Originally Posted by
Mason32
Something to add to the mix that I haven't seen discussed.
As I understand the APA scope section... it basically says Commuter Carriers can not operate aircraft above an average seat capacity of 50 seats....
this was the reason AMR - Eagle got a bunch of 135 and 140 smaller jets to allow the 70 seat CRJ to be flown right?
If that is the case, then since Eagle is parking a bunch (ten I think) 135's and replacing them with ten 145's that were formerly leased to Trans States... then doesn't that mean the average seat count must have gone up?
I haven't seen it addresed anyplace, but I think there may be another scope violation that nobody thought of with the parking of 37 seat jets and replacing them with 50 seat jets....
Just a thought...
Keep up the good fight you guys, and don't give them an inch. If it comes to it.... this Eaglet will not cross your line.
There's a hard limit of 50 seats, not an average. The exception to that is the 25 CRJ70s that are allowed by side letter. There is a limit to the total number of aircraft and I believe that is 110% of AA narrow body aircraft (with a specific method of counting them). I don't think AMR is anywhere close violating that stipulation of scope, however, AMR has violated the 7300 AA native employed pilot floor. That is in arbitration right now. 50 seat RJs are relics. The real market is in 100 seat narrow body aircraft and AMR's contract opener demand to the APA is for APA to give up any and all scope including domestic and international code share and any limits on size or number of aircraft for Eagle. Basically what they want to is totally break the AA unions with unlimited whipsawing with the likes of any cheap-labor commuter airline (and not necessarily AE) and international partner airlines (read that BA and IB "strategic" partnerships).