AA to take Eagle flow throughs.
10-23-2009, 02:08 PM
#11
Where's my Mai Tai?
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: fins to the left, fins to the right
Posts: 1,735
Originally Posted by AceOnTheRiver
I believe that if you give the Eagle pilots pay for TOS and have a fence to prevent furlough fodder then you could get an agreement without much fuss. The hard part is getting AMR on board.
10-23-2009, 03:58 PM
#12
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Originally Posted by Flyby1206
Complete elimination of scope issues should be a reason for AMR to perk up. Being the only legacy carrier remotely close to that position would give them a serious competitive advantage. How hard would it be for DAL to accomplish the same feat?
If AMR is serious about innovating then this should be their first step. Simple, streamlined, efficient operations.
If AMR is serious about innovating then this should be their first step. Simple, streamlined, efficient operations.
It's worked pretty well from a labor standpoint and that is where they believe their best bet for future competivness and profitability lies. AMR has had the same scope issues for 2 decades, so nothing is new of late. Ultimately we're talking about 100 or so Eagle pilots (the 50% or so who are still actually interested in flowing) moving up to AA at some point under defined criteria.
IMO, AMR has no interest in making any earth shattering logisical labor alterations over 100 piddly little Eagle pilots. They wont do it for 2000 furloughed mainline pilots either.
Alignment of labor hurts them more than helps them in their eyes...............but it's certainly a pleasurable fantasy for many an Eagle pilot.
10-24-2009, 10:39 AM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Posts: 390
What I think the whole sad AE/AA debacle shows is that any kind of flow-up/down/sideways or otherwise agreement is no workable in ANY form with ANY language. The problem lies in capricious, incomprehensible, and mystifying decisions by arbitrators. As long as they are in the process in any way, no contract or agreement is worth the paper it's written on. The decisions of the past year by arbitrators have convinced me of that.
10-24-2009, 10:56 AM
#16
SDQ Base Chief
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 320 CA
Posts: 5,609
Originally Posted by Wheels up
What I think the whole sad AE/AA debacle shows is that any kind of flow-up/down/sideways or otherwise agreement is no workable in ANY form with ANY language. The problem lies in capricious, incomprehensible, and mystifying decisions by arbitrators. As long as they are in the process in any way, no contract or agreement is worth the paper it's written on. The decisions of the past year by arbitrators have convinced me of that.
10-25-2009, 07:42 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Posts: 490
One list increases labor's bargaining power. It may simplify many aspects of our life, and improve QOL. Even a lowly RJ FO would have mainline benefits. Given all of that, why on earth would management ever want one list?? They have already commenced the whipsaw with all the Connection flying.
10-25-2009, 06:02 PM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: MD80
Posts: 394
Originally Posted by Wheels up
What I think the whole sad AE/AA debacle shows is that any kind of flow-up/down/sideways or otherwise agreement is no workable in ANY form with ANY language. The problem lies in capricious, incomprehensible, and mystifying decisions by arbitrators. As long as they are in the process in any way, no contract or agreement is worth the paper it's written on. The decisions of the past year by arbitrators have convinced me of that.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
