Eagle and the APA

[Draginass]

What's the feeling over at Eagle about AA pilot manning dropping below the minimum level for AMR to continue operating AE?

 

[chignutsak]

Yawn. AMR legal will delay and stall till the cows come home. Even if Eagle disappears overnight, who would willingly step in under your scope provisions?

 

[amcnd]

I don't think AA could make it without Eagle feed. Stopping Eagle would be a dumb move.

 

[Draginass]

"Feed" wouldn't necessarily stop with the divestiture of Eagle. There's other avenues of feed other than Eagle.

Also, I think the APA is going to very aggressively pursue this contract violation. There is a 90 day time limit and the language is pretty specific as to the decision on what to do. What is somewhat nebulous is the time frame for the divestiture.

Eventual possibilities?

1. Divest eagle and contract feed from small-jet-provider lowest bidder. That would also require a modification to APA scope. Don't know about ramifications to the ALPA AE contract.

2. Divest eagle and transfer "feed" into AA proper with AA pilots and greenbook rates. No issues with scope nor restrictions to aircraft size. They'll say it'll cost too much.

3. Management deliberately points the company at the ground and takes it to BK and forces new draconian contracts on all labor groups. More difficult under new BK laws.

4. Give concessions to the APA in return for temporary relief from 7300 floor.

 

[Flyby1206]

"Feed" wouldn't necessarily stop with the divestiture of Eagle. There's other avenues of feed other than Eagle.

Also, I think the APA is going to very aggressively pursue this contract violation. There is a 90 day time limit and the language is pretty specific as to the decision on what to do. What is somewhat nebulous is the time frame for the divestiture.

Eventual possibilities?

1. Divest eagle and contract feed from small-jet-provider lowest bidder. That would also require a modification to APA scope. Don't know about ramifications to the ALPA AE contract.

2. Divest eagle and transfer "feed" into AA proper with AA pilots and greenbook rates. No issues with scope nor restrictions to aircraft size. They'll say it'll cost too much.

3. Management deliberately points the company at the ground and takes it to BK and forces new draconian contracts on all labor groups. More difficult under new BK laws.

4. Give concessions to the APA in return for temporary relief from 7300 floor.

Option 2 and 4 would be the only 'win' situations for APA. And I highly doubt either of them will happen. Option 1 is most likely, but I guarantee there will be a big scope change for APA in regards to this. Youll see some feeder other than AE flying 70-90 seat a/c on unlimited routes through the system without route restrictions that are in place today.

If APA was truly concerned about doing all flying for AMR by APA pilots then they wouldnt be pushing for AE to be divested, they would be doing whatever they could to at least keep all the flying under the AMR wholly owned umbrella.

 

[Draginass]

You say that the APA would relax scope on 70+ seat airplanes. What would compel them to do that? It the contract that has AA over the barrel on that, not the other way around.

Why would there be a big scope change? Why couldn't the present scope restrictions just be transferred to a new small jet provider?

There may well be some "creative" solutions to bring all AMR flying under AA, or at least the cockpit crewing.

I certainly don't have any idea of the ultimate outcome, but I do know that this contract stipulation is a very serious problem for AA.

 

[Flyby1206]

Im getting the impression that AMR mgmt doesnt want all flying done by APA, or even all flying to be done by AMR owned carriers. They also know the 50-seat market is dead and the current/future need for feed is in the 70-90 seat range. I think the recent scope proposal from the company indicates where they are trying to head- ie: removing route restrictions against non-wholly owned carriers, and allowing commuter carriers to fly a/c up to 76-seats or 86,000lbs (I believe those were the numbers).

I really would like to see all flying done by APA and AMR owned carriers but I think the company will demand more than APA or ALPA is willing to give for this to happen (reduced pay, benefits, pension, etc).

 

[Draginass]

AA has, for many years, been constantly trying to wriggle out of the 70 seat scope restrictions. This is nothing new or unexpected. In fact, it'd be almost disappointing if ANY side-letter/LOA/etc didn't have a lifting of 70 seat restrictions slipped in the fine print at the bottom.

With the 50-seat market decaying and restrictions on 70 seat airplanes solidly enforceable, the point of operating a separate airline with all the associated costs makes less and less sense.

Further, with the 7300 pilot floor already violated and getting worse by the month (heavy early retirements), the richly-paid AMR leadership has now painted themselves into a corner. Like all US corporate leaders, they're just going through this Kabuki dance in hopes of stalling as long as possible. Leadership and good worker relations are not even considerations in today executive world.

 

[DGdaPilot]

Sounds like Draginass has his mind up on this one.

I say "yawn". Eagle would die without AA, AA would die without Eagle.

What I find ironic is that many at APA say how they feel whipsawed against Eagle and such. But yet they wish to whipsaw Eagle against other regionals for their own benefit. Hmmmm......

One list. It's the solution to everyone's problems, except maybe AMR's.

 

[Draginass]

I think the fur is going to fly for the next nine months or so at AMR.

Actually, Eagle is hardly talked about among AA pilots other than to say it needs to go away. What and who replaces it is open to discussion.

If AA and the APA agree, AA could contract small jet feed from other small jet providers. AE itself is caught with airplanes that are rapidly going obsolete and only a few 70 seaters. I can't see how Eagle as a stand-alone company is worth anything on the market. I think Eagle needs to fundamentally change it's fleet composition to be viable or marketable.

I wonder if management could snap their fingers and make an instant change, if they would have modern efficient turboprops like the Q400 that can actually fly most places without going weight restricted.

 

[Flyby1206]

I think the fur is going to fly for the next nine months or so at AMR.

Actually, Eagle is hardly talked about among AA pilots other than to say it needs to go away. What and who replaces it is open to discussion.

What is the reason most APA pilots think AE needs to go away? Do they think it will be any cheaper/better to have a different regional providing feed? Do they think it will be easier to gain back flying once it has been further fragmented and given to several other companies to fly? I understand Eagle has obsolete a/c and desperately needs an update, but we have these a/c because of the apa scope section. Right now we cant buy any a/c 70seats of larger, turboprops or jets, because of the scope clause.

 

[Draginass]

What is the reason most APA pilots think AE needs to go away? Do they think it will be any cheaper/better to have a different regional providing feed? Do they think it will be easier to gain back flying once it has been further fragmented and given to several other companies to fly? I understand Eagle has obsolete a/c and desperately needs an update, but we have these a/c because of the apa scope section. Right now we cant buy any a/c 70seats of larger, turboprops or jets, because of the scope clause.

Although these are pilots and if you ask 10 different pilots the "reason" you'll probably get 25 different answers.

Probably for the same reason AE pilots didn't like CHQ or TSA flying for AMR.

IMO, it all distills down to fundamental scope and the opinion that AMR keeps Eagle only as bargaining fodder. I think most also believe that Eagle is not cost effective, especially now with expensive fuel. Add the frustration of 2000 still on furlough (with perhaps 200 just recalled going on furlough again), severe stagnation in career progression (not unlike AE), and a management stalling contract talks, and you have a rather serious group of people.

Recall that AA used to have the F100s which was basically a <100 seat airplane. Those jobs went away and AA pilots with them. Any further acquiescence on scope is seen as just giving jobs to someone else. The same as if the company contracted 50 seat flying to the likes of Great Lakes whose pilots would gladly fly it for even less than AE ALPA.

While in the past, AA has used AE against the APA, it looks as if the economic reality of operating <70 seat aircraft is coming home to roost. Just as AA uses the finest of contract print against the APA, the tables may have turned.

I, and I think most other AA pilots, think that 70+ seat aircraft can operate profitably without the overhead, and angst of another company.

What AMR will do with AE, I have no idea, but on the surface, they seem to want to be rid of it. Not whatever feed is left to provide, but doing it a different way, without the overhead expense of running a separate company.

I think many markets that the RJ was meant to serve are not not viable with 37/50 seat aircraft. I think that's going to drive the demand for many less small jets. With that, and the contract restrictions against expanding into the narrow-body market, AMR probably sees AE as having outlived it's usefulness. Unfortunately, any buyers also see this and hence probably no interest.

What will happen in the next nine months or so is far from certain or predictable. One thing for sure, each pilot group needs to protect their own interests. And unfortunately, with 2000 AA still on furlough, I would say any talk of 1-list is dead. There's just nothing to be gained by it.

 

[DGdaPilot]

I would say any talk of 1-list is dead. There's just nothing to be gained by it.

No offense, but that's the AArogance that got you boys into this boat.

 

[Draginass]

No offense, but that's the AArogance that got you boys into this boat.

Sorry, I don't understand. Can you be specific about what you're referring to as "this boat." Are your referring to finally being able to exercise the provision in our contract that restricts outsourcing of our jobs?

Also, arrogant in what regard? Protecting our jobs?

 

[nwa_contrails]

Deleted