Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major
American Airlines Presentation >

American Airlines Presentation

Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

American Airlines Presentation

Old 12-04-2008, 09:06 AM
  #21  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Posts: 390
Default

Originally Posted by X Rated View Post
Now with that said, let's hope that the APA doesn't negotiate away the LOS credit to make the furloughees whole. I'm not holding my breath.
As much as I hate to say it, I think AA will probably stay the same size as it is now and could contract further. As the military leave guys and those that deferred come back, I don't see meaningful recalls occurring anytime in the foreseeable future. Given AA's section 6 openers for massive productivity increases (i.e. a lot less pilots), the fact that we've probably seen the bulk of retirements for now, and the fact that the over 60 crowd is likely to fly-till-they-die, I wouldn't be pinning hopes on being recalled.
Wheels up is offline  
Old 12-04-2008, 10:12 AM
  #22  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,889
Default

Recalls will resume next spring. You heard it here first!
aa73 is offline  
Old 12-04-2008, 06:06 PM
  #23  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: Reclined
Posts: 2,168
Default

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.
Mason32 is offline  
Old 12-05-2008, 02:45 AM
  #24  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,889
Default

Mason,

Thanks for the encouragement. The scope clause allows for 50 seats and under - I'm not aware of any "average capacity" restriction. So no, there is no violation there.

On another note... "In November, we had another 87 retirements, which brings us to a total of 562 pilot retirements from American Airlines this year. That is a single-year record and we still have one month to go. Of those November retirements, 81 were early, one was “normal” (age 60) and five were late (past age 60).

So far this year, there have been 508 early, 13 “normal” and 41 late retirements."

73
aa73 is offline  
Old 12-05-2008, 03:08 AM
  #25  
SDQ Base Chief
 
Flyby1206's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 320 CA
Posts: 5,549
Default

When do the 737 deliveries start? February?
Flyby1206 is offline  
Old 12-05-2008, 05:46 AM
  #26  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Posts: 390
Default

Originally Posted by Mason32 View Post
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).
Wheels up is offline  
Old 12-05-2008, 08:31 AM
  #27  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 945
Default

Originally Posted by Wheels up View Post
The real market is in 100 seat narrow body aircraft
You mean like Fokker 100's? Good thing AA still has....oh, wait a minute.
Mink is offline  
Old 12-05-2008, 09:13 AM
  #28  
Gets Weekends Off
 
7576FO's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: 737 CA MIA
Posts: 1,042
Default What he said!

Originally Posted by Wheels up View Post
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).
7576 writes,
Sorry to refer to myself in 3rd person.
Do an internet search. Bombardier C Series, Mitsubishi, Kawasaki all have plans for RJ's powered by Geared Turbofans by P&W all 100-120 seats. Deliveries starting 2012. P&W has several test bed engines with over 40,000 hours on them. Heavy duty light weight gearbox uncouples N1 from the N2/N3 allowing the gear box to spin N1 at a much slower more fuel efficient speed. Think CNX curved tech N1 fans but more advanced. P&W expects to produce up to 30,000 of these engines from the years 2012-2028. So lets see thats 15,000 new new generation RJ's. Not all in the USA, but globally.
Boeing and Embraer must be on this also. I would think Rolls Royce and maybe GE too.
So (I think) the RJ wave of the future is 100-130 seats.
All this info is available on the internet since July 2007.
7576FO is offline  
Old 12-05-2008, 09:43 AM
  #29  
Gets Weekends Off
 
ClipperJet's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 284
Default

This entire discussion could be solved in one simple way: Pay pilots by their length of service/seniority instead of the size of the plane. There would then be fewer difficult, complicated, loophole-filled “scope” clauses to fret about.

If the company wants to buy RJs? OK. If they want to buy A-380s? OK. Company pilots will fly them at the same pay scale. Slow growth/slower upgrades? Not OK, but much less painful as step pay increases would come at the x year point instead of an aircraft upgrade. Same for the age 65 debate. Everyone could bid/fly the lifestyle they prefer and can hold—all with the same pay. The company has less cost in training because folks don’t have to change planes to make more money.

It’s a win/win/win situation
ClipperJet is offline  
Old 12-05-2008, 10:19 AM
  #30  
Gets Weekends Off
 
7576FO's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: 737 CA MIA
Posts: 1,042
Default

Originally Posted by ClipperJet View Post
This entire discussion could be solved in one simple way: Pay pilots by their length of service/seniority instead of the size of the plane. There would then be fewer difficult, complicated, loophole-filled “scope” clauses to fret about.

If the company wants to buy RJs? OK. If they want to buy A-380s? OK. Company pilots will fly them at the same pay scale. Slow growth/slower upgrades? Not OK, but much less painful as step pay increases would come at the x year point instead of an aircraft upgrade. Same for the age 65 debate. Everyone could bid/fly the lifestyle they prefer and can hold—all with the same pay. The company has less cost in training because folks don’t have to change planes to make more money.

It’s a win/win/win situation
7576FO writes,
I thought the entire discussion was 36 pages/charts/graphs/slides that AA management and AA negotiators used to try to prove their case to the mediator that AA (APA) pilots while flying less than SWA and Delta, and while paid less than SWA and Delta are the reason for lack of profitability
at AA and are blocking growth and profitability. (Yeah, Right!)

Additionally it was AA that decided to merge a bunch of commuter airlines, Wings West, Simmons, several others into American Eagle.
Just like other major airlines.

Please read my previous post about next generation regional aircraft that may be flown by mainline pilots, thus replacing existing 35-70 seat RJs.
I don't have a crystal ball and don't know what will happen at/with Eagle.

Yes, you have a point about seat swapping training cycles and the potential to be a win/win. But right now at least at my airline there are bigger problems that need to be dealt with.

I understand the 7,300 floor case is finished. Decision mid-January.
7576FO is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
vagabond
Major
15
10-12-2008 12:07 PM
jban642
Your Photos and Videos
2
09-16-2008 06:40 AM
DLax85
Cargo
3
08-30-2008 07:00 PM
SWAjet
Major
0
02-26-2005 11:49 AM
GrayDogg
Major
0
02-24-2005 05:51 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices