Quit whining and read post #69

 

Actually, it's not that an emotional issue for me at all.

I understand COMPLETELY how MidEx pilots feel (a couple I know were there and former Eagle), but RAH pilots didn't do that, MidEx management did. Now, what's occuring regarding the seniority list issue is disturbing and not right, but this isn't the same situation.

Eagle orginally was born of perhaps 8 or so regional carriers with their own routes, colors, management, uniforms etc. This was back in the 80's before AA mangagement said "hey, lets align THEIR operations to benefit ours". The APA said, "sure, it makes business sense and we aren't interested in flying turboprops around to smaller cities, so as long as we have a clause that says they cannot fly xxx-size aircraft, it's o.k.with us".

Over time, your management abused this situation USING us. We (as pilots) have no say..............never have. Perhaps 1/3 of our flying ALWAYS was ours, 1/3 was yours given to us outside our control and the remaining 1/3 are newer routes previously flown by neither of our groups, but given to us to "develop" either to grow that market into something to support an AA aircraft or something that will not, but benefit AA by feed revenue. Most of us (myself included) would be happy to return your flying to you (it was yours to begin with), but that's not what the APA wants. They want to seize control of ALL of it and paternalistically deal with us as they see fit, seeing us not as fellow pilots and collegues, but as kids, hobbyists and/or wannabes unworthy of respect. Whether its declarations that AA pilots not be required to deadhead on Eagle aircraft or F. Lee Bailey declaring us unfit to operate jet aircraft, we've seen and heard enough. Of course, we're not all going to just quit and go on unemployment as that would be unrealistic.

The size of the carrier is immaterial when its pilot union is formally advocating the seizure of another carriers aircraft and flying. Those here who ARE emotional have somehow turned the reality of our conundrum upside down to rationalize the right to do this claiming that US (as pilots) and/or our union are doing the same. We are not and Eagle ALPA has not.

The 3 differences between the highlighted carriers and AA are correct; Regarding the first 2, the APA is advocating the seizure of all our planes and ops FIRST and then intends to deal with the disposition of our pilots SECOND with the ideal that it will be THEM that controls any such process and you can be sure, in their eyes, the APA will expect favoritism toward their native pilots regarding the unilateral seizure of our carrier (which really is what it is). This is the same as the above carriers and even OUR carrier (carriers brought in to perform anothers flying) except those carriers (and us) have not (to my knowledge) publicly and formally demanded any other carriers ENTIRE operation, thus they do not "believe that the airline world revolves around them and their interests" nor officially believe that "all flying is theirs unless they say otherwise".

Several points need to be reiterated here;

1. The APA has the right to demand THEIR flying back and most Eagle pilots agree.
2. The APA's concerns about limiting Eagle in size and future growth at their expense is understandable and proper.
3. Eagle has the right to its original flying as well and should not be subject to the tyranny of the APA for their self-serving purposes and their lust for complete domination.
4. It's in both sides interest that Flying that cannot be flown competitively by mainline AA ops, be allowed at Eagle as long as there are controls and tangible benefit for the pilots of AA.

The point of my post(s) on this issue are to counter the rabid dogs on this forum who continually howl how it's the PILOTS of Eagle who are the problem. They are misguided and correction is necessary, IMO. It is THEY that have allowed their emotion to aggrivate an already painful situation to fester.

 

Amen brother. They came in and took it and now have locked us out with no desire to absorb us. The longer they can delay, the more jobs are filled by RAH and F9 crews while the Midex pilots sit at home and type on computers in forums like this. Think about that next time they want your scope. Management now has a tool, code sharing, they can use to manipulate contracts. We lost our jobs because of it. You Eagle guys can say what you want but not one RAH pilot has stood up and said, "What about the guys we replaced?"

 

This is apples and oranges. What you fail to see is that AMR owns both AA and EGL. If some bull $hit like this were to happen, it would be at AMR's doing not ours.

Again, most of us do support scope and AA, but we're not gonna sit around and take the blame for some crap that happend looong before some of us got here and was beyond any of our control.

There isn't one EGL pilot that stands up in any of the planning meetings and says 'We'll do the flying if they don't wanna'. You can't throw stones when you live in a glass house (not meaning the MidEx vs RAH).

Like the previous post, stop *****'n and man up!

 

I'm not saying I know what it is like between your two pilot groups. I don't. I am saying that even if you do not have a say to management about where they send you and whose routes you fly, you can at least show support for the plight of those whose jobs you are encroaching upon. RAH pilots said nothing, did nothing and to this day have remained mute. It is up to the individual as to what you would label a "replacement" worker, I'll refrain since I am close to being kicked off this forum anyway. But, showing your support would greatly improve the working relationship for both groups.

 

In our case, support is a byproduct of respect. If you expect to get one, you have to acknowledge the other.................we'd been dragged trough the mud long before our first RJ had been assigned the first of AA's former routes.

 

Amen here as well, brother.

The APA wants to "come in and take it"............ALL of it and has little desire to absorb us.............well, perhaps preferential interviews for RJ F/O positions when their furloughees have vacated them.

The bottom 2/3 of our senioirty list would be kicked to the curb MidEx style in a heartbeat.

You see ?

We're not so different after all.....................

 

I may be wrong but didn't Eagle have a "flow up" agreement with AA long before there was a flow down? I think you also have to look at "Career Expectation" in this thing. Is your desire to one day fly an AA 777 or 757, or, is your desire to keep flying an RJ? If it is the latter, you are doing it. If you want to move up in life and take their seats, do it like we all did. Apply and get hired. If not, when you are forced to take those jobs, at least acknowledge that you do not support management. It's that easy. In our case, RAH crews took our flying without one word on our behalf to their management. They couldn't look us in the eyes and when deadheading, they would slink down in the back like we didn't know they were there. Again, I have no idea of the relationship between AA and Eagle and I don't want to know when it all comes down to it. I do know that the Regional crews have got to start taking a stand when it comes to taking over mainline routes.

 

Oh, I see....I tell you what, if that was our situation, many of us would say something. Problem is, would our union take a stand? All we could do is voice our opinions to our union reps. I support AA and scope. 70 seat jets should always be our max. But our parent company will do what it wants if it really wants to push the issue. Scope or no scope.

Either way, APA had a chance to prevent this from happening long before I got here and didn't. Now it's time for them to either man-up or shut-up and color.

 

.............................