Originally Posted by Jake Wheeler (Post 680767)

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.

Originally Posted by RJ Pilot (Post 680877)

Another stab for our 7plus yr FO's.Hope AE ALPA comes victorious.

Originally Posted by bgmann (Post 680903)

Wow! I didnt know our upgrade time improved by 2 years. Awesome. ;)

Originally Posted by bgmann (Post 680902)

Who wants an airline without planes?

Originally Posted by bgmann (Post 680902)

Who wants an airline without planes?

Originally Posted by dojetdriver (Post 680918)

Easy, Glen Tilton.

Originally Posted by ToiletDuck (Post 680848)

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?

Originally Posted by CANAM (Post 680934)

Why is nobody griping about Eagle flying more larger aircraft and a FIRST CLASS SECTION?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Where is the outrage about mainline flying being stolen by Eagle? Doesn't this seem somewhat hypocritical?

Originally Posted by 320ToBearz (Post 680944)

The difference is AMR, Inc. OWNS Eagle and thats a BIG difference. The 22 extra CRJ's (which truly were a mainline replacement aircraft at Eagle for the F100) still result in a net decrease of aircraft for Eagle due to the turboprops being parked.

To the Eagle guys: When did Tony get elected and Herb got out of office? It's nice to see Herb get out of his ivory tower and fly from the right seat and witness what his crappy leadership brought out.

Originally Posted by ToiletDuck (Post 680759)

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.