Egl ALPA wants to boot CHQ
 

Hold onto your hat this should get interesting... Least our new chairman seems to have some more balls than the other guy.

Fellow Eagle ALPA Pilots:

As you may already know, AMR announced today its plans to adjust flying for the spring of 2010. The plans call for American Eagle to increase its presence in Chicago to support American Airlines.

Management announced that it will deploy the majority of the CRJ fleet to Chicago and to retrofit the CRJ’s to accommodate first class seating. Additionally, they intend to exercise options to purchase 22 additional CRJ-700 aircraft. Deliveries of these new aircraft may begin in the middle of 2010.

The MEC is pleased that management is now moving forward with the acquisition of these aircraft. We have supported that move for quite some time. We are also eager for the company to begin recalling the pilots currently on furlough.

As CRJ aircraft are moved to Chicago and, presumably, a proportionate number of Embraer aircraft moved to Dallas, a sizeable displacement and training cycle will certainly result. We are still awaiting details from management on the scope of these displacements.

The Eagle ALPA MEC has serious objection to management’s stated intention to move American Connection flying from St. Louis to Chicago. Information released by management indicates that Chautauqua Airlines will replace American Eagle on certain short flights and will operate from the “L” Concourse in Chicago.

The Eagle ALPA MEC finds this to be wholly unacceptable. It not only represents a violation of American Eagle’s duty to “aggressively seek to increase flying opportunities” and to pursue “bidding on opportunities to provide additional feed to American Airlines” but it also transfers existing operations away from American Eagle and the very employees who built these routes and markets. Most egregious is that some of the Eagle pilots who built this operation are still on furlough.

The present circumstances are vastly different from 2001 when Chautauqua first began providing feed to TWA-LLC. American Connection has existed for some time now, but has performed regional feed to American on a limited basis in St. Louis. When this arrangement began, we challenged it through the grievance and arbitration process. Arbitrator Nolan specifically ruled that Eagle did not breach our contract when it decided not to seek the St. Louis feeder flying. A fundamental factor in his decision was that Eagle was already growing – we had approximately 2700 pilots – and the Arbitrator concluded that management was following a prudent expansion plan.

As AMR now moves forward with plans to pull down flying in St. Louis, the appropriate course of action would be to exit the relationship with Chautauqua. Certainly, there is no basis to expand Chautauqua’s role as an AA feeder on routes they have not previously served -- including Chicago routes presently being flown by Eagle pilots.

We will act immediately to oppose this plan. It is the first move by AMR to advance a third party airline into routes currently being flown by American Eagle pilots and test our pilot group’s resolve. What a tragedy that today, when we should be celebrating the announcement of new aircraft deliveries, we are beginning preparations for one of the most significant battles we will face on this property.

For years, management has used all available means to convey to Eagle pilots that they are too expensive. Only when answering questions as part of the Congressional inquiry on the Colgan accident did Peter Bowler admit that the longevity of Eagle pilots has significant value.
Sadly, when growth at our airline is stagnant and management is presented with an obvious opportunity to simultaneously grow our airline and to drive down costs, they rush to accommodate and position Chautauqua in our own backyard.

One would think that management might understand that the monies paid to Chautauqua over the past few years were actually strengthening American’s competitor. However, the current move solidly indicates management’s intentions. Rather than quickly recalling our 71 furloughed coworkers by growing Eagle, and ridding themselves of current competition, AMR seems to be going out of its way to build a “portfolio of regional feed.”

Your MEC will insist that management “aggressively seek to increase flying opportunities” and “bid on opportunities to provide additional feed to American Airlines” as required by the contract.
Please make an extra effort to stay abreast of communications from the MEC and your LEC representatives. As we engage with management and learn more about these upcoming changes, we’ll pass the information on as quickly as possible.

Until then, Fly Safe…

Capt. Tony Gutierrez
EGL MEC Chairman

Should be a slam dunk. Good luck Eagles.

what sort of cancellation penalty is there on the chautauqua contract? if its anything like the delat or frontier ones i doubt american can waste the cash to pay a huge penalty.

how is eagle losing routes in this? arent they gaining 22 airplanes while chq is keeping the status quo of 13 airplanes?

The issue is not really about CHQ or its pilots. It's about defending the language in our contract protecting our flying. Something any pilot group should do. I haven't heard too many Eagle pilots attacking CHQ pilots for this. The overwhelming majority of us know the real situation.

This is about Eagle pilots vs. AMR. If ALPA were to stand by and allow this unobjected, it would set precedent against any future incursion to our operations. No guarantee of success, but you have to try.

I hope the wholly owned MEC's are watching....

Why doesn't RAH just buy Eagle to stop this from happening?

I am trying to remember my eagle contract's language regarding this but I cant off the top of my head. But if the sole complaint is about the “aggressively seek to increase flying opportunities” and “bid on opportunities to provide additional feed to American Airlines” then I dont see what sort of stand the eagle has against the company when eagle is the one getting "increase(d) flying opportunities" to "provide additional feed to American Airlines" with the additional CRJ's. If you wouldnt mind helping me and fellow RAH pilots understand the situation I am sure it would be appreciated.

He is saying that chq is replacing eagle on some of the routes in ord, that is a violation of the contract because eagle already had that flying.

The exact reasoning behind a previous arbitrators ruling on why he denied the TSA grievance, so it would seem there's some precedent.

But this is AMR's grand plan, to set up the inevitable whipsaw.

...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.

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.

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.

The delta contract has a cancelation penalty of where Delta would be responsible for paying the leases of all the airplanes that used to fly for them. Or they could in turn buy the aircraft off of Chq or S5. Plus there was some other cancelation fee to be paid. We all know that the Frontier contract had a rather harsh penalty of $150 million. I am sure that when the contract was renegotiated last summer there was a large protection for Chq in the event the contract was cut.

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?

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

............ dupe

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.

We gain 2 daily flights from STL to JFK and BOS. Those are both routes AE did in previous years. We are getting 22 CRJs, but can't be distracted by new shiny jets when it comes to standing up for our contract.

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.

Hi BoilerWings

American had a buyer for Eagle years ago but the airlines weren't included in the sale. Who wants an airline without planes?

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

We sucked up a 16 year contract to be able to unify all the eagles in to one pilot group. We should not be willing to give up the 16 years of sacrafice for the price of 22 shiny new jets. All connection should stay in STL. If this goes through forget any leverage we have in the 2013 contract negotiations. :mad:

Easy, Glen Tilton.

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?

I was thinking this guy---------------->Tim Hoeksema

What a JERK!! :mad:

It wasn't the contract but an arbitrators ruling that limited TSA/CHQ/Corp Air to STL.

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.

He was just voted in. I like the fact that T.G. waisted no time in pointing out our new contract violation. I really hope his new MEC chair acceptance video becomes a reality and we do become a more unified pilot group.

the routes in STL are allowed by the arbitrator. nothing more, nothing less.