"All flying" is the opener. My guess is that the commuter scope exception will remain unchanged in the next contract. Eagle can keep the 25 70 seaters, and can procure another 22 if they want (by virtue of the arbitrators decision, although that is being appealed). But, that's it. No unlimited number of 76 seat 2-class replacement-liners that the company wants. No unlimited outsourcing. No give on scope. ZERO. That's a dead-certain strike issue and has universal support among APA pilots.
The 50 seater is a dead duck economically. That leaves Eagle in a tough spot in the mid-range future unless they can replace the money-pit 37-50 jets with something economical. If oil spikes again, that'll just hasten the demise. What should really happen is for Eagle to return to its roots and fly highly efficient modern turboprops in a true feeder operation, not the mainline replacement scheme that it's become.
"All flying" is the opener. My guess is that the commuter scope exception will remain unchanged in the next contract. Eagle can keep the 25 70 seaters, and can procure another 22 if they want (by virtue of the arbitrators decision, although that is being appealed). But, that's it. No unlimited number of 76 seat 2-class replacement-liners that the company wants. No unlimited outsourcing. No give on scope. ZERO. That's a dead-certain strike issue and has universal support among APA pilots.
The 50 seater is a dead duck economically. That leaves Eagle in a tough spot in the mid-range future unless they can replace the money-pit 37-50 jets with something economical. If oil spikes again, that'll just hasten the demise. What should really happen is for Eagle to return to its roots and fly highly efficient modern turboprops in a true feeder operation, not the mainline replacement scheme that it's become.
I understand that's your "guess". It's nothing not said before here, but good luck on its fruition. My guess is either the NMB or a judge will neuter your guess, so that leaves us where we were months ago.
Eagle used to fly "highly efficient modern turboprops" back when the APA christened us (lovingly), AA's "propeller division", but that won't work anymore. It might IF all the competition didn't have hundreds of 70 and 90-seaters, but they do. That means either AA competes with competitive economics or abandons the market, thus weakening itself.
You're right, the 50-seaters (and below) ARE economically limited and won't work for much longer. There really is no new " highly efficient modern turboprops" out there that weren't here 10 years ago, so should Eagle re-evolve to fly mostly its original short haul markets, that would leave AA out of many that would not be retained as again, AA labor costs won't support E-190's (or larger) against the competitors E-170's or CRJ's etc. If they did, AMR would be on that angle now, but they're not and have repeatedly rebuffed the idea. Not a single other large regional out there is entertaining the idea of abondoning the larger RJ flying they do now and buying a new fleet of turboprops to jump on this fantastic opportunity you trumpet.
But should your guess become reality, then poor little Eagle will fly 47 70-seaters on some of the routes we do now (down from about 300 RJ's) and return many of the smaller closer to hub routes to 1990's technology turboprops. I figure Eagle would be half its current size. But evereything comes with a price tag and the flip side is AA would almost certainly downsize dramatically as well, since their feed system (our job) would bring in far fewer customers and revenue who'd abandon AA to more convienent competitors. AA competing against other regionals is a non-starter in AMR's eyes, so AA would HAVE to downsize since we could only bring in half the passengers to AA we now do. Perhaps it would make sense and AA could park all the remaining S-80's.
Forget furloughee recalls and add another 2-3000 furloughs to that. Plenty of captains would return triumphantly to their comfy right seats and gear handles for many years to come and those F/O's who survived the ax would probably retire with callouses on their left hands. But at least the scourge of Eagle and RJ's would be CRUSHED !
I hope it's worth it.
Ironically, the only certainty in this wonderful victory would be that the APA (and many AA pilots) would blame Eagle and its pilots should your guess not produce the results you and they hoped for. Ah well, all in a days work for us here at Eagle.................damned if we do, damned if we don't.
Looking forward to the outcome as it should be interesting indeed.
Then why don't you just stay in the Air Force. The pay is a he!! of a lot better.
I'm a Crew Chief by trade. I got off of AD in 07 to take a flying job w/Eagle. I'm in the guard now and have 5 more till my 20. And I get a pretty darn good pension from the VA. So, I'm making better now than a AD TSgt!
I understand that's your "guess". It's nothing not said before here, but good luck on its fruition. My guess is either the NMB or a judge will neuter your guess, so that leaves us where we were months ago.
Eagle used to fly "highly efficient modern turboprops" back when the APA christened us (lovingly), AA's "propeller division", but that won't work anymore. It might IF all the competition didn't have hundreds of 70 and 90-seaters, but they do. That means either AA competes with competitive economics or abandons the market, thus weakening itself.
You're right, the 50-seaters (and below) ARE economically limited and won't work for much longer. There really is no new " highly efficient modern turboprops" out there that weren't here 10 years ago, so should Eagle re-evolve to fly mostly its original short haul markets, that would leave AA out of many that would not be retained as again, AA labor costs won't support E-190's (or larger) against the competitors E-170's or CRJ's etc. If they did, AMR would be on that angle now, but they're not and have repeatedly rebuffed the idea. Not a single other large regional out there is entertaining the idea of abondoning the larger RJ flying they do now and buying a new fleet of turboprops to jump on this fantastic opportunity you trumpet.
But should your guess become reality, then poor little Eagle will fly 47 70-seaters on some of the routes we do now (down from about 300 RJ's) and return many of the smaller closer to hub routes to 1990's technology turboprops. I figure Eagle would be half its current size. But evereything comes with a price tag and the flip side is AA would almost certainly downsize dramatically as well, since their feed system (our job) would bring in far fewer customers and revenue who'd abandon AA to more convienent competitors. AA competing against other regionals is a non-starter in AMR's eyes, so AA would HAVE to downsize since we could only bring in half the passengers to AA we now do. Perhaps it would make sense and AA could park all the remaining S-80's.
Forget furloughee recalls and add another 2-3000 furloughs to that. Plenty of captains would return triumphantly to their comfy right seats and gear handles for many years to come and those F/O's who survived the ax would probably retire with callouses on their left hands. But at least the scourge of Eagle and RJ's would be CRUSHED !
I hope it's worth it.
Ironically, the only certainty in this wonderful victory would be that the APA (and many AA pilots) would blame Eagle and its pilots should your guess not produce the results you and they hoped for. Ah well, all in a days work for us here at Eagle.................damned if we do, damned if we don't.
Looking forward to the outcome as it should be interesting indeed.
Very well said! However logic and common sense aren't allowed in the scope debate....
Very well said! However logic and common sense aren't allowed in the scope debate....
I know, I know.........it's primarily an emotional issue.
From a general standpoint, I've found that if you point out not only the current painful realities of larger RJ flying, but the incresing liklyhood of it becoming entrenched further, many become very emotional and it usually leads to a bashfest. It seems most prefer to 'whistle past the cemetary', then confront the harsh realities of the present and future with regard to short/medium range domestic flying. At least confront it with mutual solutions instead of a 'king of the hill' philosophy. At AMR anyway, the APA has declared that even our original turboprop routes and routes they never flew but were started by Eagle with an RJ as theirs. No sit down, no parlay, just belittlement and domination.
It's absolutely true that perhaps 35-40% of the flying we do was formerly done by AA and should go back there, but economics and corporate desires have overcome that and will likely continue to. We didn't ask for it, it was given to us. Should DAL and CAL become the future domestic behemoths with AA falling back to a mid-level domestic player because of a strangled feeder system, so be it..............heck, maybe a smaller Eagle and smaller AA would be better for the surviving 60% of the employees who'd remain after the massive retrenchement the APA's scope demands would result in.
If it makes a healthier AA and Eagle to be substantially smaller, then maybe that's a good thing. Hopefully, those on both sides that don't make the cut or who survive, but lose major ground will understand.
The competiton will likely be the biggest winner along with management and the shareholders. Personally, unless I was very senior at AA, as an AA pilot, I'd be just as worried about a big scope victory as I would a loss. Either extreme will be painful, but as you imply, raw emotion blinds one to become hasty and not consider all ramifications.
Everyone says the 50-seater is dead, yet cannot produce any facts to prove it. I think it is just popular to say that 50-seaters are unprofitable. I agree that there are too many 50-seaters out there, but they have their niche market, just like every other aircraft. AA and CAL fly EMB-145s on routes that would be better served by EMB-170s/190s, but they are also on many routes that could not support an EMB-170/190.
As for AA, is their management holding out in hopes for the AA pilots to cave on scope? Do you really think they want EMB-190s? If they feel they could bring in that much more revenue, would it really matter who is flying it? How many tickets must be sold on each flight to pay the difference between an AA and AE crew? What would pay be on the EMB-190 for AA and AE?
As for AA, is their management holding out in hopes for the AA pilots to cave on scope? Do you really think they want EMB-190s? If they feel they could bring in that much more revenue, would it really matter who is flying it? How many tickets must be sold on each flight to pay the difference between an AA and AE crew? What would pay be on the EMB-190 for AA and AE?
Good question, but remember there are two especially noteworthy aspects of mainline operation of aircraft that compeitors use regionals for already.
A. You need to apply the increased costs to ALL job positions, not just pilots (with pensions, mind you). From mechanics down to FSC's. Do that and the numbers change significantly.
B. Also applying the fact that mainline labor groups will always have more leverage then similar groups at regional carriers and as such, will usually be able to 'raise the bar' higher (and faster) then the competiton (if they are regionals, especially with the ability to whipsaw at the regional level).
'Raising the bar' is GREAT if your a pilot, but B-A-D if your a management stooge or bean counter. Raising the bar is started by first gaining CONTROL and once that is relinquished, it's VERY diffiuclt to backpeddle out of it and AMR believes it cannot afford to have all mainline labor (again, not just pilots) control this type of flying at AMR. They see that as a future nightmare.
Right now, the APA has not offered any viable solution other then a concept they cannot coherently define in practical or workable terms, so as of now delay and stalling are the plan. I think that's fine with AMR as they must beleive for whatever reason it's in their long term best interest.
Right now, the APA has not offered any viable solution other then a conceptthey cannot coherently define in practical or workable terms, so as of now delay and stalling are the plan. I think that's fine with AMR as they must beleive for whatever reason it's in their long term best interest.
The BS highlighted above is eaglefly's (highly biased) opinion.
Anyone who has taken the time to either contact a member of our scope or negotiations committee knows that reality is 180 degrees from eaglefly's flight of fantasy.
Apparently in the land of 16 year contracts, it is wise to openly broadcast your goals, intentions, and bottom line for all of the world to see during section 6 negotiations.
Brilliant.
The rest of us will hold our cards close to our chest.
The fact Joe "DOH" Merchant comes out on this thread as a supporter of your opinions speaks volumes.
The BS highlighted above is eaglefly's (highly biased) opinion.Anyone who has taken the time to either contact a member of our scope or negotiations committee knows that reality is 180 degrees from eaglefly's flight of fantasy. Apparently in the land of 16 year contracts, it is wise to openly broadcast your goals, intentions, and bottom line for all of the world to see during section 6 negotiations.Brilliant.The rest of us will hold our cards close to our chest.The fact Joe "DOH" Merchant comes out on this thread as a supporter of your opinions speaks volumes.
Oh the humanity !
Of course it's my opinion. Most everything said on this forum is opinion (yours included). We all know you'd love to run me over on the streetcorner if able, but there's no fantasy in that statement.
Apparently, the cards the APA are holding are being so tightly held, that most of the membership doesn't know what their super-secret plan is. I've heard many of the membership has asked the APA what "all flying to be done by AA pilots" means and have yet to get a coherent satisfactory answer. As such, many of us out there believe the APA is making a pokerface like they have 4 aces and a queen, when in fact, it's 2 dueces, a four and eight and a jack.
But again, it's my OPINION the APA's scope plan isn't that important anyway. AMR has their ideas and I think it's those ideas that unfortunately will ultimately carry the game. None of this has anything to do with "16 year contracts", but I understand and accept that this was included solely for attack as there was no correction of my opinions with facts...........oh I forgot, it's a secret.
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
