walkthasky
SWA FO
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 218
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Am. Airlines Scope forces Eagle Furlough
- Thread starter ~~~^~~~
- Start date
- Watchers 7
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
publisher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2001
- Posts
- 592
Let's review
Let's review and see if we have this right.
American furloughs x number of pilots, some of whom can go to Eagle on a flow back, some cannot because of times.
American says we want to expand Eagle flying and slow the bleeding.
APA says sure if you do what we know you will not.
Ameircan says then we will cut back some more and put even more people on street.
Continental says we will not furlough these guys as that will just screw up the only area we have doing anything positive(COEX). Some pilots saved, benefits offset.
At Delta, they are off on a different tangent. Dissapating traffic so no more Comair strike. Force Majure you know.
At United, they appear to be trying to stop the giant chest wound. Not too worried about their feeders. One might buy them.
And the winner is as usual, no one at all.
Let's review and see if we have this right.
American furloughs x number of pilots, some of whom can go to Eagle on a flow back, some cannot because of times.
American says we want to expand Eagle flying and slow the bleeding.
APA says sure if you do what we know you will not.
Ameircan says then we will cut back some more and put even more people on street.
Continental says we will not furlough these guys as that will just screw up the only area we have doing anything positive(COEX). Some pilots saved, benefits offset.
At Delta, they are off on a different tangent. Dissapating traffic so no more Comair strike. Force Majure you know.
At United, they appear to be trying to stop the giant chest wound. Not too worried about their feeders. One might buy them.
And the winner is as usual, no one at all.
TWA Dude
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 3,666
AMR is very good at what they do. They couldn't care less who flies the planes; they just want profit. It's a master stroke for AMR to sign a contract and then enlist public opinion to try to get the other party to change it. Right now big planes aren't getting filled so they want more small jets. Two years ago they couldn't order big planes fast enough. It's a cyclical industry but union contracts lack the flexibility management needs to change with the times. To be brutally honest I think it would be better for everyone under the AMR umbrella right now to let Eagle grow a little bit -- but once you've given in a little they'll take a lot and keep on taking. Unfortunately it's just not practical. It a bloody shame management and unions can't work better together. And I'm far from wise enough to propose any solutions.
publisher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2001
- Posts
- 592
correct
While you are definitely correct, the fact is that profit is exactly, the last time I looked, the only reason for a profit making company to exist. It is not to employ pilots, fly neat aircraft, have fantastic computer systems, cool dispatch centers, etc.
When labor contracts restrict the ability to adjust to the market that exists for the company to participate in, you are on a very bad course.
There are two things that need to be remembered first.
The customer ultimately must be willing to pay for what you offer.
Profit is the one and only reason that the company is there.
The current situation is a perfect example of why in a shrinking situation, people and companies tend to feed on themselves. This is one of those times when the strong like SWA get stronger.
As I said above, there are no winners here.
While you are definitely correct, the fact is that profit is exactly, the last time I looked, the only reason for a profit making company to exist. It is not to employ pilots, fly neat aircraft, have fantastic computer systems, cool dispatch centers, etc.
When labor contracts restrict the ability to adjust to the market that exists for the company to participate in, you are on a very bad course.
There are two things that need to be remembered first.
The customer ultimately must be willing to pay for what you offer.
Profit is the one and only reason that the company is there.
The current situation is a perfect example of why in a shrinking situation, people and companies tend to feed on themselves. This is one of those times when the strong like SWA get stronger.
As I said above, there are no winners here.
Re: correct
APA's contract doesn't restrict the ability to adjust....it restricts the ability to outsource. AA could by J-3 cubs for all I care as long as the flying isn't outsourced. APA has made a viable effort to "adjust" to the current market and preserve jobs both at AA and AE. But apparently AMR doesn't want to "adjust", they want to pursue a path that's in no one's best interest. It's kind of sad that our industry is run this way.
publisher said:
APA's contract doesn't restrict the ability to adjust....it restricts the ability to outsource. AA could by J-3 cubs for all I care as long as the flying isn't outsourced. APA has made a viable effort to "adjust" to the current market and preserve jobs both at AA and AE. But apparently AMR doesn't want to "adjust", they want to pursue a path that's in no one's best interest. It's kind of sad that our industry is run this way.
"To be brutally honest I think it would be better for everyone under the AMR umbrella right now to let Eagle grow a little bit -- but once you've given in a little they'll take a lot and keep on taking."
Hey TWA: When you say "they'll take alot and keep on taking", you mean AMR management, right? Don't make us Eagle guys feel like the enemy, here. Remember - we're all in this thing together. Welcome to the AMR "happy family!"
Hey TWA: When you say "they'll take alot and keep on taking", you mean AMR management, right? Don't make us Eagle guys feel like the enemy, here. Remember - we're all in this thing together. Welcome to the AMR "happy family!"
publisher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2001
- Posts
- 592
adjust
80drvr
If you restrict my ability to outsource, that is a pretty big restricition....
Let's say I can get a provider to fly an RJ or Turbo prop in a market for 1/2 what it would cost me to do it myself plus I have no commitment past 90 days..
Second, when Eagle buys those cubs let's see how many mainliners want to come down and fly them.
As was just shown by Continental, the cost just to bring the flow down was prohibitive to COEX.
80drvr
If you restrict my ability to outsource, that is a pretty big restricition....
Let's say I can get a provider to fly an RJ or Turbo prop in a market for 1/2 what it would cost me to do it myself plus I have no commitment past 90 days..
Second, when Eagle buys those cubs let's see how many mainliners want to come down and fly them.
As was just shown by Continental, the cost just to bring the flow down was prohibitive to COEX.
Re: adjust
If it's that unreasonable to restrict outsourcing, then management shouldn't have agreed to it contractually.
The mainliners DO want to fly the RJ's. They wanted them in 97, they wanted them in 00, and they want them now. Have you seen APA's proposal regarding such?
The cost to the flowback is significant but it's no different really than the cost to furlough. In the case of the flowback the training accordion just gets longer by another airframe before someone is displaced to the street.
publisher said:
If it's that unreasonable to restrict outsourcing, then management shouldn't have agreed to it contractually.
The mainliners DO want to fly the RJ's. They wanted them in 97, they wanted them in 00, and they want them now. Have you seen APA's proposal regarding such?
The cost to the flowback is significant but it's no different really than the cost to furlough. In the case of the flowback the training accordion just gets longer by another airframe before someone is displaced to the street.
Tim47SIP
Serving for the USofA
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Posts
- 1,157
Publisher, there is a winner, you named it, SWA. I'm with you on these state of affairs.
80dvr - A cap is a cap, period. If it restricts in total numbers, that is it. Just because AMR is outsourcing and not utilizeing eagle does not hinder the fact that the cap is restricting growth when AMR needs the capital. If it looks like an onion, smells like an onion, then it is probably an onion. Look at Delta, DALPA and DCI right now. Delta management is ignoring the caps and growing DCI like crazy and is staying partially afloat because of it.
US Air's scope has put that company into a tail spin. The WO's contractually are not allowed to have RJ's, so the company has used outsourced equipement. Now the mainline pilots are saying it is OK to get more RJ's while they watched their company go down the drain, but the company has to still outsource because they dont have the capital to finance themselves. And now the mainline pilot group (because of their own contract with US Air) cant fly them on their own property so they are going to fly them at Mesa, TSA, Chat, etc. Now tell me that is not a screwed up situation.
I understand why mainline scopes are put in place, and why the mainline groups are afraid to give concesions (because they might no get them back), but at some point, there has to be some flexibility to let the company build and make a profit. Last time I looked, these airlines were not a non profit organization to pay the employees.
I know there will be some cannon balls lobbed this way for this one!
80dvr - A cap is a cap, period. If it restricts in total numbers, that is it. Just because AMR is outsourcing and not utilizeing eagle does not hinder the fact that the cap is restricting growth when AMR needs the capital. If it looks like an onion, smells like an onion, then it is probably an onion. Look at Delta, DALPA and DCI right now. Delta management is ignoring the caps and growing DCI like crazy and is staying partially afloat because of it.
US Air's scope has put that company into a tail spin. The WO's contractually are not allowed to have RJ's, so the company has used outsourced equipement. Now the mainline pilots are saying it is OK to get more RJ's while they watched their company go down the drain, but the company has to still outsource because they dont have the capital to finance themselves. And now the mainline pilot group (because of their own contract with US Air) cant fly them on their own property so they are going to fly them at Mesa, TSA, Chat, etc. Now tell me that is not a screwed up situation.
I understand why mainline scopes are put in place, and why the mainline groups are afraid to give concesions (because they might no get them back), but at some point, there has to be some flexibility to let the company build and make a profit. Last time I looked, these airlines were not a non profit organization to pay the employees.
I know there will be some cannon balls lobbed this way for this one!
Tim47SIP said:
Well lob away. Not really sure what I said or implied that would require me to don nomex.
What you seem to be implying is that the only way for air carriers to recover is by transfering mainline flying to commuter affiliates. My contention is straightforward. AMR agreed to certain limits. APA recognizes that the company would like more flexibility in terms of capacity and has developed a proposal that would meet the company's needs at a competitive cost.
Obviously, it isn't that important to the AMR's recovery, because they're not very concerned with negotiating a solution. AMR has no problem shooting first and asking questions later if something in the contract is an obastacle to their plans. Post 9/11, they invoked force majeure to blow holes through our contract, and I'd bet AE's as well. Why stop now.
US Airway's problems go WAY deeper than RJs. That's a side show. U's been so badly led and managed that any scope relief is probably a temp reprieve. RJ's in themselves are not the long term future of aviation. Maybe regional guys like working for $30 an hour, but I doubt it. If management had it's way, "regionals" would be flying 777s with 500 hour TT/$25 per hour F/Os and $60/ hour Captains.
Tim47SIP
Serving for the USofA
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Posts
- 1,157
80drvr
No you didn't say anything bad, my lob comment was general in nature because this is a touchy subject. Keep up the good posts!
I am not saying that mainline flying should be transferred to the rejionals. What I am saying is that some of these contracts out there need to be designed is such a way that the company can manipulate assets when needed. I know mainline guys think that the regionals will suck up all of their flying due to lower costs, but I think that is a little unrealistic. Management will use mainline aircraft on routes that require mainline aircraft. It is assenine to say that because a market will not support the amount of mainline aircraft we have at a large carrier, that management is stuck flying those assets half full because of a contract. Bleeding a company continuously to preserve the current state of jobs isn't good for anyone. There has to be a company in order to pay the employees. As was posted earlier, there is no real winner when it comes to restrictions. Management cant make the gains it needs by rightsizing, mainline guys are getting furloughed and are trying to take the regionals jets which they didn't want earlier, and the WO's get screwed by flushdowns or additional furloughs due to caps. Some or all of this is happening in every major carrier with caps. So what do we do now, stick to the status quo, put our hands over our eyes, scream LA, LA, LA, LA so that we cant hear the industry changing around us as in ALPA's case, or do we try to restucture (like APA tried) to make the companies money, and preserve the industry. Will some of those great mainline jobs deminish because the industry and economy cant support them, probably, but they will return when things turn around.
Drag
I am sorry if I implied that the mainline contract caused US Air's demise. That is not the case as you stated. You are 100% correct in that they have been in deep trouble for years. But the point I was trying to make is that mainlines contract that will not allow the WO's to fly RJ's at all has greatly hindered US Air's abillity to rebound and compete in the RJ industry. Mangement has to rely on outsourcing in order to gain feed. It has also caused their own furloughed pilots to have to go off property to fly them. I cant for the life of me think of a good reason that the US Air pilots had for totally restricting the use of RJ's at their WO's. US Air management has been trying to get more RJ's for some time and the mainline guys would not budge. Now all of the sudden they have a great number of guys on furlough so it is OK to get more RJ's if they get to fly them. So what was the original reason for not having the additional ones prior to the furloughs? You got me on that one.
No you didn't say anything bad, my lob comment was general in nature because this is a touchy subject. Keep up the good posts!
I am not saying that mainline flying should be transferred to the rejionals. What I am saying is that some of these contracts out there need to be designed is such a way that the company can manipulate assets when needed. I know mainline guys think that the regionals will suck up all of their flying due to lower costs, but I think that is a little unrealistic. Management will use mainline aircraft on routes that require mainline aircraft. It is assenine to say that because a market will not support the amount of mainline aircraft we have at a large carrier, that management is stuck flying those assets half full because of a contract. Bleeding a company continuously to preserve the current state of jobs isn't good for anyone. There has to be a company in order to pay the employees. As was posted earlier, there is no real winner when it comes to restrictions. Management cant make the gains it needs by rightsizing, mainline guys are getting furloughed and are trying to take the regionals jets which they didn't want earlier, and the WO's get screwed by flushdowns or additional furloughs due to caps. Some or all of this is happening in every major carrier with caps. So what do we do now, stick to the status quo, put our hands over our eyes, scream LA, LA, LA, LA so that we cant hear the industry changing around us as in ALPA's case, or do we try to restucture (like APA tried) to make the companies money, and preserve the industry. Will some of those great mainline jobs deminish because the industry and economy cant support them, probably, but they will return when things turn around.
Drag
I am sorry if I implied that the mainline contract caused US Air's demise. That is not the case as you stated. You are 100% correct in that they have been in deep trouble for years. But the point I was trying to make is that mainlines contract that will not allow the WO's to fly RJ's at all has greatly hindered US Air's abillity to rebound and compete in the RJ industry. Mangement has to rely on outsourcing in order to gain feed. It has also caused their own furloughed pilots to have to go off property to fly them. I cant for the life of me think of a good reason that the US Air pilots had for totally restricting the use of RJ's at their WO's. US Air management has been trying to get more RJ's for some time and the mainline guys would not budge. Now all of the sudden they have a great number of guys on furlough so it is OK to get more RJ's if they get to fly them. So what was the original reason for not having the additional ones prior to the furloughs? You got me on that one.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
