In response to the comment about the article referring to labor and American Airlines request for anti-trust immunity.
I remember when American Airlines purchased TWA, and I remember reading how American Airlines stood before Congress asking for fast track approval of their purchase of TWA. AA clearly stated to Congress that they (AA) would give fair and equitable treatment to the TWA employees if given a fast track approval. I specifically remember reading in the ST. Louis papers that AA said they would be good corporate citizens to the good folks in Missouri when they received Congressional approval. The obvious tie into today's enviroment of economic chaos by big corporations needing bailout money and then turning around and spending it anyway they want, in turn, coming back and asking for more.
AA did just that. Although the devestating effects of 9/11 initiated the layoff of all TWA flight attendants, AA did indeed accept over 180 million in government bailout money to help stabalize their airline. They took the money, and then gave them selves huge bonuses and locked out the TWA Missouri flight attendants.
What this article is saying to me is that government oversight and job assurances along with an extension of recall for those still layed off flight attendants should be given, if AA wants this anti-trust immunity approval from the government. I think it is the least that the government can do for the Missouri workers who are still out of work at the hands of greedy American Airlines.
Sadly, the following statement from your article is simply untrue: "American Airlines last merger involving TWA resulted in nearly 20,000 workers losing their jobs as a result of lack government [sic] oversight and accountability."
Apart from the sentence's grammatical inadequacy, the facts are just wrong. The layoffs at American came on the heels of September 11, 2001 (a mere 5 months after TWA and AA were officially integrated). American, along with almost every other major US carrier, furloughed workers as a means to reduce overhead in, what was then, an unparalleled economic disaster for the airline industry. Many former TWA flight attendants were furloughed at that time, but not because AA chose to specifically lay off TWA flight attendants. On the contrary, because American's flight attendant union (the APFA) decided, in its sole discretion, to "staple" all TWA flight attendants to the bottom of American's seniority list, American had no choice but to lay off career TWA flight attendants because the union had placed them "under" even the most junior AA flight attendants. Thus, a 35-year career TWA flight attendant was given, by the AA union, less seniority than a one-year, brand-new AA flight attendant. Since American was obligated to follow the contractual rules for layoffs (in reverse order of seniority), it was forced to let long-time TWA flight attendants go, while brand-new AA flight attendants kept their jobs. This atrocity (and it was an atrocity) had less to do with lack of regulatory oversight, and much to do with union politics, greed, and short-sightedness.
Home | Login | Contact Us | Forum
© 2001-2016 Joplin Independent