Thx Cipollini.

I am fully aware of the Tannen proposal. As I recall it integrated far more (around 70%) but still had around a 30% staple. Still a much better deal than CC. APA rejected the Tannen proposal, insisting that it was too lopsided towards the TWA side (again, fair or not? completely in the eye of the beholder.) Up until the Tannen proposal, TWALPA was insisting on a much harder line, up to an including full DOH. They started ratcheting it down with the Tannen. I believe that after the Tannen was rejected, they started boycotting meetings (APA was also known to boycott a few as well.) At that point APA, sensing that the whole deal would be scratched, crafted CC with AMR.

It is not a very well known fact, but it must be stated here in all truthfulness: Supp CC was crafted after 9/11, not before: APA knew that the furlough gauntlet was going to fall hard, and strove to protect as many native AA jobs as it could. I believe CC was crafted in early November '01.

Please note: these are details as explained to me by pilots on BOTH sides who were present during the whole deal. If they are inaccurate I would appreciate any corrections.

Again - I'm not an advocate of the process APA used: after the Tannen was rejected and both sides couldn't come to an agreement, the next step should have been submission to binding neutral arbitration. At least, with an arbitrator's ruling, one side wouldn't have been able to blame the other.

It is my opinion that an arbitrator would have crafted something similar along the lines of CC. This was revealed to me by someone who partook in the proceedings, claiming that APA had solicited the opinions of more than one respected arbitrator, before crafting CC. They wanted a deal that could stand up in court. Hence Supp CC, with the help of arbitrators. In fact I believe they used the same lawyer that was used with the TW/OZ merger.

Beers on the road... I'm in. Not one furloughed pilot will ever buy one on my watch in my presence. Welcome back!

73