Rather suggest moderator action at the forums, it's much more useful to report a post using the red triangle thingy in the lower left corner of the screen. There has to be a TOS violation. It's most effective if you make your case about it being a TOS violation when you report the post.

 

TSA and CHQ were retained because, at the time, Eagle was already in maximum growth mode and was unable to assume the additional flying.
There was no requirement for AMR to keep either TSA or CHQ. This is not conjecture, the history of it is in AMR's own words, in writing. Simply go to the ALPA website and look up the original Eagle/TSA grievance arbitration.

It clearly spelled out, and the arbitor agreed, that per Eagle contract the company could not outsource flying if the opportunity to grow Eagle instead existed. It's in Eagle's scope clause. At the time the Arbitor agreed with AMR that Eagle was not, and had not been, capable of growing fast enough to meet AMR needs and that prompted the outsourced contract flying... at the same time the arbitor allowed AMR to lease airplanes to a subcontractor, even though the Eagle contract required AMR Eagle planes be flown by pilots on the Eagle pilot list.... the arbitor ruled that the transfer of equipment alone onto routes not done by Eagle was not a violation, especially since Eagle couldn't staff the planes. Which is why when they transfered the MIA routes to TSA it completed what was previously ruled to be a violation should it happen. If they didn't send the MIA flying back to Eagle it would have opened the door to file a grievance based upon the previous ruling.... which AMR knew they would lose. It would also open the door on ALL subcontracted AMR flying since Eagle is no longer in the position of not being able to ramp up to staff the additional flying.... opening that door is something AMR desperately wanted to avoid, since it would eliminate any possibility of an effective whipsaw in 2013.


Neither did CHQ. When AMR bought TWA, the routes became AMR's, and CHQ had not flown these new routes for AMR.
The reason CHQ and TSA were retained is explained above. If it isn't clear enough, go read the 2002 arbitration. Should that door be opened again, TSA and CHQ would be toast, and AMR would just be stuck like Delta was last summer... paying a subcontractor for work they weren't doing.

Not really, it's much more like one parent dying (TWA), and the surviving parent (AMR) being told they have to pay for the lease/rental agreement for their dead spouses car which they no longer need.....

Other than that, I think you're right on the money... as usual.

 

I believe it is actually "Dee Dee Dee" but I get your point

 

Huh - I thought there was an "r" in there somewhere. Now I'm going to have to watch closer next time.

 

Are you sure about this? Do you work for AA? The APA has not yet fallen below the 7300 number. They are close depending on who is counting...the APA or AMR.

 

Yeah that's the real problem...oil may be low today, but the damage has been done. Now that we know that it can go to $150 or higher over a few months, managers will be very cautious about going out on a limb with expansion.

I think it will take either years of stable prices or the commercial implementation of alternative jet fuels to get THIS monkey off of our backs.

 

More importantly.... now that we have seen oil go to $150 and several companies still turned in a profit, we now have proof positive for the next section six negotiations that there is plenty of money available for taking back the profession....

 

It is my understanding that the 7300 floor applies to nAAtive pilots only, so the couple of thousand pilots on property because of the TWA and Reno mergers do not count toward the 7300 number according to APA. That being said, AMR will likely argue that if the mergers had not happened they would have hired new nAAtives and the 7300 count should be modified. Either way things are going to get very interesting around AA/AE/AX. Do try and duck to avoid mess

 

Everything you've stated is wrong. The arbitration is that additional flying may not be given out. The original CHQ/TWA flying stays that way until contract expiration. AMR became liable for those contracts when they purchased TWA. Yes one company is liable for another company's contracts when purchased in this case. CHQ is on a completely different playing field than TSA in this. There's a reason AE can't furlough while TSA is flying yet can without CHQ losing anything. TSA flew AE planes while CHQ owns the birds.

If your mother ran up debt then died yes your father would be liable for those debts. It's the number one reason people so much life insurance. If what you proposed was capable than any company in trouble would sell itself to another company just to lose the debt. The two would have to be kept separate like Bank of Americas purchase of Countrywide. They didn't.

1. AMR is sitting on $729 million in cash.
2. CAL-$2.5B, DAL-$2.4B, NWA-$3.6B, UAL-$3.3B, SWA-$2.4B
3. How much cash you have isn't the only thing that matters. If you owe a lot of money and have a fleet that needs restructuring those things go into account. That would put a few more marks against AMR.

Your posting makes me think of the quote: "90% of statistics can be made to say anything 50% of the time".

 

Agreed.

Hopefully, we'll have the opportunity soon to bid on some of CHQ's (or others) current flying with larger aircraft. We as pilots shouldn't take CHQ's AA flying as personal and they shouldn't be angry with us if we get some of theirs.

Sadly, the "unity" baloney is long gone and it's every pilot for himself. I'll have no problems doing ANYONE else's flying because it seems that few have problems doing ours. As such, every pilot group should fight tooth and nail for any and everything they can get.

It's a jungle out there.

Let the strong survive and prosper and the weak get hosed. It's a harsh reality, but it's a reality we as pilots have cultivated.

Unfortunate, but true.