American Eagle RDU Base

[BoilerUP]

This from the APA BOD recap:

"The second issue involves flying done by Corporate Airlines, a non-majority owned commuter carrier operating as American Connection flying 19-seat Jetstream turbo-props between BNA, ATL and TRI. Section 1.D.5. (h) prohibits this.



In addition, management approached APA with a request to code share, on a trial basis, with Corporate Airlines, operating as American Connection with 19-seat Jetstream turbo-props between RDU and several small cities in North Carolina."

Why would APA have a beef with Corporate flying 19 seat turboprops out of RDU? Is it because they aren't wholly-owned like Eagle? I can see only benefit and no detriment to AA letting 3C fly to all the boonie NC cities that Eagle doesn't seem to want. Perhaps I'm missing something.

....or is it APA only has a problem with BNA-TRI-ATL?

 

[resistance]

Man your missing the point! It starts at 19 seat Jetstreams (aka Eagle Air around 1992) then they are flying 70 seat RJ's (aka Eagle Air 2004).

I can understand APA concern (also myself being an Eagle pilot) that sub-contracting work out away from AMR. This practice has driven employee morale to historic lows and will cost the company millions and millions in the long run. If management understood this very basic principle the employee group will work hard to make the company profitable. (See Continental Airlines)

I wish things were different but the company sets the mood.

 

[80drvr]

Why would APA have a beef with Corporate flying 19 seat turboprops out of RDU? Is it because they aren't wholly-owned like Eagle? I can see only benefit and no detriment to AA letting 3C fly to all the boonie NC cities that Eagle doesn't seem to want. Perhaps I'm missing something.

....or is it APA only has a problem with BNA-TRI-ATL?

APA has (or should have) a problem with all of it. The scope exception allowing eagle flying was for this purpose. Now they want an exception to the exception because eagle is too busy replacing mainline flying to deal with the feeder stuff. While the horse may be out of the barn to some extent, APA doesn't necessarily have to let it roam freely.

 

[BoilerUP]

APA has (or should have) a problem with all of it. The scope exception allowing eagle flying was for this purpose. Now they want an exception to the exception because eagle is too busy replacing mainline flying to deal with the feeder stuff. While the horse may be out of the barn to some extent, APA doesn't necessarily have to let it roam freely.

On one hand, I understand the concern of both APA and Eagle watching flying being farmed out to non-AMR entities, and the potential impact on the bottom line. The impact on employee morale doesn't need restating. I would think it makes more since to keep all same-brand flying inhouse, but I'm not airline management.

On the other hand, if Eagle wanted to fly 19 seaters into small markets, wouldn't they currently be doing that? And while I agree that RJs really have no place flying traditional mainline routes, isn't it better to have RJs flying those mainline routes than to not have them at all? Also, isn't it good to have RJs to supplement mainline frequency into markets where it isn't feasible to have as many S80/737 flights?

I must admit I'm young and slowly learning the politicking within ALPA, APA and the various airlines, so please forgive any naivity on my part - it isn't flamebait. I think it is in EVERYBODY'S interest for the whipsaw to end...but I don't see the threat to APA or Eagle in a JS32 flying out of RDU if Eagle doesn't want it.

 

[80drvr]

On one hand, I understand the concern of both APA and Eagle watching flying being farmed out to non-AMR entities, and the potential impact on the bottom line. The impact on employee morale doesn't need restating. I would think it makes more since to keep all same-brand flying inhouse, but I'm not airline management.

On the other hand, if Eagle wanted to fly 19 seaters into small markets, wouldn't they currently be doing that? And while I agree that RJs really have no place flying traditional mainline routes, isn't it better to have RJs flying those mainline routes than to not have them at all? Also, isn't it good to have RJs to supplement mainline frequency into markets where it isn't feasible to have as many S80/737 flights?

I must admit I'm young and slowly learning the politicking within ALPA, APA and the various airlines, so please forgive any naivity on my part - it isn't flamebait. I think it is in EVERYBODY'S interest for the whipsaw to end...but I don't see the threat to APA or Eagle in a JS32 flying out of RDU if Eagle doesn't want it.

The threat is there and it is substantial. This isn't about politics it's about $$$. Mgmt wants to drive salaries as low as they possibly can and the window of opportunity for concessions is closing. You're right, Eagle could fly those routes if they wanted to, but mgmt would love the opportunity to get someone to do it cheaper.
This is an issue where there may actually be common ground between APA and Eagle ALPA. We actually just won an arbitration over the outsourcing to Trans States and Chataqua but the award hasn't been released. The bottom line is that outsourcing hurts. If someone is in a position where obtaining an outsourced job seems like a good deal, stand by. What goes around, comes around because mgmt isn't going to be complacent when looking for $$$ and you'll be checking your six soon enough as they find someone who will do it cheaper (and not necessarily better).