I guess my question would be this:

Could Eagle fly an ATR72 or E145 specifically on routes intended to feed AA, but then fly a E170/E190 on something like DFW to NAS?

 

No, they couldn't.

 

As was stated, under the CURRENT arrangement, no.

IMO, either one of two things will happen. Either the APA will come to terms with the fact that AA needs a healthy and cost competitive feed system whcih will require a reasonable number of aircraft of the type which can be both competitive and profitable (76-seat mixed-class) which they now do not have and accept and negotiate scope to allow that -or- they will not, leaving AMR no alternative but to have to use the BK method to achieve a profitable and competitive model for both AA and regionals (that inlcudes AT LEAST one other regional besides Eagle).

Even in the unlikely event the current APA stand of either strangling Eagle out of existance or taking over the flying succeeds (I'm sure none of their pilots is THAT interested in flying RJ's to CMI, ICT or GRR), it would only lead to the same place due to AA unviability from an economic standpoint. That's liable to cost MORE AA jobs and result in virtually eliminated scope as opposed to rational negotiation leading to relaxed scope to allow larger aircraft that can compete and not lose money due to economic inefficiency.

It appears AMR is stalling for THEIR benefit to insure the competitive landscape is known and to insure all their ducks are lined up for quick and tidy trip in and out of BK. There IS one wild card that would change the dynamics of this conundrum and that is also another reason (I believe) AMR is stalling. It appears UAL could be in serious trouble by next summer cash wise as they've burned thru 1/3 of their pervious 3.8 billion in 7 months. It's going to be a long, cold and hard fall and winter revenue wise and UAL is running out of things to finance and credit to find. It may be a strategy of WHO is the first to liqiuidate.

I'll tell you this as harsh as it is, should ONE major liquidate (even if it survived to come out 1/4th of itself), it would blow the relief valve of excess capacity off the industry and allow the survivors to finally bring ticket prices in line with expenses, thus likely insuring survival and higher degree of prosperity for those that remain. Kinda like 5 people in a boat and one becomes sick and diseased. The others are starting to show the first symptoms and to save the group, the really sick one is tossed out of the boat for the benefit of the others.......not pretty. Many are convinced it wont happen, but if you'd described 9/11 on 9/10/01, it would have been preposterous to 99.99% of everyone you asked.

The question is who will it be ?

The clear front runner (now) for collapse is UAL followed by AA and U. So what we have with AMR might be a waiting game. Hypothetically, if say UAL were liquidated and say 75% of its operation and assets were auctioned off, AA would need to recall and hire to cover their chunk of the pie. UAL could remain strictly an International carrier with that segment sold off to a new buyer and UAL would still survive in name and legacy, but a lot of the domestic scraps would be picked apart by others whom appear ready to circle the wreckage at a moments notice.

At any rate, AA needs feed (and Eagle) as much as Eagle needs AA (and someone to feed), at least under the CURRENT arrangement. The current APA philosophy I'll call, "The Cyanide Diary" will only doom AA pilots to a worse scenario. Even now, many AA pilots are asking the APA what it means when they say, "ALL flying to be done by AA pilots" and the APA so far hasn't come up with a coherent answer other then falling in love with the idea, so their current scope "plan" is fairly rudderless.

In the meantime, AMR is using its friend and ally TIME to their advantage. When the time is right either by choice or the neccesity of outside forces they'll act.

 

Agreed under the same certificate. Could they do it if both Eagles are divested with one owning the other and the owned airline feeding AA while the owning airline contracted with other airlines ala' RAH/CHQ?

Thank you, Eaglefly. This is good information to know. I've seen oppressive environments before, but will give this one the benefit of the doubt until your words are proved or disproved.

My comments on scope are not intended to be flamebait nor are meant to irritate anyone. If that happens, then it's their problem. I'm simply stating market realities. Our industry has been evolving ever since the Deregulation Act of 1978 and being in denial about it isn't going to change anything.

My experience has taught me that the best way to handle a problem is to face it and learn as much about it as possible before deciding upon a plan to deal with it. The same goes for deregulation, scope, cabotage and all the other problems facing our profession.

Wishing a problem would go away doesn't work. Let's hope the moderators of this forum also realize this truism.

 

Still no. However, with the history of the recent arbitrators opening siding with the company, I suppose the company could grieve it and win. After all, the APA just lost a grievance concerning the minimum pilot floor where the arbitrator ruled that every single pilot at AA could be furloughed, yet the APA pilot floor concerning commuter exception to scope would NOT be triggered.

Another possibility could be that the APA grants exception for a certain number of 76 seat aircraft with the proviso that furloughed AA pilots fly the captain's seat at AE pay rates.

I think Arpey is loath to take the company to bankruptcy. He just renegotiated debt due at the end of the year. Despite some commuter pilots' dream for once again dumbing down the industry, Bk is not what is used to be and AA can't just come in and dictate the terms of a change to the employee contracts, so the outcome is not certain. Keep in mind also that a change in scope would also, almost certainly, mean that AE would NOT be the only small jet supplier. However, eaglefly's right in that AE future is uncertain without viable jets, vice the 37-50 seat money pits they have now.

There's a lot of angles to all this and it's not anywhere close the the slam dunk fait accompli that eaglefly would lead you to believe.

 

"Let's hope the moderators of this forum also realize this truism."

Mod note:

The moderators at APC simply enforce a set of rules outlined in the TOS. You can find those rules at the top of each forum page. Those who post within those rules will never have a problem with the moderation here. Questions about moderation should be via PM's and are off topic and inappropriate for the forums. Thanks.

 

The APA already tried this move years ago and it failed miserably. To be done at Eagle, it would require the agreement of Eagle ALPA (good luck) or another flowthrough type agreement that AMR wont want any part of considering the last nightmare.

At first glance, it would seem more likely at the other carrier they're sure to bring in, but two things ruffle that plans feathers (and ruin its economics), 1. It would be too unpredictable and expensive planning that carriers captain staffing (which affect ALL it's staffing) if sudden furloughs or shortages occur at AA. It would be very undesirable in planning and predictability and will rise any costs at this carrier (not to mention the anymosity of that carriers F/O's). Since AMR would have to relinquish a segment of that carriers profit TO that carrier, instead of all to AMR (like Eagle), it would further erode profitability. 2. That scenario would place at least SOME control of that carriers operation within the APA and that is a sure fire way to increase costs over the long-term by once again granting leverage to mainline labor to use at a later time.

I think I can safely assert this idea is a non-starter at worst or a non-finisher at best.
Yes, BK is the LAST option, but backdropped against hopeless unprofitability, it may be the ONLY option. The industry is already "dumbed" down and I'm just highlighting the obvious. It is WELL known that Eagle will not be the sole feed provider for AA in the future, so again nothing new there.

Gee, we used to be a "regional pilots", but now we're just "commuter pilots"..........I guess that's a step up from "losers" or "lifers" as seems to be the rage here on Mainline Pilot Forums, but I will (and did) take that as a condescending insult as it was obviously meant to be. It reminds me when the APA referred to us as AA's "propeller division" when that label suited them.

Ahh, what can you do...........some things never change.

Starting to taste it a little bit now, Phrog ?

 

Well, scope is costing AMR a lot of money. My question is what is the price tag?

Would it be cheaper to do a flow up to AA? One list with AE stabled below AA? Or for APA to hold the line on scope?

The only thing I have learned about the airline industry is that I know nothing. As a AE pilot I would like to see APA hold the line on scope.

 

Your 3 options ;

1. New flowthru - AMR found the old one way too much of a headache and actually expensive with all the legal fees for the various arbitrations. They sighed relief when it died........their interest in a new one is about nil. If interest was there, they would have brought that up for discussion with the APA as a method of dealing with scope.

2. Any merging of the lists becomes unpredictable and sticky considering the new developments as a result of the U-AWA debacle. Additonally, Eagle's contract has provisions for use of the "Allegheny-Mohawk Labor Protective Provisions" in the even of no agreements with a non-ALPA carrier. DOH for Eagle pilots wouldn'y fly with AA pilots or the APA and a straight staple to the bottom wouldn't fly with Eagle ALPA or Eagle pilots, but the above is all moot. AMR cannot afford to have mainline labor control any aspect of regional labor costs unless they were competing against similar cost structures with the competition. The large RJ ops are done almost exclusively by regionals and it is they who will set the labor cost structure. Forget about any merger of AA and Eagle (or their seniority lists)......it's even LESS likely then #1..

3. If APA holds the line on current scope, AA's feed system will slowly wither and die as the smaller RJ's become either mechanically unviable or economically unviable (they're pretty much there now, economically). This will only weigh AA down with more debt as their revenue shrinks as a result of their feed shrinking. Competitors will convert former AA customers who can no longer get flexibility form AA with a weak (and getting weaker) feed system and that further weakens AA (and will cost AA jobs, especially pilots). Eventually, either AA will have to reinvent itself into a carrier that doesn't need feed (I can't see how) or its parent (AMR) will have to acquire the necessary scope changes it needs to maintain revenue with a healthy and competitive feed system. Of course some believe that thru whatever way (even magic), AMR can pull a rabbit out of a hat and thrive AND GROW without feed or with it all being done at the mainline level by all mainline employees with mainline costs against other regionals as they have the money to maintain an executive bonus plan.

It seems all 3 aren't realistic or likely options.

Option 4. is the reality IMO and that involves AMR gaining the necessary scope changes it needs for AA to thrive and compete by whatever means necessary. There are several options, the best being rational negotiation with both sides realistic about the situation. This would probably involve the allowance of mixed-class 76-seaters, but limits on size and mission based on current AA feeder size and competitive feeder sizes. Barring that, AMR would have little choice but to achieve that by another far less pleasant method, which it really doesn't want to do. My guess, is that should they have to do the unpleasant, AMR would make it worth their while by eliminating more scope provisions then likely would have been realized through negotiation rationalizing that decision to offset the cost and hassle of BK. If AMR HAS to go to BK, I think they're going to maximize the outcome of that for their best interest regardless of the criticism and that would likely mean larger aircraft and virtually no operational restrictions for feeders. This would anger many AA pilots and a bunch would proabably quit, but under this scenario, AA would likely shrink more in BK then out of it and I'm sure AMR would include PBS in AA's new post BK structure which would mean substantially less pilots needed, so they would probably need to trim a couple of thousand currently active pilots anyway, maybe more.

If you want to see the APA hold the line on scope, that's fine, but have you thought about your next employment move ?

It would mean that your tenure here would be as a career F/O until either Eagle shrunk enough that you'd be furloughed (having never made captain) or you quit for something better before that happens. You may in fact want to consider resignation sooner rather then later and get some PIC time somewhere in anything as 10,000 hours SIC time in an RJ won't get you anywhere and wont be doing your bank account much good either. At least if you really hope and expect the APA to maintain current AA scope.

If you understand the ramifications of your wishes, you can plan for your future better.

 

I keep hearing Eagle is going to order new ATRs.