Will do if I'm bored....I wouldnt expect anything other than professionals to be there. If I'm mistaken...just shows who works there...

 

We've been flying STL-SGF and BNA for about 5-6 months. No clue why we do BNA a few flts/day, but we have MX in SGF now since we closed our BGR mx and no longer serve there. We also do STL-JFK, which I dont understand and think it should be mainline. I guess I just dont have the 'big picture'

 

Actually...they flew for TWA before CHQ did. TSA/CHQ started flying for AA at the same time...when AA bought TWA. That's why I giggle everytime an Eagle guy tells me I took their job. Despite the fact that it wasn't "their" job in the first place...it wasn't even EAGLE flying. It was TWA flying. But hey, whatever.

On the flip side, I've only met one jackhole Eagle CA in my life (and every company has plenty of those). I've met (and hung out with) a lot of pretty cool Eagle crews on various overnights. Of course, perceptions change when it's time to play Internet Toughguy.

 

I never said it was our flying first. Seems to me the hostility is coming from "the others" as much as it is the eagle guys. Who are you trying to convince. (not talking about anyone in particular)

 

I was simply saying that no matter what we should be civil with other pilots. Not that anyone is better than anyone else. Our issues are with the companies, not the crew. Why are you so on edge and automatically assume someone is taking a shot at you. If you want to be in this business you have to learn how to deal with people. Even those you view as "ignorant."

 

Agreed, but it would be nice to see th TSA MEC supporting the Eagle MEC... both locals are ALPA, and we have one local accepting without complaint the violation of another local's contract.

Regarding the initial TWA/AA flying. The only reason TSA retained that flying was because at the time Eagle was already in maximum growth capacity, and could not meet the needs of AMR without bringing in (or retaining) the outside vendor. That is plainly clear as the result of the intitial greivance hearing with Eagle and AMR over the ten jets. AMR/AA/AE stated they couldn't staff the routes, because they were already in maximum growth mode, so they had to keep the outside contractor, TSA. That was their claim, and the reason they gave in the arbitration. The arbitrator, in his ruling, sided with Eagle/AMR and said, simply leasing airplanes was not a violation of the scope agreedment.... then, this wizzard went on to say, that if it had been aircraft & routes, it would be a different matter. This is FACT folks, it is available in the ALPA mediation/arbitration files.

What we have today, is exactly what the previous arbitrator ruled would be a violation... Aircraft & Routes.

Additionally, the primary claim by the company of not being able to hire/train fast enough (being in maximum growth as they called it)... that situation no longer exists... yet, AMR/Eagle is planning to furlough, while our planes and routes are being flown by another company. That is the problem. The secondary issue is the silence from the TSA ALPA MEC on the issue.

 

Our(TSA) MEC is dealing with the furloughs as we speak....that's our main problem right now.

 

That's fine now, and perfectly understandable.

Where was your MEC when this was announced? There were no furloughs then.

As I understand it, you guys do not have anything like the "no strike" clause we are stuck with. If we did not have the no strike clause, this would be struck flying. Since we DO have the no strike rule, we have no choice but to wait for arbitration or a judge.

How do you think your pilot group will be looked upon when the arbitrator/judge affirms the previous rulings on this issue?

You guys complain about Go, and then do this?
Your as bad as them.

 

1-We actually knew about the possibility of furloughs shortly after we found out about Miami.

2- We have no choice but to fly it for now. In all honesty, I hope you get your Miami flying all to yourselves.....and most of the pilots here would agree. We don't have the luxury of just not showing up for that part of our trip.......I mean, we could, and then get fired. So if that's what you're looking for then we can do that and then try to come work with you at Eagle if that sounds cool?

3- I would tred lightly with who you say that last statement around. You're digging a hole you won't get out of with that statement. You're comparing apples and lumps of coal hoss.

 

Also, it's you're...not your.