eaglefly

I think it was AMR's choice. The ASM limits combined with the desire to farm out a significant percentage of Eagle ops for whipsawing purposes would mean Eagle would be significantly smaller.

Tomahawk58

You forgot to add there will be no furloughs either! The DC plan goes to 14 percent. The equity stake alone makes the pilots one of the largest holders. I expect the judge to grant an extension of one to two weeks to allow the details to be worked out.

Certainly a ton of work has gone into this with both sides coming to the center. Hopefully, full details will be made public in the next few days and most can judge for themselves.

Best to all AAer's.

eaglefly

AMR would have to ask for that extention. Despite your inferences AMR can sail this ship to wherever they intend to with no consensual agreement from the pilots, I think they know they need a deal.

The pilots will need specific contractual language for all changes to the green book for an accurate evaluation and scope is still an issue, I think. To do that would require at least a few weeks. Again, convincing the BOD and the pilots are two different things.

As for AMR making that move, we shall see. In reading several press articles on their response to the failure (which was simply based on scheduling provisional language or lack thereof), aside from being "very disappointed", I saw no statement from AMR that they were focusing solely on Lane to abrogate. It's possible they could just get lane to impose the LBO and then negotiate changes/final language, but that would prolly just cause more anger and I think we have more then enough of that.

What

This is all great and all but 60% code sharing? With the WB increase they are looking at doing 60% ASM domestic code share could put a huge dent into AA domestic network.

Tomahawk58

The press is just that, the press. They aren't on the inside and neither am I. That being said, I think the scope piece will be favorably received in comparison to DAL and US. You're right of course on having the terms in contract language for all to judge the merits.

As with any contract, given the environment we're in, I think most pilots will be able to adequately assess whether the terms work for them or not , and whether it positions us for long-term success and upward mobility. Again, hopefully, additional and expanded details on the terms will be released sooner rather than later.

Tomahawk58

I understand the code-share piece included a lot of wraps (60 percent Domestic ASMs versus entire system) and was favorably by the negotiating team. Again, it's all in the details and we'll have to wait and see before making an informed judgement.

eaglefly

Agreed. One might balk at just saying "60% codeshare relative to domestic ASM's", but as a bullet point, that's meaningless. SPECIFIC language to evaluate could make it acceptable or prove just the opposite. For instance once concern on the whole percentage bit with both RJ's and code-share is that what if AA DOES acquire Jet Blue, Alaska or eventually merges with U. Now, you're talking about a HUGE number of RJ or code-sharing ops (especially RJ's). Also, is there language that prevents "snapshot" determinations wherby a given ability for RJ/code-share usage is set and then a subsequent mainline fleet reduction won't place further limits vs. a continuous relationship basis...........things like that ?

Until the specifics are available, it's all hypotheticals and believe me, nothing will shoot any TA down faster at the pilot level, then if it's filled with the traditional ambiguous B.S. of the past. I'm hearing the concept of turning our backs on "executive compensation" is not going over well with many as many suspect the executive compensation levels will be absolutely astronomical. All things considered, it will still be wasting time if they are concerend about the time factor by trying to slip the pilots a rusty musket like in the past. Like another said, I think we'll know by happy hour tommorrow what Lane does or any requests made of him.

Enterprise

Not true. The LBFO lists "furlough protection" down to the 95th percentile. Hardly wonderful news if you are facing your second furlough after just being recalled a few months ago. We also know how well furlough protection has worked in the past. It isn't worth the paper it is printed on. The rest of the list will slide backwards....AGAIN. More "great news" for junior pilots is that the APA agreed to sell out the A319 back to group 2 in order to improve the trip and duty rigs.

The rest of the agreement was awash in ambiguous language that would have allowed AA management to rewrite huge portions of the contract at will, such as the reserve system and the TTOT system.

I'm glad this pathetic offer went down in flames at the BOD level.

eaglefly

Yet it was close to making it past the BOD, but clearly would have been likely to fail at the rank-and-file level and rejection is rejection.

If they do simply just grease up the scheduling section and much of the rest is found to be the above, nothing changes except more time for AMR management eaten up. Sooner or later Parker will have his entire snout in the tent flap.

Tomahawk58

Let me clarify that the 400 furloughs announced in the 1113 term sheets are off the table. So let's be honest, is there any ironclad "no furlough" clause at any carrier that doesn't have provisos?

I understand the whole bidding process will change. Where's the sell out of the A319? The negotiating team wanted the keep duty rigs and was willing to trade to make that happen. Give and take during negotiations....what a novel concept .

I agree that the language need to be fleshed out before a sound judgement an be rendered.

We'll see how tomorrow unfolds.