Agree 100%. Not to mention they are also the cheapest 5% in the entire company. :( I'm going to work tomorrow, maybe I'll try to track down an answer.

this stuff is trash, the protection that only works if Eagle stays owned by AMR, and not merged with another airline, and AA stands alone...........better chance in winning the lotto.

Vote it down. (prior Eagle 7+ yrs) I couldn't believe the audacity of a 16 yr contract back in my day, but 8 still blows! 5 max, seriously. Also, take advantage of the fact that you can view your TA and vote on it (NO!) Had a TA basically shoved down our throats because we went back to work after self help BEFORE even viewing the TA. At that point the gig is up, no one wants to vote no and go back on strike. So my point is, you can vote NO, and you should! AMR needs to stop pinning Eagle with lengthy contracts, it's unheard of outside of the brain damage world that AMR creates for its pilot group

Although, i see it there in the drafted "job protection LOA" document, i'm just not seeing it working. The company says they'll protect us from furlough. But the only pay protection is for 50% of captains. Nothing for first officers. And so your telling me if they park 135s and 140s but take their time on replacements and they determine we're fat on pilots, they're going to send us home for a year but still pay us? They have an agreement with another airline to employ us, so now we have to commute and fly for Mesa? Or theyre going to swiftly send us to AA to prevent us from being furloughed? So if AA merges with US Airways, your telling me that US Airways is completely okay with keeping us all employed even though they would determine they want to furlough? I don't see US Airways adopting a rule from another airline.

I just am not seeing the "protections". It just looks good as a title "8year contract with job protections". It just isn't that simple. And it scares me AE pilots will see that title of "Job protections" but don't read small print of the provisions and how it would become exempt under circumstances.

we need to educate everyone that 6 years is better than 8, and no might be better than yes. At least make sure everyone is aware of the wording on the 'protection'....its about as much protection as a sheep skin condom, or a girl who tells you she cant get pregnant.

Amen!!...

I was going to ignore the stupid survey. But now i'm going to vote 6 over 8. Hoping that will entice the people who vote for what their friend is voting for cus they don't know what to vote for. And they'll say " oh no job protections I don't like that. I'll just vote No".

Here are mandatory retirements for airline pilots. These numbers were taken directly from Airline Pilot Central - HOME. These are conservative, because these numbers assume that each airline pilot will retire on their 65th birthday. Many pilots will retire early due to both: personal reasons and reasons beyond their control. This list only includes 6 airlines. There are multiple airlines NOT included in this list that will have pilots retiring in droves.

A "minimum" of 16845 pilots will retire between 2012 and 2022. A "minimum" of 37237 pilots will retire by 2047.

This is another reason to Vote in the survey for 6 years and VOTE NO on the American Eagle TA.

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f3...etirements.jpg

ok correct me if I'm wrong on top of all the bogus stuff their saying is good about this 8-yr contract...why isn't anyone mentioning the lost week of vacation? That's a huge quality of life issue for me on top of the fact that with PBS you're going to be going back to work at 7am the day after your "week" of vacation. Anyone else have a problem with that or do I just like my vacation time?

i am with you on those point also but that will happen in the 6 or 8 year contract anyway. what we are trying to make all understand is that the furlough protection and increased flow to AA for the 8 year contract is bogus and tell the MEC that 6 year contract is preferable in the survey.

your points ate valid, just trying to stop an 8 year POS contract.

I agree with all the points being presented. But the argument shouldn't just be a 6 or 8 year contract. It should be for a better contract that doesn't destroy our quality of life for the chance at maybe one day 1,000 years from now getting new shiny jets.