They certainly did. I have no idea about the details of that contract or how they ended up with Eagle planes. (Well, I know HOW they ended up with them, but not why they didn't keep their own airframes on the flying)

Yeah I just thought we needed some airplanes and AMR was at a surplus and would lease them to us. Eh guess I have a lot of growing up to do still...

Its gonna be more than that. Try 250 -350 furloughs- thats my guess unless you come up with alot of voluntary LOAs or part-time lines or something.

Those ERJs are not coming back until next year and even then it will be over a period of months. Eagle is gonna furlough based on parking 54 airplanes. When those jets start coming in then maybe they will recall some furloughs to staff them.

Why dont you throw in a few more acronyms just for fun.... :D

I get the emails. Its been two days since this "deal" and still everyone I have talked to doesn't know a damn thing about it.

That is the position AMR claimed was the case during the 2002 arbitration over the airplanes. There also was an APA scope issue when it happened. The arbitrator didn't care that eagle had people on furlough at the time of the transfer of the jets, he relied on AMR's statement that eagle was "in maximum growth mode" and was unable to staff the planes hence the need to contract/lease with TSA. The arbitrator ignored the furloughed eagle guys and went based on AMR's statements. The entire arbitration is available in the ALPA documents/records section on their website in case anybody wants to read it.

"Full growth mode," yet they had Pilots on the streets? Doesn't sound kosher to me...:confused:

so eagle gets their planes back...wahoo...theoretically speaking if TSA found 10 airplanes out there somewhere to lease..could they continue to fly as american connection? as said in previous statements weren't the TSA flights TWE originally..just like chq's connection flights and not eagles?

Well, in accordance with AE Scope, TSA wasnt supposed to be doing the MIA flying, hence us Eagle guys waving at you with one finger. The company told us that they were getting TSA to do this flying so that we could expand ORD and make better efficiency of the aircraft use up there. ALPA grieved it as it was a violation. This was a violation so severe that had we been able to (re: No Strike Clause) , we may have struck it. I have no bad feelings towards the individual TSA pilots who are flying the MIA routes, however, I do feel ill towards the collective group as a whole, with their ALPA representatives, for not questioning the legitimacy of their newly awarded flying. Given that we are members of the same union, a Scope violation of this level should never have occurred. I have been out of the loop for a few days and have not heard whether we have that flying back yet, but the news of our 10 aircraft returning is great and I am very happy to hear it.

I'll agree that we should not have ever gone into Miami in the first place. Scope in my opinion is the do all end all of the CBA. But would you question your MEC if Eagle came in to take some of over some of OUR connection flying out of St. Louis? I have to ask because I feel as though there are some (not necessarily you), but there are some at Eagle that feel as though any regional flying American has you are entitled to, even if they are routes that us at Trans States flew for as TWE. Not trying to ensight a riot, just asking.