the plan would've involved shrinking the company by a third. The AA buyout was simply a superior deal (at the time).

 

[Prog 2/2]

We're going to have to do this over a few beers

:beer:

Agreed.

I gotta get back to annoying the USAPA clowns, anyway.

Cheers

 

[Jeff Helgeson]

There is more to the story....

You guys kill me, none of you want to believe sworn Senate testimony. You would rather believe your own versions. OK, I give.

Like I said before Ican killed TWA not AA

.....G4G5:

This is right from the AMR playbook. AMR did the same thing with Air Virginia. Air Virginia was flying as one of the contract Eagles. AV declared BK as directed by AMR. AMR buys all the assets for pennies on the dollar one month later and starts the AMR Eagle. Same planes, same people, same colors.

Arguing the viability of TWA at the time of BK, time prior or what could have been, 9/11, etc. really has little to due with integration, recall, LOS, longevity for pay, etc.

To the 17-year F/O from AA that started this thread drift: The career progression for the AA pilot hired in the early 1990's has not been stellar. But that is the same for other airlines that were hired at that time.

For the AA guys that were furloughed in the early 1990's or just missed furlough, their career has not progressed well, either. Example, a buddy of mine is an F/O on the MD80 out of DCA and is about 25 out of 90 F/Os. I am about 2500 numbers shy of being the junior F/O on reserve out of DCA.

So I feel for the guy that has been at AA for 17 years and has stagnated. I also feel for the guys getting recalled in the next class that were hired in 1989 and were all Captains before.

I think I will continue to fly for my LLC while you guys duke it out a bit more. Besides, you'll probably end up pulling gear for the British or feeding the B777s to Dubai. We're becoming the new "Eagle" and don't even know it.

"The chicken is fine, and I think the fat one likes me."

 

[Jeff Helgeson]

My guess

Who wants to speculate when AA will begin hiring off the street?

2cd quarter 2009.

 

[glasspilot1]

Here are the facts, for the record, in the interest of putting some issues to rest (yeah, right!):

-47% of TWA pilots were integrated at 1:8

-53% were stapled

-As previously mentioned, only ONE TWA pilot was recalled straight into the left seat, in the very first recall class. This pilot had taken a "furlough stand in stead" and was way above "furlough seniority." Our contract stipulates that any pilot who takes a furlough stand in stead can "reinstate" straight to their former bid status if such an opening exists at the time of recall (and they have the seniority to hold it.)

-The very first TWA furloughee just got his CA reinstatement two months ago, around an 8800 seniority.

Back to the original thread... it looks like we are finally increasing recalls and hopefully it will keep up!

regards,
73

AA73:

Thanks for a well written summary of the facts, and sorry your thread was so badly hijacked! And AA guys have to realize TWAers of that seniority were 1988 hires that are only reclaiming their CA seats in STL ONLY.

 

[aa73]

Yo Glass, always a pleasure my man. Congrats on the retirement, hope you don't miss the line too much.

73