Well, the bottom line is that ALPA should have taken serious actions when this was announced, not just filed a grievance. I feel like ALPA is setting a precedence that our CBAs are flexible and can be walked all over. This doesn't affect (effect?) just Eagle pilots. It shows management, industry wide, that we are all push overs and that the largest airline union in the world is powerless. Im really not one of those ALPA-bashers that you often run into, however, this is a major issue that I feel has not been given satisfactory attention.

And BTW A10, if those examples happened, then I apologize on behalf of my fellow MIA pilots and obviously it is not appropriate.

I havent heard about any additional STL flying. Source?

The power of a union is the power to go on strike. There are so many hoops to jump through, cooling off periods, mediation periods, legal bs, etc before a strike can actually happen which makes it such a rare occurrence. At AE we are under a 16-year contract with a no-strike clause that expires in 2012. The company breaks the contract on occasion but there is no punishment or penalty against them. If you are forced to fly a sequence that breaks the contract the common saying is "Fly it then grieve it" but youll never get that time off even if the grievance is won years later.

Flew into STL today. Kinds puts a sick feeling in your stomach to see all these planes and routes being undercut from you with the threat of a furlough soon. I was still nice to all the chq guys though.

Just remember... that guy you flip off today might be your CA tomorrow.

How is Chataqua any better than TSA?

TSA flew for American before Chataqua did.

My God the ignorance is so strong in these threads

more often than not, people on the boards get their panties in a bunch before they even know what they're talking about....don't take it personally....

You're the reason I'll be happy to fly into MIA.

To make it a pleasant experience, drop by the crew room and say hi.

STL Rampers. And an AE 135 coming from SPI to do a BNA turn... FWIW

So........

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.

I'm not sure if I agree with your apples and coal statement. It is essentially a very similar situation. Granted not completely the same, but there are enough similarities to make the comparison valid.

The fact remains, once the arbitrator rules this was a violation of the AE pilot contract, (which they have no choice but to do based upon the prior rulings), then what does that make the TSA pilots? Are you saying your MEC is not capable of dealing with more than one issue at a time? That is a cop out. Your MEC should have issued a blanket statement following the announcement of the Miami flying that this was in violation of an ALPA contract, and that members should not fly the routes. In other words, they should have struck the Miami flying. We're prohibited from striking due to a very bad contract agreement... we gave them that, along with a few other things to get a single pilot list from the four airlines that were operating as American Eagle. Now, here we are years later, and they are trying to give away flying to an outside carrier... essentially recreating a multiple pilot group situation all over again.

ALPA needs to start running like a national union. Allowing each individual MEC (union local) to lower the bar is not acceptable. There needs to be a "basic" pilot contract created, and each MEC should be prohibited from accepting anything less than the ALPA basic contract. Each MEC would remain free to negotiate special perks with their own managements, and tailored to their own airline. ALPA national needs to take a stronger leadership position, and put some backing and support behind the words "we're taking it back."

If we need to have a systemwide meeting of all the MEC's, or create a committee comprised of members from each pilot group, to construct the "basic" ALPA pilot contract, then that is what we should start doing, and the time is now. Each member of the committee would bring their contract to the meetings, and as a group, select the best sections from the various contracts, to create the new "basic" ALPA pilot contract.

The "basic" ALPA pilot contract should be constructed to cover everything from Beech 1900's to A380's. A new idea, which I have not seen at ALPA, but have seen at other pilot union contract or side letters, is to include a fine system for when management violates the contract. Additionally, a section prohibiting members from knowingly violating another local's contract should be included, with a stipulation that if pilots refuse to fly, after being notified by an MEC of the violation the companies may not take punative actions against them...

just some thoughts and rants....

other ideas anybody?

Really? The Miami announcement was almost three months ago, if not longer. Don't remember seeing anything about TSA furloughs until fairly recently. Maybe your calendar works differently than everybody elses.

Really, your MEC is powerless to call for a job action? Correct me if I'm wrong, but your contract does not have the same no strike, job action, crap that ours does.... does it?

To think that a couple of regional MEC's are going to negotiate something to better the "overall" pilot group is lofty at best....The simple fact that US Air / AW union can't find solid footing should give us a glimpse of what ALPA is really good doing.

As far as a national pilot contract under ALPA, that wouldn't be a bad idea, and you might be on to something Mason....unfortunately, i don't know how far up the ALPA chain-of-command something like that would make it....But we'd never know until we try, might wanna talk to the local MEC's to get a ball moving on something like that.

I'm meeting with our LEC and MEC chairman in a few days. Rest assured these issues will be among the things I bring up.

I'm sick of hearing things like... "we're taking it back," and "one union, one voice." I want to see some action to support those words.

Prater should be interjecting in this situation. We have one ALPA pilot group, walking over another ALPA pilot group... and both MEC's are doing nothing about it. Are we one union, or not? ALPA national needs to get involved now if the MEC's aren't going to work together.

Recall elections are always a possibility.

Are you familiar at all with the RLA? You can't just strike when you feel like it... And I'm not sure if you understand that Job Actions are illegal as well. Basically, the two things that you told TSA pilots to do are illegal, and could result in termination, fines, or jail time.

Just some food for thought.

I think my last statement was to correct me if I'm wrong.

Unlike others, I am not above saying I was mistaken.

"Possibility" of furloughs has been thrown around way before you saw the "TSA Furloughing" thread on APC. Get the facts before you start making assumptions.

The "possibility" of furloughs has existed since the day you took the job.
Look at the history of this industry. They hire like gangbusters right up until the day they send out furlough notices.

Your honestly going to try hiding behind a "we might furlough someday" claim? The MIA transfer was fact well before a factual furlough notice was sent.

Get YOUR facts straight.

The "possibility" of furloughs has existed since the day you took the job.
Look at the history of this industry. They hire like gangbusters right up until the day they send out furlough notices.

Your honestly going to try hiding behind a "we might furlough someday" claim? The MIA transfer was fact well before a factual furlough notice was sent.

Get YOUR facts straight.

PS - Try reading the Arbitrators ruling before you talk yourself further into a hole. The transfer of flying to TSA violates our scope. The continued operation of AMR aircraft by pilots not on our list violates scope... we are no longer at maximum growth potential and unable to staff those planes. That was the reason given by AMR for keeping TSA. That situation no longer exists. Go Read the Arbitrators ruling.

TSA striking over this is a bit extreme but a letter to AMR saying that "We feel this is wrong, we are doing it in protest..." yada yada yada would have been nice. Don't expect ANY favors from Eagle or our MEC. You knew this violated our contract and were all happy as clams when this announcement came out.

Exactly CF, all that was needed was something, even a token jesture, to say hey, we know this is wrong, but we're stuck in the middle... not one word, nothing...

I also think their lack of interest, or support, is part of the reason that the EGL MEC has taken the position of not just returning the route to Eagle, but is going after the return of the jets since we are no longer not capable of staffing them.

A little support from the TSA MEC at the right time might have kept it to just the route protections, but after all this, I am now glad they are getting the planes back too. Although, based upon the multiple MEL stickers I've seen on them, we may not want them back. Isn't there something in the ASA that requires them to properly maintain the equipment?

Guess with the furloughs you guys won't be staffing those MIA flights after all. Hope it works out for you guys.

So it's okay with you guys as long as TSA sends in a letter that says, "Thanks for the flying. We'll be doing it even though it's not right"?
Gee, I hope you're on the jury if I ever get sent up for murder.

No, it isn't right. The point I was making was that the TSA MEC has been silent on the fact that their pilots are walking all over the eagle pilots contract. Both are ALPA pilot groups, and there has been no support from the TSA MEC over the lost flying.

In a way I'm glad AMR shifted the route to TSA, it allowed the EGL MEC to file a grievance and reopen the issue. AMR won the last one because at the time EGL was understaffed, hiring was in maximum overdrive, and EGL was unable to staff the 10 jets... the arbitrator leaned heavily on that in allowing a lease of equipment to TSA; then went on to state that had it been a transfer of routes or jobs it would be a violation and he would not have found for the company.

Well, here we are a few years later, and those planes are now flying transfered EGL routes, and EGL is planning furloughs while company planes are being flown by pilots not on our seniority list. Thank you very much AMR for transfering the MIA flying, otherwise we could not have revisited this issue.

I have been working lately and I have seen the TSA crews walking around the terminal, specifically yesterday and the day before yesterday. Stormy weather in the area had all seats in terminal occupied. Now I don't really care who flies what or in what equipment. The fact is that we are all pilots and if we are told fly ATR or ERJ in ST. Louis, we would do it, it's our Job and most of us do as we are told. Now in the mean time if you guys have a four hour break at least should have somewhere to sit and rest and watch TV. If your management does not want to work some kind of crew room; please go to our crew room, and I assure you that most of us understand that you guys are not the problem.
MANAGEMENT is and none of you should pay for this, most people that I have talked to feel the same way. It is not FAIR to have fellow aviators sit around the airport without being able to decently rest while waiting for their trips.

I'm tired of people thinking we are enemies "TSA vs. Eagle", MECs CBAS Who flew first last who cares!!!! if anything we should be together trying to defeat managers and their quest for destroying our profession!!!!

Top notch crazyhorse.

Of course its alot easier to pontificate like that when you still have a job.

While I agree completely with crazyhorse, I wish this thread would just die and be forgotten about. Nothing here can help

Excellent post, and in an ideal world I agree completely. Just be sure when escorting non AMR employees into secure areas that there are no section 15 issues possible. I don't want a guy sitting up in the terminal getting too fatigued to fly any more than the next guy, but until AMR issues something on paper allowing non-AMR employees into restricted areas, I don't think we have much choice except to enforce the secure area.

If it opens a line of communications... which obviously our individual MEC's are not doing, then that is a good thing... even if it starts a bit adversarial... eventually, a common ground would/should be found.