Agreed, but it would be nice to see th TSA MEC supporting the Eagle MEC... both locals are ALPA, and we have one local accepting without complaint the violation of another local's contract.

Regarding the initial TWA/AA flying. The only reason TSA retained that flying was because at the time Eagle was already in maximum growth capacity, and could not meet the needs of AMR without bringing in (or retaining) the outside vendor. That is plainly clear as the result of the intitial greivance hearing with Eagle and AMR over the ten jets. AMR/AA/AE stated they couldn't staff the routes, because they were already in maximum growth mode, so they had to keep the outside contractor, TSA. That was their claim, and the reason they gave in the arbitration. The arbitrator, in his ruling, sided with Eagle/AMR and said, simply leasing airplanes was not a violation of the scope agreedment.... then, this wizzard went on to say, that if it had been aircraft & routes, it would be a different matter. This is FACT folks, it is available in the ALPA mediation/arbitration files.

What we have today, is exactly what the previous arbitrator ruled would be a violation... Aircraft & Routes.

Additionally, the primary claim by the company of not being able to hire/train fast enough (being in maximum growth as they called it)... that situation no longer exists... yet, AMR/Eagle is planning to furlough, while our planes and routes are being flown by another company. That is the problem. The secondary issue is the silence from the TSA ALPA MEC on the issue.