In the AA forum, looks like APA and AA have reached an AIP regarding scope where APA has agreed to not file grievances for scope violations from 2020 or 2021 in exchange for no furloughs. Seems relevant to discuss here.

It certainly establishes an unfortunate baseline for APA if AA goes Chapter 11 while it is still in effect.

That was my first thought, basically now gives a rough timeline of when to file BK (when there’s the most RJ’s flying routes).

I'm kinda curious if this will effect the baseline. The actual scope wasn't changed. Not even temporarily. APA just agreed not to grieve scope violations for a while. But I've never been though a BK before so it's all new territory for me.

I am kind of surprised at the free pass.

BANKRUPTCY:
When management gets to say, “What’s mine is mine, what’s yours is negotiable.”
Or, worse yet, subject to the whim of an arbitrator.

Alaska pilots 26% pay cut

Which can then be argued as a status quo violation if enforcement happens later.

It doesn't matter what the contract says at that point, the judge will basically just consider the current operating environment, at least that's what happened last time.

Snap-back provisions don't seem to hold up well. The judge seems to think that if conditions improve later, you can try to fix it the hard way at your next amenable date. Which the judge might set five years from now.

Is there any chance this was some early April fools joke by sanicom3205 ?

A Long Long time ago, (1967) at an airport far far away (Hagerstown, MD), the president of Allegheny Airlines, Les Barnes, and an FBO operator named Richard A Henson, decided on a concept for airline service to smaller communities. They called it the Allegheny Commuter...

"Far reaching it's implications were; tinged with the dark side it was; powerful it grew, disruptive to the galaxy it became; Yess..." Yoda...

ALLEGHENY COMMUTER

In an experiment designed to improve service at smaller stations while, at the same time, saving money and resources by diverting large aircraft to more heavily patronized routes, the airline’s management team introduced the first Allegheny Commuter operation in 1967.

With the CAB’s permission, the company subcontracted its service at Hagerstown, Maryland, to Henson Aviation, a scheduled air-taxi operator. Barnes and his team had conceived the idea of subcontracting services in 1965, but said that an appropriate aircraft type for such operations had yet to be developed. That all changed in 1966, when the 15-passenger, fully-instrumented, turbine-powered Beechcraft 99 made its maiden flight.

In Les Barnes’s opinion, the Locals were now morphing into regional airlines, which, in Allegheny’s leadership role as an innovator, meant that it was time to turn over the responsibility of operating in some small stations—the reason for the Locals’ existence in the first place—to yet a ‘third level’ of air carrier. This was the beginning of the practice of ‘code share’ between a large carrier and a commuter, using the larger airline’s name, which is common today.

The Allegheny Commuter concept required that Allegheny select ‘competent operators’ to perform the service and that all flights would benefit from the full spectrum of Allegheny’s standard operations. Two pilots were required on all Commuter flights, and aircraft had to be equipped with “all modern avionics equipment, including automatic pilot, radar transponders and weather radar.” Insurance coverage for passengers was identical to Allegheny’s, and reservations, baggage transfers, and all other aspects of travel were handled by Allegheny personnel just as mainline flights were.

In general, more frequent and conveniently timed schedules were offered to the customers in the smaller cities, and flights were timed to connect with Allegheny’s mainline schedules at hub airports. In the case of Hagerstown, passengers were transported to Baltimore’s Friendship Airport (now BWI), and, later, to Washington National (DCA).

The Hagerstown experiment was the first of the company’s Allegheny Commuter operations, and it quickly showed positive results. In short order, Allegheny began to petition the CAB for permission to extend the concept to other small stations. The CAB’s incentive for approving the transfers was the possibility of reducing or eliminating subsidies as traffic increased with improved service.