Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Regional (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/)
-   -   Chautauqua and American Amend Agreement (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/32642-chautauqua-american-amend-agreement.html)

Splanky 10-24-2008 08:18 AM
Chautauqua and American Amend Agreement
 
AMR Corporation and Chautauqua Airlines Amend Agreement

Kind of a bummer that the majors are going after the regionals again to reduce costs (hopefully the regionals don't try to convince their employees that they need to work for free to keep their contracts). At least Chautauqua is getting a longer contract term out of the deal.

Rightseat Ballast 10-24-2008 08:44 AM
Well, to extend the life of a 44 seat aircraft contract is pretty remerkable in today's market. 3% reduction will no doubt hurt the bottom line of CHQ, but it will not make the AA flying break even or unprofitable. While 2 aircraft will be removed from scheduled service, it is encouraging for CHQ that there is a provision for some compensation should no home be found for those 2 airplanes. All in all, it is a smart and realistic deal. AA flying makes up less than 8% of flying at RAH, and the decrease in compensation will not incur the need for pay concessions.

It seems to me that BB is scratching the back of all the partner airlines a little bit. Cash to Midwest, US Airways, Frontier, and Mokulele; reduced compensaton obligation for AA; and help for UA and DAL in bleeding Mesa with the HI operation.

RJ Pilot 10-24-2008 12:01 PM
That flying should be Eagle's anyways.

ExperimentalAB 10-24-2008 12:14 PM
Alright...enough with the in-fighting. Holy cow this Regional section is getting to be about as bad as "Maury!"

And Rightseat is right - the fact that AA is renewing and lengthening a 44-seat contract. Wow...I hope Oil stays low!

KiloAlpha 10-24-2008 12:55 PM
Originally Posted by RJ Pilot (Post 484882)
That flying should be Eagle's anyways.
umm.. how about no

withthatsaid182 10-24-2008 01:23 PM
i'm just gonna start bringing my own airplane to work with me and avoid any awkward whose is whose....

KiloAlpha 10-24-2008 01:28 PM
Originally Posted by ExperimentalAB (Post 484887)
Wow...I hope Oil stays low!
Couldn't AA and others hedge fuel at $65? (not trying to be sarcastic)

ExperimentalAB 10-24-2008 02:12 PM
Originally Posted by KiloAlpha (Post 484936)
Couldn't AA and others hedge fuel at $65? (not trying to be sarcastic)
Absolutely, but if Oil remains volatile, so will the economy (and thus leisure travelers' discretionary income). Oil stability at some economically sustainable price will do wonders for us all...

Killer51883 10-24-2008 02:46 PM
they cant hedge fuel now cause they have spent all their money on hedging it while it was at 120 a barrel!

Mason32 10-24-2008 03:45 PM
Originally Posted by Killer51883 (Post 485005)
they cant hedge fuel now cause they have spent all their money on hedging it while it was at 120 a barrel!

AMR is sitting on over 6B in cash.... more than anybody else can say at this point in the industry's history.

flynavyj 10-24-2008 04:45 PM
TSA removes nearly all it's american flying, and CHQ gets more.....the end is near.

EEmbraer 10-24-2008 05:24 PM
To the moderators:

MANAGEMENT has made a decision. It wasn't the decision of the pilots - it was MANAGEMENT.

I have been very reluctant to post on here, but I respectfully request that this thread be locked. I can see this being an Eagle vs. Republic vs. TSA bashing thread.

Lets stop it before it really gets out of hand.

Wheels up 10-24-2008 05:26 PM
AA is in violation of the APA's scope provisions since the number of AA pilots has fallen below 7300 and the grace period for remedying the violation is nearly over. As such, the APA can demand back all regional flying or demand AE and it's outsourcing contracts be shut down.

Some interesting times ahead.

CaptainCarl 10-24-2008 08:18 PM
Originally Posted by EEmbraer (Post 485098)
To the moderators:

MANAGEMENT has made a decision. It wasn't the decision of the pilots - it was MANAGEMENT.

I have been very reluctant to post on here, but I respectfully request that this thread be locked. I can see this being an Eagle vs. Republic vs. TSA bashing thread.

Lets stop it before it really gets out of hand.
C'mon EEmbraer, have a little faith, we're all professionals here.

With that being said... If this thing gets ugly, then the moderators can shut it down. But until then, someone might have something interesting to add. So just wait and see... Mmm-kay? :D

ToiletDuck 10-24-2008 10:51 PM
Originally Posted by Splanky (Post 484751)
AMR Corporation and Chautauqua Airlines Amend Agreement

Kind of a bummer that the majors are going after the regionals again to reduce costs (hopefully the regionals don't try to convince their employees that they need to work for free to keep their contracts). At least Chautauqua is getting a longer contract term out of the deal.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the deal was always through 2012 but was amendable in 09, or now if CHQ wanted. AMR has to honor the contracts they inherited when they purchased TWA.

EEmbraer 10-25-2008 04:21 AM
Originally Posted by RJ Pilot (Post 484882)
That flying should be Eagle's anyways.
Apparently not everyone can be professional.

Fletch727 10-25-2008 06:09 AM
Originally Posted by RJ Pilot (Post 484882)
That flying should be Eagle's anyways.

Mind of Mencia comes to mind with quotes like these - "Der der derrrrr..."

Fletch727 10-25-2008 06:13 AM
Did this actually extend the AA contract, or simply extend AA's ability to terminate it early by three additional years to 2012? I may have read it wrong, but I don't read anything that states there has been a contract extension.

CaptainCarl 10-25-2008 07:05 AM
Originally Posted by EEmbraer (Post 485254)
Apparently not everyone can be professional.
That's his opinion EEbraer. Opinions are like belly buttons, everyone's got one. So just chill out homie. :cool:

ToiletDuck 10-25-2008 08:21 AM
Originally Posted by Fletch727 (Post 485278)
Did this actually extend the AA contract, or simply extend AA's ability to terminate it early by three additional years to 2012? I may have read it wrong, but I don't read anything that states there has been a contract extension.
It was no contract extension. The TWA contract was through 2012. It was amendable in 2009, or so I've been told.

"It should be Eagle's flying" is crazy talk. CHQ's contract was not with AA. It was with TWA. When AA bought TWA they bought our contracts. That's it. CHQ didn't take any of Eagle's flying as they never flew the routes to start with. It's like two parents getting married and one kid says all the other kids things belong to him because his mom took their last name.

de727ups 10-25-2008 08:42 AM
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.

Mason32 10-25-2008 03:34 PM
Originally Posted by ToiletDuck (Post 485323)
It was no contract extension. The TWA contract was through 2012. It was amendable in 2009, or so I've been told.

"It should be Eagle's flying" is crazy talk. CHQ's contract was not with AA. It was with TWA. When AA bought TWA they bought our contracts. That's it.
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.


Originally Posted by ToiletDuck (Post 485323)
CHQ didn't take any of Eagle's flying as they never flew the routes to start with.
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.

Originally Posted by ToiletDuck (Post 485323)
It's like two parents getting married and one kid says all the other kids things belong to him because his mom took their last name.
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.

sigep_nm 10-25-2008 11:20 PM
Originally Posted by Fletch727 (Post 485277)
Mind of Mencia comes to mind with quotes like these - "Der der derrrrr..."
I believe it is actually "Dee Dee Dee" but I get your point

Fletch727 10-26-2008 07:32 AM
Originally Posted by sigep_nm (Post 485769)
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.

stillageek 10-26-2008 07:57 AM
Originally Posted by Wheels up (Post 485099)
AA is in violation of the APA's scope provisions since the number of AA pilots has fallen below 7300 and the grace period for remedying the violation is nearly over. As such, the APA can demand back all regional flying or demand AE and it's outsourcing contracts be shut down.

Some interesting times ahead.
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.

rickair7777 10-26-2008 08:07 AM
Originally Posted by ExperimentalAB (Post 484976)
Absolutely, but if Oil remains volatile, so will the economy (and thus leisure travelers' discretionary income). Oil stability at some economically sustainable price will do wonders for us all...
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.

Mason32 10-27-2008 10:50 AM
Originally Posted by rickair7777 (Post 485877)
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....

ChickenFlight 10-27-2008 12:34 PM
Originally Posted by stillageek (Post 485871)
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.
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

ToiletDuck 10-27-2008 01:30 PM
Originally Posted by Mason32 (Post 485562)
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.
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.

AMR is sitting on over 6B in cash.... more than anybody else can say at this point in the industry's history.
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".

eaglefly 10-27-2008 01:31 PM
Originally Posted by ToiletDuck (Post 485323)
It was no contract extension. The TWA contract was through 2012. It was amendable in 2009, or so I've been told.

"It should be Eagle's flying" is crazy talk. CHQ's contract was not with AA. It was with TWA. When AA bought TWA they bought our contracts. That's it. CHQ didn't take any of Eagle's flying as they never flew the routes to start with. It's like two parents getting married and one kid says all the other kids things belong to him because his mom took their last name.
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.

ToiletDuck 10-27-2008 01:41 PM
Originally Posted by eaglefly (Post 486674)
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.
I could be wrong but I don't believe there will be any bidding. Our contract was with TWA which had to be upheld. Once the contract is over, with no more TWA, AMR should be assigning flying to AE.

Mason32 10-27-2008 04:10 PM
Originally Posted by ToiletDuck (Post 486672)
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.
Go read the arbitration instead of just repeating what you've been told by others.

Originally Posted by ToiletDuck (Post 486672)
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.
That scenario depends greatly upon what state you are in, and their respective probate laws. Poor example.

Originally Posted by ToiletDuck (Post 486672)
If what you proposed was capable than any company in trouble would sell itself to another company just to lose the debt.
You mean kinda like CAL did with Expressjet.... very good, you might be learning now.


go visit www talkairline . com and download a copy of the Eagle pilot contract... (you can probably get it other places, but it's the only site I know that has it and doesn't charge fees). Read the scope sections. Then go to the ALPA website and pull up the 2002 decision between AMR, AA, AE, TSA & ALPA. You might learn somethign new about how AMR's flying is subcontracted. Does CHQ have a contract? Sure they do... so did Freedom with Delta. (they may have it back now). In spite of what you may have been told by people, things are not what you have been lead to believe. The aribitor very clearly ruled that with the scope sections, the only way for outside companies to fly AMR commuter routes was if Eagle was incapable of staffing/running them.... so long as they do not transfer any flying outside the door is not open to refile. If they screw up, and it gets before an arbitor, they will base their ruling off the previous ruling. A contract with AMR for flying can not violate a contract with their own employees. There will be two contradicing contracts. Please go visit www.WestLaw.com and do some simple labor copntract review of conflicting contracts, one with employees, and one with subcontractors.

Good luck.

johnso29 10-28-2008 05:52 AM
Originally Posted by Mason32 (Post 485046)
AMR is sitting on over 6B in cash.... more than anybody else can say at this point in the industry's history.
Over 6 Bil in cash? I find that very hard to believe. Please back that up with some proof. Also, how much of that is unrestricted cash?

Mason32 10-30-2008 06:34 AM
Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 487127)
Over 6 Bil in cash? I find that very hard to believe. Please back that up with some proof. Also, how much of that is unrestricted cash?
Whoops, you're right. I was off slightly... From Q3 Earnings 10/2008

AMR ended the third quarter of 2008 with $5.1 billion in cash and short-term investments, including a restricted balance of $456 million. At the end of the third quarter of 2007 AMR had $5.8 billion in cash and short-term investments, including a restricted balance of $447 million.
here's the link....

American Airlines | Investor | Quarterly Earnings

The correct number should have been 5.1 Billion. For it to be included in this column on their report it has to be either cash itself, or something equally liquid. Hope that helps.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:20 AM.


Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands