American Eagle Suspends Hiring
 

Just got the email.

"Current economic conditions" is the cause.

Canceled all upcoming interviews and job fairs.

I just got the email too, because apparently I applied there 2 years ago.

didn't they already stop hiring a couple months ago? or is this just their way of telling their hiring pool to have a nice day else where?

Just read it too...

Who thinks working in an office full time at 18.52 an hour is a bad deal now?

I got the job on April 26th and was told May 21st I was in a hiring pool because all hiring/training had and will stop......and my offer letter is valid for the next 6 months....parking the SAAB's, putting ATR's in DFW-> I'm sure their done hiring until at least 2009

hired april 14th, went to RJO course at flight safety, finished may 18th, that same day got the phone call that I was in a hiring pool (same day the AA announced reduction of domestic service and AE was parking some planes)

i'm definitely not planning on them calling anytime soon...looking elsewhere

Nope, just until they get their union contracts done here and at mainline.

First they were selling Eagle.... nobody bought into that one. Mainline is shrinking... and due to scope the percentage of Eagle flying has to shrink.

The mainline contracts are in negotiations, and guess what... they want scope exceptions.

Do the math.

I read over the AA scope proposal. Doesn't look like they want Eagle to have E jets. They seem to be looking for RAH or TSA to do the E jet flying. Not good for Eagle or AA. I hope its voted down, don't give in...... Full pay to the last day.;)

It's up there for anybody to read....

http://www.apanegotiations.com/HotIt...4/Default.aspx

But, what makes you think, AMR doesn't want Eagle to have the E-jets?

They way it said "Commuter Carrier". It made me think somebody like RAH has the extra Ejets sitting around from the frontier contract. I'd bet AMR would like them to be flying under the AA banner. Not to say Eagle wouldn't see Ejets. Just some speculation. I think its all a moot point I'm sure APA will not go for it.

Parking the SAAB's, selling the 135's back to EMB for Legacy Conversion, and accepting new deliveries on E-jets would make Eagle much more attractive to potential buyers.... don't you think? AMR does not do things with short term gains in mind. Everything is at least on a five years plan, if not more.

Look for them to finish parking SAAB's, trade the 135's, buy E-jets, sell Eagle, they already sold American Beacon, and they will continue to divest ALL assets until the only AMR holding is AA. They will then run it into Bankruptcy, to force concessions and restructuring on ALL unions. Then they will excercise "options" they retained during all sales, and buy back what they want, and walk away from what they don't want.

That would violate our scope sections. They can not give away our routes. That is why the fight is on right now over the MIA flying.

They may want to give it to somebody else, but our scope clause prevents it. This TSA, MIA thing is AMR testing the water to see what they can get away with.

Where is this scope clause/agreement? I read through the entire pilot agreement today and the only mention of anything regarding scope was in Section 1 -- Job Security. I'd like to read through this clause so I can finally be in the know!!
thx

You found it. It's section 1, B Scope. The first sentence...

All flying performed on Company aircraft in its scheduled airline service will be performed by pilots on the pilot's system seniority list....


Read subsection a. ....

"Company Aircraft" means all aircraft owned or leased by the company, or of which the company has operational control


Then go to the ALPA website, login with your member number and password, and read the arbitration decision when AMR leased the planes to TSA. It explains exactly which sections of the contract were being contested, and there were more than just the airplanes issue being dealt with in the arbitration. Pay special attention to the section of the arbitrators ruling where he provided an example of what "would" be a violation of scope.

It's actually a fairly interesting read. It gives alot of insight into how these contracts are interpretted by arbitrators. It also is interesting that the company's only claim was that because Eagle was already in maximum growth mode, it was incapable of assuming the extra flying, and that is why they retained TSA's services. That fact was noted by the arbitrator as well.... and that situation (unable to staff) also no longer exists.

In any event, his exact example of what would be a violation has now occurred.