I am all for APA opposing this (Allied Pilots Association Urges Postponing American Airlines Joint Venture Application) if able and if it going through would hurt the pilot group. I am just curious, they say the collective bargaining agreement allows code-sharing, but only in terms of the scope clause. It sounds though like the CBA doesn't specifically mention business joint ventures. Are they able to hamper the proposed joint venture based on lack of wording in the contract? Or is it that the scope agreement only allows flying to be done if it is code-sharing?

 

Since when has a union been able to block anything a corporation wants to do? Did the BA guys stop Open skies?
AA is also in violation of continuing to operate AE because the AA pilot floor is now below 7300 ( excluding TWA and Reno). Last time I checked the ramp, they are still happily flying around in their RJ's.
This will be resolved on the picket line.

 

The scope contract covers ALL flying done for or on behalf of AA. Any and all exceptions must be granted specific exemption.

Corporation tact on this kind of stuff is to just ignore their legal agreements and commitments, and then stall stall stall with massive litigation. The sky is green in their world, or at least that's what they will tell you, even though they know it's a lie. US corporate leaders and managers are not generally honorable people.

 

The APA CBA is in the download section of APC.com. The text that refers to international code sharing is too long to be posted here (over 18000 characters).

Suffice it to say, it's long enough and complex enough to be left to interpretation, which is obviously what AA management intends to pursue.

At the last union meeting in ORD, the APA president spoke of the frustratingly slow pace of negotiations. He laid the blame at the feet of the NMB--which has privately stated to both parties (APA and AA management) that it has no intentions to declare an impasse or release anyone into a cooling off period.

This has left APA (and other unions governed by the RLA) with few options, and since nothing generally happens at a negotiating table without leverage (which APA possesses none) its been difficult to move forward. The best APA can do is to challenge perceived encroachments on the current CBA. The 7300 floor is definitely a huge issue. Unfortunately, at the time it was negotiated, nobody sufficiently defined "cockpit crew member" (i.e. does it include chief pilots and check airman--of which AA has nearly 900 of ?). So we will have to wait on an arbitrator's decision for the definition.

The reasons for the NMB decision are mostly political and are prohibited from being posted in this forum.

So read between the lines...

 

Does AMR have the ability to shut down AE & simultaneously be logistically capable of giving all of that lost flying back to the APA? Better yet, does the APA want all that crap back or just the hub-to-hub flying? Assuming you guys struck over that...

 

The AE issue is leverage in a test of wills between the APA and AA. Would the APA demand that AE be shut down if AA refuses to negotiate a satisfactory solution? YES. Will that happen? Maybe. It depends on AA.

 

A fantasy at best.

The loss of AE feed to AA would only place the carrier in BK. In retaliation, AMR would use such an act to whack the pensions and freeze them for eternity.

APA thuggery has been trying to strongarm Eagle pilots for years and the future will be no different. Lloyd and his cronies are basically infants with loud rattles demanding to be fed what THEY want as opposed to whats best for them and their parents.

Look for AE to continue to exist. Eventually, it may be samller, but with a larger percentage of 70 + seaters. Likely another carrier will be brought onboard to whipsaw Eagle, but large RJ feed for AA will not change.

 

What if AMR sold Eagle? Then what?

Also, I'd look for Eagle to start losing 50-seaters (and smaller), due to fuel costs.

 

Already happening. We are about halfway done parking a total of 28 Saab 340s and 29 E135s. Thats equals about 20% of our total fleet. But of course you dont see that on the slick APA videos bashing Eagle.

I guarantee AMR will sell/spin off AE in the future. AE will be much smaller flying a handful of 50-70seaters. There will be at least one other regional carrier (Republic/CHQ, Skywest) who will be flying a larger portion of the AA feed(70+seat a/c, E170/175s, CRJ900s). It will be cheaper for AMR to do this. They will whipsaw regionals against each other and payrates will drop. It wont be raising the bar for the profession, but it will be feeding AA the cheapest way possible. It is your scope clause that dictates regional flying, not AE's, so stay strong and dont budge.

 

I would not look at the bashing (if you choose to call it that) directed at the pilot group over at Eagle. Management took tremendous paycuts from us, cancelled orders of Boeings, yet continued to purchase Billions worth of RJs, that took over a tremendous amount of mainline flying.

I have many times heard Eagle pilots refer to our Scope clause as some type of personal vendetta towards them, however when AE's scope is violated ala Trans States suddenly SCOPE needs to be defended, or how dare management tries to out source our flying. It always makes sense when it hits close to home.

I wish our two groups were more unified, I can say that both sides have said and done stupid things.

Paycuts can be taken, and pay can be restored, however SCOPE needs to be defended. No one will be flying E-170s or CRJ-900s except AA pilots. The company does not have authority to do so, and no one over here is remotely interested in giving that up.

Regards,

AAflyer