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.

 

[Airline Pilot27]

Just a dumb eaglet

This is where he got his info from. Its from our ALPA website where our MEC answers questions. This question was answered 3/12. Those numbers where pre sept 11th and have undoubtedly decreased since and will continue to decrease. AE still has 300 + pilots on furlough.

Like most of the Eagle pilots around the system, I have been trying to think of that golden bullet idea to help save from more furloughs. The other day an idea came up when I found out that AA was going to take two trips a day from RDU-LGA away from Eagle and start flying them with a Fokker. I think most Eagle pilots will agree that this was what the "feeder" agreement with AA was all about. We fly the routes that a larger aircraft can not sustain and when it can, we move aside and AA picks it up. If the route will never support a large aircraft we maintain the route. Sounds pretty simple. Maybe we can approach APA and ask for a small waiver in the ASM Cap, but only under two conditions:

1. The new ASM's can ONLY be used on new routes. Routes like RDU-TPA, routes AMR doesn't already fly. This helps Eagle out right away and hopefully helps APA by opening up new routes when they can support a larger aircraft, bringing their guys and ours back from furlough.

2. ABSOLUTELY NO ASM INCREASE FOR ANY NON-AMR OWNED CARRIER UNTIL EVERY AMR PILOT IS RETURNED FROM FURLOUGH.

Just an idea...maybe not even a good one. Whatever the outcome, I think it is important to support APA and end the whipsawing. As flaky as pilot groups are, I would rather stand shoulder to shoulder with APA than to bend over in front of AMR again.

I agree that any ASM cap relief would have to be tied directly to Eagle, and not to any other feed partner (i.e. American Connection).

Ironically, the ASM cap is the only protection we have from the further proliferation of our Alter-Ego carriers. Their 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 our rate of shrinkage, just why AMR wants the ASM cap lifted. It is not because they want to grow Eagle.

I am simply amazed every day how our pilots are able to forge solutions and ideas that are much more productive and viable for AMR and its employees than what our own management contrives.

 

[publisher]

"Ironically, the ASM cap is the only protection we have from the further proliferation of our Alter-Ego carriers. Their 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 our rate of shrinkage, just why AMR wants the ASM cap lifted. It is not because they want to grow Eagle.

I am simply amazed every day how our pilots are able to forge solutions and ideas that are much more productive and viable for AMR and its employees than what our own management contrives."

The reason you think that these ideas are so much more productive is that they are not addressing the big picture. They are all going to be alter ego carriers. Continental and Northwest are the beginning, not the end.

 

[throttlejockey]

Although I cringe when I say this, I think publisher is right.

In the end, its all about costs, and frankly the CASM on RJ's is a lot higher than for mainline aircraft. (Fewer seats going shorter distances means higher CASM).

In order to keep the cost of RJ flying as low as possible, the majors may decide in the future that they will need to open up the flying opportunities to bidding by independent operators.

From managements prospective its cost control. From the pilots prospective its whipsawing.

If ALPA starts to speak with one voice it might be prevented. But given the fact that ALPA is an organization that is mired in its own conflicts of interest, I doubt anything can be done.

throttlejockey

 

[Uncle Don]

Throttlejockey, You are right!

ALPA has to get it's head out of the sand and get control of this matter. Oh, but wait that is now impossible. If ALPA helps the regionals they hurt the majors. If they help the majors they hurt the regionals. Conflict of interest plain and simple!!!

Obviously SCOPE dosen't fix the problem because EMB built the EMB140 smiply as an AA SCOPE Buster!! The only true way to recify this problem, is to pay fair and equitiable wages on the RJs and have mainline do all of the flying. However, the only way this will happen is if the Union's set SCOPE aside and force management into this matter. As APA is trying to do.

ASM cap is not a good solution either. Since AA furloughed pilots. Eagle has picked up DFW-DAY DFW-CMH ORD-ROC ORD-SYR ORD-YOW, and opened up RJ bases in LAX and more I am sure that I never mentioned. This is not good for anyone because in order to fly into these cities Eagle just pulled out of other cities. So the routes the AA pilots tried to protected are gone, Eagle gets smaller, and AMR losses cities, seats, and feed.

Every one route that the RJ's pick up that is one less job for all of us in the future.

I don't the know if anyone will ever see the light, or if we all will let low paying RJ jobs proliferate the domestic market place. ALPA will waiste time and money on SSCOPE. The regionals will gorify the RDJC (or whatever the heck it's letters are). As managment runs to the bank as they blind side everyone. Then one morning we will all wake up from what we think is a bad hangover, but it really turns out to be cheap wages flying RJs point to point all over the freck'n country. With no good airline jobs anywhere!

P.S. "With no good airline jobs anywhere!" In part also because FlexJet took all the Buisness travel away, by providing a much better service. ;-)

 

[3green]

APA

Anyone have a guess on what APA wants in there section 6? Do they wnat all flying, or some thing realy big in return for the ACM cap lift. Time will tell.