Originally Posted by
Mason32
TSA and CHQ were retained because, at the time, Eagle was already in maximum growth mode and was unable to assume the additional flying.
There was no requirement for AMR to keep either TSA or CHQ. This is not conjecture, the history of it is in AMR's own words, in writing. Simply go to the ALPA website and look up the original Eagle/TSA grievance arbitration.
It clearly spelled out, and the arbitor agreed, that per Eagle contract the company could not outsource flying if the opportunity to grow Eagle instead existed. It's in Eagle's scope clause. At the time the Arbitor agreed with AMR that Eagle was not, and had not been, capable of growing fast enough to meet AMR needs and that prompted the outsourced contract flying... at the same time the arbitor allowed AMR to lease airplanes to a subcontractor, even though the Eagle contract required AMR Eagle planes be flown by pilots on the Eagle pilot list.... the arbitor ruled that the transfer of equipment alone onto routes not done by Eagle was not a violation, especially since Eagle couldn't staff the planes. Which is why when they transfered the MIA routes to TSA it completed what was previously ruled to be a violation should it happen. If they didn't send the MIA flying back to Eagle it would have opened the door to file a grievance based upon the previous ruling.... which AMR knew they would lose. It would also open the door on ALL subcontracted AMR flying since Eagle is no longer in the position of not being able to ramp up to staff the additional flying.... opening that door is something AMR desperately wanted to avoid, since it would eliminate any possibility of an effective whipsaw in 2013.
Neither did CHQ. When AMR bought TWA, the routes became AMR's, and CHQ had not flown these new routes for AMR.
The reason CHQ and TSA were retained is explained above. If it isn't clear enough, go read the 2002 arbitration. Should that door be opened again, TSA and CHQ would be toast, and AMR would just be stuck like Delta was last summer... paying a subcontractor for work they weren't doing.
Not really, it's much more like one parent dying (TWA), and the surviving parent (AMR) being told they have to pay for the lease/rental agreement for their dead spouses car which they no longer need.....
Other than that, I think you're right on the money... as usual.
Everything you've stated is wrong. The arbitration is that additional flying may not be given out. The original CHQ/TWA flying stays that way until contract expiration. AMR became liable for those contracts when they purchased TWA. Yes one company is liable for another company's contracts when purchased in this case. CHQ is on a completely different playing field than TSA in this. There's a reason AE can't furlough while TSA is flying yet can without CHQ losing anything. TSA flew AE planes while CHQ owns the birds.
If your mother ran up debt then died yes your father would be liable for those debts. It's the number one reason people so much life insurance. If what you proposed was capable than any company in trouble would sell itself to another company just to lose the debt. The two would have to be kept separate like Bank of Americas purchase of Countrywide. They didn't.
AMR is sitting on over 6B in cash.... more than anybody else can say at this point in the industry's history.
1. AMR is sitting on $729 million in cash.
2. CAL-$2.5B, DAL-$2.4B, NWA-$3.6B, UAL-$3.3B, SWA-$2.4B
3. How much cash you have isn't the only thing that matters. If you owe a lot of money and have a fleet that needs restructuring those things go into account. That would put a few more marks against AMR.
Your posting makes me think of the quote: "90% of statistics can be made to say anything 50% of the time".