I only brought that up because it was appropriate to include, due to the claim by another member that we'd all be flying these larger RJ's for peanuts.

I would consider it poor taste to rub another pilots nose in what money I might make while flying, especially if they do not. If it's a discussion about how YOU might want to make more without working more, then METHODS would be appropriate, but I see no point in him blabbering about his actual income.

Now HERE, in might be an acceptable topic, but only in direct response to correct erronous insight by another.

 

Agreed - it is very poor form to rub someone's nose in the money you make. I could care less how much that CA's I fly with make as I'm sure they could care less how much or little I make! I was in the JS and an AA Captain kept showing me pictures of his farm, his car, his bed on steel rails that rolls out onto the sleeping porch...blah blah blah. Yes, oooh you are so rich, gosh I'm really impressed let me tell you!

Now as for the METHODS of making more and not working more - I'm all ears. I would love to know some of those techniques. The only time I hit the money jackpot was once when I bid OT (before the furloughs), had it awarded and was ineligible to fly it. I was so new I didn't even know what I was doing except trying to get some flight time.

 

Question regarding the CRJ options.....once the economy turns around and Eagle can figure out some financing, how long will it be until something GOOD happens? I attended a career fair in October in ORD and they were pretty confident about and optomistic about the CRJ's.......

 

The 22 CRJ's are never coming to Eagle. The next new plane at Eagle is going to be 170/175, Q-400, or the new ATR.

 

Never say "never".

It's very possible these aircraft may come to Eagle, but it would require the financing geegee be found. The other aircraft (with the exception of a replacement plane for plane of the ATR's) will require the AA scope conundrum be solved and that will take another 1-2 years. If at least 15% financing can be found, these 22 70-seaters would be valuable, but more then likely they'd be replacements for the remainder of the E-135's and perhaps some 140's, so it's very likely that Eagle wouldn't see any growth because of it (or very little).

I think AMR is more concerned with making their feeder system more effecient and competitive which makes it more profitable, then expanding its overall size.

 

Gotta keep the bait dangling on the hook... those CRJ options have to be over 8 years old by now... has anybody else EVER heard of options being held for over 2 years? The fact is those options expired LONG long ago... which is why they would not show them to the APA back in 2007.

 

Actually, the options question was grieved recently and the result was that the arbitrator found that 22 of the 25 options were still active despite the fact that the written agreement expired. This was a stunning, and almost laughable, ruling considering that AMRs argument was that the options were still valid because they had a secret verbal agreement with Bombardier to extend the options. Further, the company was required to notify the APA about the secret deal, but did not. The arbitrator did not have a problem with that violation either.

This goes along with the ruling that the 7300 employed AA pilot floor trigger for the commuter clause of the scope contract is not valid because the arbitrator ruled that furloughed pilots count as "employed" pilots. This ruling means that AA could furlough every single AA pilot yet not trigger the minimum pilot floor for continuing the commuter exception to scope. Also, a stunningly biased finding from a supposed neutral arbitrator.

One only has to use common sense and the obvious intent of the contract language to come to the conclusion that it really didn't matter what the contract said. Draw your own conclusions.

 

Here's one of my conclusions; It's interesting you highlight " stunning" and "laughable" arbitration results that coincidentally go against the APA and FOR AMR, yet you steadfastly believe something will be different down the road with scope.

Should an arbitrator (or judge) end up ruling on scope, it's my opinion you can add "devistating" to the above two descriptions of previous arbitrations. That is why I believe it's in the best interest for the APA (and most AA pilots) to swallow hard and accept a more reasonable stance that has already been adopted by AA's competitors as opposed to a mythical idea that even the APA cannot define.

 

Agreed. If I were APA I would want to keep everything far from reach of arbitration. It never turns out well for the pilots. At least if you negotiate you can get some sort of benefit in return. Arbitration gets you a squat.

 

Im thinking the CRJ options hinge on what happens with APA scope. If APA grants exceptions for E170s (to Eagle or any other carrier) then those CRJ options will be gone (and probably the existing CRJs @ Eagle as well). If APA plays hardball and doesn't want to grant exceptions to scope then look for the CRJ options to be exercised.