The odds of seeing a widebody Airbus at AA are virtually zero. At best, they might begrudgingly order a few more 787s when the time comes to retire the 772s. The rest will likely be outsourced to Oneworld "partners". We have, in essence, no real scope protection.

Yeah I'm really surprised there's not more outrage about this. We basically ship all our widebody flying to LHR for BA Europe connections and now it's gonna be to SEA for AS to operate Hawaii/Asia. Soon we won't even need WB in LAX when we can gift that to our Oneworld friends.

No word from APA on this news. Also, if we are talking about scope. What's the deal with Contour? I've been seeing them an awful lot more in CLT and DFW. Guess they can skirt around the Eagle "commuter" scope on that one? The interline/JV/Oneworld stuff is costing us AA pilot jobs.

Contour is a part 135 operation that has bid for and been awarded Essential Air Service routes. All of their aircraft have 30 seats or less. Neither their routes nor aircraft encroach on scope…

There is also no direct replacement made by boeing for the 777-200. The 777-X is larger than the 777-300

The 'stretch' always seems to sell better (767-300, 777-300, 737-800, 727-200). The 757 is the only exception I can think of. So I think with the 777-X they are starting with the 'stretch' and the 'shrink' will come out later.

There's probably no outrage because we've collectively given up on International scope. Most just show up for work, maximize their paycheck, and go home. I don't blame them. I think our last good chance at fixing INTL scope was the ALPA card drive. APA has demonstrated over the last 20 years that they're just not up to the task. There was an effective anti-ALPA campaign assisted by general apathy. Arguments ranging from "ALPA screwed me 30 years ago" to "it will just be the same guys."


Delta spent a lot of negotiating capital obtaining a "global scope" which forces international growth on the Delta side when their Joint Venture partners add new flying. I have no clue what UAL has in that department but I'm guessing it's something similar.


Here's the AA Joint Venture clause:

Joint Ventures

1. The parties agree to work toward a fair allocation of flying for the Company in Joint Business

Agreements ("JBAs"). The Association has the right to review JBAs and any material

changes going forward. During the parties' Quarterly Scope meetings, the Company will

discuss and receive input from the Association regarding current and anticipated JBAs.


Our international scope is just a formula which looks at international "baseline hours." Effectively AA is required to maintain 90% of the previous year's total International block hours. There are penalties and remedies if they fall below the 90% or 80% threshold. There is zero mechanism for capturing growth flying and no requirement (as far as I can tell) for certain aircraft to perform this flying. It could be done by 321XLRs and remain in compliance.

The scenario I would be worried about if I was planning on a Group 4 CA slot in the next 10 years is the parking of the 772s. I believe we have about 50 321XLRs on order and 47 772s that are supposed to be retired starting in the 2030-2035 timeframe. That's 1,400 Group IV jobs at risk as early as 2030. We have to consider the fact that Isom has delayed our existing order of 787s multiple times because AA struggles to make money internationally. I'm wondering how they will bring on 50 321XLRs plus roughly 26 more 787-9P orders plus a large 772 replacement order of 50 Group IV aircraft. They also have to square this with their number 1 priority, repairing the balance sheet. If I was going to bet money I would guess he will just go with our eventual fleet of +-90 787s and 50 321XLRs with our JV partners operating everything else. Our international flying hours will remain consistent but there's a good chance our total Group IV jobs could be lower in 10 years. The XLRs could service most of S. America, much of Western Europe and the 787s could cover LHR, HND, SYD, etc. Alaska could pick up the slack to the Pacific along with JAL and QA. BA could continue to do the heavy lifting from LHR. I tend to be glass half empty with AA so hopefully I'm dead wrong with this forecast. If we don't address INTL scope with our next contract then we deserve whatever we get.

They have a 'shrink' but it's the -8 and it's only customer is Emirates and it's only for the hot and high performance.

How is that any different than what Delta does in CDG of AMS? AA has LHR and Spain.

Geography. The farther southwest the partner's European hub is the worse it is for the US pilot group's flying prospects. The European partner is going to handle the vast majority of the flying to destinations on the 'other' side of the hub.

This is the problem here and it gets me, the general apathy at this place. If I have to hear "good news those guys are retiring soon" one more time.. when it isn't just the 60+ crowd with that attitude. I believed that statement at first, but I'm seeing a fairly good number of folks, even some with 30+ years here to go adopting it.

I also get the "show up, do work, go home, collect paycheck" mentality, but these same guys that say that don't realize or care that we can actually somewhat influence how management runs the company by what we negotiate in our contract.

That Delta doesn't have another US airline in their alliance with WBs to feed. That's what's concerning.