To all you AA SCOPE guys towards EAGLE
09-15-2012, 08:38 AM
#21
SDQ Base Chief
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 320 CA
Posts: 5,588
Originally Posted by johnso29
I believe AMR left it at 79 seats. Any one have official clarification?
Pilots learn American Airlines
While the April 19 term sheet proposed that American could contract for regional partners flying jets with up to 88 seats, “American currently has no plans to pursue codesharing agreements with regional carriers for greater than 79-seat aircraft,” American said in its material to pilots.
09-15-2012, 08:40 AM
#22
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
09-15-2012, 09:45 AM
#23
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Originally Posted by AllisonRR
I can't blame the APA for voting their TA down because they were asked to vote on bullet-points not contract language. however; When APA voted down their TA, (even though was a very brave move; maybe it only sped up the announcement and the closure of the LAX base) it removed the only scope protection we eagle pilots had against AMR diversifying their feed.(the APA scope) To make matters worse the judge approved APA 1113 also contained on the scope section the following "Definition of Commuter Air Carrier changed to aircraft (jet or turboprop) with a max of 88 seats (as operated for AA) and up to 114,500 lbs MTOW. Eliminate owned/non-owned commuter carrier distinction - all commuter carrier distinction - all commuter aircraft will now operate as owned." as opposed to the limit of 79 seats to their proposed TA.
As an American Eagle pilot I do fault the APA for not doing their job and provide good and clear information on the consequences of their vote also for not providing contractual language to base their vote on. It saddens me to know that a non-wholly owned regional might be flying 88 seats airplanes with the eagle livery and the beloved Eagle Logo that adorns the mainline aircraft at considerable lower wages as well. By voting down their TA they just made regionals bigger, since I'm sure UNITED and DELTA will try to follow suit.
Voting "NO" out of emotion makes a difference and we the regional pilots that just wanted stay here a couple of years and eventually go to a major just had this goal kicked a couple of more years away because of the result of their decision. Bankruptcy is not section six and playing hard ball in court just doesn't seem to work. Your union can appeal all you want and win but at the end you end up losing more than what you would if you took a deal and negotiated later out of bankruptcy. (see the Mesaba bankruptcy case)
As an American Eagle pilot I do fault the APA for not doing their job and provide good and clear information on the consequences of their vote also for not providing contractual language to base their vote on. It saddens me to know that a non-wholly owned regional might be flying 88 seats airplanes with the eagle livery and the beloved Eagle Logo that adorns the mainline aircraft at considerable lower wages as well. By voting down their TA they just made regionals bigger, since I'm sure UNITED and DELTA will try to follow suit.
Voting "NO" out of emotion makes a difference and we the regional pilots that just wanted stay here a couple of years and eventually go to a major just had this goal kicked a couple of more years away because of the result of their decision. Bankruptcy is not section six and playing hard ball in court just doesn't seem to work. Your union can appeal all you want and win but at the end you end up losing more than what you would if you took a deal and negotiated later out of bankruptcy. (see the Mesaba bankruptcy case)
While I certainly can empathize with you being upset that Eagle is going to go through some radical and quite painful changes, IMHO you're vision of the reality of this industry is skewed.
First, the APA owes you nothing. They do not represent you. It seems hard for regional pilots to understand that there are opposing goals in regional and mainline contract negotiations. One needs to look no further than any of the Big 3 major airlines to see who has been enduring the major hosing for the past decade.
It has become very clear to me reading the opinions of several regional pilots on this board, that THEY aren't even sure what they want. While excitedly talking about new bases and airplanes coming to their airline, they quickly wag the finger saying "Major airline pilots have no one to blame but themselves. After all they VOTED for these scope givebacks!" Despite several attempts to explain that that viewpoint is overly simplistic, the mantra continues. This allows them to get giddy with SJS while deflecting the frustration major airline pilots feel about losing still more flying.... in the case of my airline, greater than 50% of our domestic operation and pilot force. So now the APA decides NOT to vote in scope relaxation, and they are being blasted for THAT choice. What you are failing to recognize is that scope WAS going to be relaxed, and Eagle WAS going to lose substantial flying to other carriers regardless of how the APA voted. That was guaranteed when AMR filed for Ch 11 protection. Yet somehow, regional pilots want to hold mainline pilots accountable for the hell of life in Bankruptcy. Only THIS time, there are regional pilots who will lose and lose big, not just mainline pilots. So yes, it's horrible, and frustrating, and infuriating to watch your flying get outsourced to the lowest bidder and know that there is little to nothing you can do about it. Guess what? We've been dealing with this for the past decade at the majors.
I'm not trying to sound callous to the tough changes that you are about to endure. But you are not only barking up the wrong tree by blaming the APA for what just happened, you aren't even in the correct forest
09-15-2012, 10:28 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,001
Originally Posted by johnso29
I believe AMR left it at 79 seats. Any one have official clarification?
Originally Posted by Flyby1206
– While the April 19 term sheet proposed that American could contract for regional partners flying jets with up to 88 seats, “American currently has no plans to pursue codesharing agreements with regional carriers for greater than 79-seat aircraft,” American said in its material to pilots.
AA's plans can change anytime. That 88 seat # - it won't be changing unless APA spends negotiating capital to lower it.
What am I missing?
09-15-2012, 11:29 AM
#25
SDQ Base Chief
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 320 CA
Posts: 5,588
Originally Posted by Sniper
Did we read the same thing?
AA could contract up to 88 seats - that's the new limit. AA "currently has no plans" to outsource more than 79 seats.
AA's plans can change anytime. That 88 seat # - it won't be changing unless APA spends negotiating capital to lower it.
What am I missing?
AA could contract up to 88 seats - that's the new limit. AA "currently has no plans" to outsource more than 79 seats.
AA's plans can change anytime. That 88 seat # - it won't be changing unless APA spends negotiating capital to lower it.
What am I missing?
09-16-2012, 07:35 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Posts: 129
Originally Posted by prat985
Sorry guys, but Bucking Bar has it right. Eagle will cease to exist with the likes of Republic, Skywest and others underbidding on flying the flying for AA.
Only time will tell.
Only time will tell.
09-16-2012, 07:57 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Posts: 122
Originally Posted by gettinbumped
So let me make sure I understand you correctly. You are mad at APA for not giving you more of THEIR flying, bigger jets, more of them etc. In other words, you were expecting them to give you THEIR jobs, and be happy about it. Now another carrier is coming in to take that flying (which you wrongly consider "yours") and you're mad about that too. So you wanted the APA to volunteer to do to themselves the very thing you are mad is happening to you? Oh the irony is thick.
PS, you SHOULD be mad at the Skywest pilots. According to their management, being non-union is what allows them to win all these contracts. They don't pay their 2% and let everyone else work as fight to set the bar.... Then they just leech on to it
PS, you SHOULD be mad at the Skywest pilots. According to their management, being non-union is what allows them to win all these contracts. They don't pay their 2% and let everyone else work as fight to set the bar.... Then they just leech on to it
NOT TRUE!! The DFW flying was given to a union company. Management has stated the good credit rating and getting very low lease rates on planes has given the company a competitive edge lately.
09-16-2012, 01:04 PM
#29
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Originally Posted by SKYWCRJCA
NOT TRUE!! The DFW flying was given to a union company. Management has stated the good credit rating and getting very low lease rates on planes has given the company a competitive edge lately.
My significant other is a Skywest employee, so I get to read all the anti-union BS drivel that your management puts out.
09-16-2012, 01:05 PM
#30
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Originally Posted by SKYWCRJCA
NOT TRUE!! The DFW flying was given to a union company. Management has stated the good credit rating and getting very low lease rates on planes has given the company a competitive edge lately.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
