AA to drop Part of AmericanConnection

[I.P. Freley]

Thanks for the history lesson...

...but you can stow the language about "you," "your little 'we started these runs and they are ours'" and "your side," et al, because I don't work for an AmConn carrier. Thank GOD. And to someone that DOES work there, American backing out on a deal they made is sure as shootin' much more than a "little problem."

What it REALLY sounds like is that American takes perverse pleasure in screwing around with EVERYONE that either works for them, MIGHT work for them, HAS worked for them, code-shares with them, or might ever in any possible way or alternate dimension have an affiliation with them.

Is THAT accurate? Sure seems that way.

 

[Airline Pilot27]

History Lesson #2

BlueStreak is right on. Our MEC has fought for our own scope protection as soon as it was announced that TSA and CHQ would be flying as American Connection. The issue is not only recalling our furloughed people but whipsawing. Whipsawing is the reason we have 12 more years of our infamous contract. Shortly after the announcement of American Connection one of our V.P.'s changed Eagle's status to that of the "preferred provider of feed to American Airlines". This was communicated to us over and over in memos, emails, etc.
Although it is sickening to see an RJ, Jetstream, or ATR with Eagle paint colors being flown by these carrier, none of us harbor any ill will towards CHQ and TSA pilots. After this latest anouncement that V.P. can take his "prefered provider" and stick it.

 

[FlyinBrian]

Ya know I took you up on your offer and I seriously pondered how I would feel in that situation, that is if it were reversed, and the truth is I don't think you would have found one TSA, CHQ, or CorpEx pilot who would have given a hill of beans about Eagle flying in DFW, ORD, or MIA

You would not care one hill of beans if another carrier's flying counted against an ASM limitation imposed on your carrier, and directly caused furloughs at your airline, despite such outsourcing being specifically prohibited by your contract? I find that difficult to beleive.

 

[Bluestreak]

TSA pilots

All I ask is that you try to see it from the other side of the fence. If the situation was reversed and TWA bought AA, and TSA furloughed hundreds of your pilots (I know they did that anyway), because they said that they were going to use Eagle to operate out of the DFW, ORD, and MIA hubs. You all would probably be screaming foul also.


Ya know I took you up on your offer and I seriously pondered how I would feel in that situation, that is if it were reversed, and the truth is I don't think you would have found one TSA, CHQ, or CorpEx pilot who would have given a hill of beans about Eagle flying in DFW, ORD, or MIA. Most of them would just be happy that their code share partner is doing well and that they will still have a job next year. Eagle is a large regional with a completely different history, culture, and mentality than the pilots of TSA, CHQ, and CorpEx. People commonly declare that we are all alike because we are pilots, that's true to a point but there are differences in how we view ourselves, our place in the industry, attitude torwards working at a regional, relationship with management, etc. Think of any airline and I'm sure you've heard the stereotypes, Eagle the junior skynazis, Comair the old RJDC codgers , Piedmont's a bunch of Bubbas, TSAers are slackers, etc. etc. Exaggerartions yes, but there's a grain of thruth to every sterotype. So to answer your question, no, I don't think it is fair to assume that if roles would reversed a pilot group would ALWAYS react the same way that your pilot group has.

TSA pilots are NOT slackers ! Incorrigible hoodlums,yes.I was one-I know.If you are a TSA pilot-you're ugly,crude and "an independent lot prone to rebellion" (as Gann would say) ,but I love em'."Frank Was Right"!

 

[publisher]

The fact is that things will be changing. One of the first rules of negotiating is understanding thosee issues that are absolutely untouchable and realize that if you take a firm stance on them it is for not. Nothing will be accomp[lished.

What is going to happen here is the end of wholly owned subs, divestion of these other parts, and new agreements.

Trying to restrict Eagle on one hand and then bitching when they find ways to stay within the restriction is a certainty because they are not now or never going to give in to what you want.

 

[TurboS7]

Very interesting post, I have nothing to say I am just putting my name in the hat so that I can keep up with this interesting thread.

 

[Uncle Don]

Hey Guys!!

Eagle did give up alot to keep this outsourceing from ever happening again!

Wouldn't all of you be pissed if the this was happening to you?

Ironically, the ASM cap is working as a sick and twisted meager means of protection for Eagle. If not for the ASM cap further proliferation of Eagle's Alter-Ego carriers would destroy Eagle at an even faster rate. The Alter-Ego growth rates (132% for CHA and 15% for TSA versus -3% for Eagle) appear to have stopped due to the cap. However, you can see that given the growth rates at CHA and TSA versus Eagle's rate of shrinkage, just why AMR wants the ASM cap lifted. It is not because they want to grow Eagle!

Time, arbitration and Section 6 talks will tell!?!?

 

[airjackson]

Uncle D.
Explain to me where you are pulling these numbers out of re CHQ and TSA growth rates. Don't know how many people CHQ FIRED, but TSA still has 160 out on fur-hole.

 

[ifly14u]

That is about the most uneducated remark i have ever heard in my life. TSA has surly not grown by 15% in reality it has reduced itself by more than 35%. I dont know about chq but i know thatt is not true either. ( just another dumb eaglet )

 

[exeagle]

"just another dumb eaglet".



Yea, that's an educated remark.