Egl ALPA wants to boot CHQ
09-19-2009 | 05:11 AM
#21
SDQ Base Chief
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,084
Likes: 46
From: 320 CA
Another part of the dispute comes when CHQ starts flying out of another place besides STL. Their contract came from the TWA purchase, and was originally for flying in STL. Moving to ORD flying is not kosher. Again, this is not a battle against the CHQ pilots, or even the CHQ mgmt. It is against AMR and to prevent a widescale introduction of 3rd party carriers in AMR hubs in the future.
I would be very curious what the terms of the CHQ-AA contract are, because I have heard AA could be held responsible for lease payments on unused a/c or CHQ could give the a/c to AMR if CHQ didnt want to use them for any other non-AX flying. Im sure we will find more details.
I would be very curious what the terms of the CHQ-AA contract are, because I have heard AA could be held responsible for lease payments on unused a/c or CHQ could give the a/c to AMR if CHQ didnt want to use them for any other non-AX flying. Im sure we will find more details.
09-19-2009 | 05:51 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
From: E-170
so its soley about routes, ie ORD-DAY or something like that in your contract that is the basis for this grievance? Now I totally understand the whole whipsaw protection and wish you luck, however I doubt an arbitrartor is going to make a decision to remove CHQ soley for a whipsaw protection. Now I could be wrong if the contractual language is specifically about routes and not block hours or increase/decreased in total numbers of aircraft.
09-19-2009 | 05:55 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
From: E-170
I would be very curious what the terms of the CHQ-AA contract are, because I have heard AA could be held responsible for lease payments on unused a/c or CHQ could give the a/c to AMR if CHQ didnt want to use them for any other non-AX flying. Im sure we will find more details.
09-19-2009 | 07:08 AM
#24
Che Guevara
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,408
Likes: 0
Just seems odd. I don't know what provisions are in the CHQ contract. AMR signed a deal for X amount of block hours. Since CHQ has been flying STL since the TWA times those routes were CHQ(if we dare act like we own routes) yet those are being closed. So X amount of block hours has to come from somewhere. Does EGLs contract list STL specifically or is it other TWA bases?
09-19-2009 | 08:26 AM
#27
Che Guevara
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,408
Likes: 0
Isn't AE getting additional routes out of STL as well as the addition of 22CRJ 700s? Sounds more like another stab to the AMR guys. Not pointing the fingers at AE you gotta stand up for your contract. Right now doesn't seem anyone is happy on any side of the fence lol.
09-19-2009 | 08:55 AM
#28
SDQ Base Chief
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,084
Likes: 46
From: 320 CA
Isn't AE getting additional routes out of STL as well as the addition of 22CRJ 700s? Sounds more like another stab to the AMR guys. Not pointing the fingers at AE you gotta stand up for your contract. Right now doesn't seem anyone is happy on any side of the fence lol.
09-19-2009 | 08:57 AM
#29
Che Guevara
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,408
Likes: 0
You don't have to argue that point with me I understand completely. We have one with AMR as well I hope they plan on looking into. I was wondering because they make it sound as if AE is losing flying in all of this when as of right now it looks like they are gaining.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
