...and to set precedent of building a base of contracted regional flying outside Eagle if (or when) AMR decides to revisit the issue of divesting Eagle.

Awesome .... Kudos for the EGL MEC Chairman. Thats what all we need people not willing to bend over management just because getting new airplanes and/or new routes. Best of the luck to all my eagle friends and hope RAH pilots learn something from these fine pilot group ;) as always all my support to Eagle

A news article I read today said that Eagle would get additional routes out of STL. Eagle is also already flying places that were once operated by CHQ out of STL. So is this contract violation based on net hours of gain/loss of flying or is it based on which routes are flown by who? Why are they saying this is an outsourcing of additional flying. Does anyone know if CHQ is seeing any additional block hours? We were at 14 aircraft and are now down to 12 as of this year. The flying is for those 12 aircraft out of ORD. Why is that a contract violation? Just curious I'm based in STL and would rather it not be closed for us myself though that doesn't seem like it's going to happen.

Maybe before we RAH pilots "learn something from these fine pilot group", you will learn proper and basic English. Can someone please translate his post for me?

Aye aye aye

This is second hand, but word is the flying CHQ is going to be doing out of ORD is 145 flying not 140 flying. I think that is where the contract violation comes in.

I know wilder things have happened but that seems like one heck of a stretch.

The last time they tried it, they couldn't agree on the terms. American is very picky. They want to sell the airline, but still run it.

That's not the issue. It's flying routes we currently fly that is. It's WHY we lost the previous arbitration regarding the transfer of our aircraft to another carrier. The arbiter said he was ruling in favor of AMR because, "these were not previously your routes".................well, now they are and Eagle ALPA will have some legal background to demonstrate the violation.

It's a contract violation for the above reason.

Does CHQ have scope language prohibiting others flying their routes or previous arbitration language reaffirming those routes ?

If so, then CHQ should (or should have) filed a grievance against this. The two issues are not mutually dependent, though.

There were mulitple potential suitors, but all balked at the overcontrolling terms that were demanded. It would have taken most of the profit out of their hands as AMR wants their cake and eat it too.

Yes, AMR wanted to sell us but under THEIR terms. To bring in another to fly what you already control 100% means shifting current profit over to the other so THEY can make money resulting in less money for AMR.

They need at least one other carrier in each of our hubs (at least DFW and ORD) to fly perhaps 1/3 of our current flying. Just enough to keep most of the cash and control still in house, but just enough to mitigate any strike threat in 2013. Once we're brought down and controlled, then they turn to that other carrier or carriers and force their managements to do the same with their labor (pilots) or else their contract is not renewed and they are replaced.

Classic whipsaw.

It's the way it was in the '90's with 3 of the 4 Eagle's being played against each other and resulted in the 16-year contract (adjustable every 4 years). AMR wants to return to that scenario of owning the ultimate leverage.

This is the first shot in this battle and it cannot be ignored.