Another news release from APA and ALPA

[justApilot]

I briefly looked on the website for the proposal that John Darrah sent to AA management about relief on scope. I could not find it. Basically it said you want relief on scope...this is what you have to do...combine the 2 lists. yes, there were 3 steps. What it comes down to is that ALL flying will be done by APA pilots. This is where the confusion/misunderstanding began. Darrah sent another letter to Eagle with a better explaination of what the proposal was and was not about. It is not a grab at the EAGLE flying or Eagle jobs. I see one list as a win win for Eagle, APA and AMR. Eagle pilots become part of the mainline(better pay, retirement, etc) and APA and AMR both have one less scope issue to fight over. With that big scope issue taken care of AMR can focus on what they need to do to make money.


Something that the Eagle pilots that have aspirations of flying for AA should think about. If Eagle continues to grow (more planes,routes) at the expense of AA flying (fewer planes,routes), you greatly reduce your chances of flying at AA. Good luck to everyone involved.

 

[Frank Bama]

Please explain to me how American Connection is "Replacing Eagle in a variety of markets," according to the press release? How can Trans States and Chautauqua replace these routes and markets when they were never Eagle's to begin with? Yes they fly in STL feeding American. But how can it be said that TSA or CHQ is a "threat to Eagle's job security" when a 1/4 of the Connection pilots are on furlough and almost as much airplanes parked? Maybe I'm reading the release in the wrong way, but it still doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[DaveGriffin]

April Fools joke

The release date for the announcement is 01 April. Is this press release an April Fool's gag?

 

[EagleRJ]

There is no "full proposal" that the APA prepared along with the January 18 proposal. What was released was all there was. The idea was to invite the three parties to the table to work out the specifics.

 

[FLYnMONKEYS]

I'm all for one list! As a current AA furloughee I can't wait to get my hands on the CRJ-700. Can someone from Eagle tell me what your contract says it will pay? Go APA!!!!

 

[80drvr]

IMHO, AA hasn't lost a single job as a result of Eagles existence.

Correct me if I'm wrong and show me why I'm wrong. Thanks.

AA has lost many routes to AE and consequently jobs. Eagle has replaced AA on numerous flights out of PHX, LAX, SJC, DCA and RDU to many former narrowbody destinations. I'm not talking about new long range service to thin markets. When you look at growth over the last decade, Eagles seat mile growth is somewhere around 20% while AA's is around 2%. These are approximate numbers, so anyone who has the latest actual numbers please join the fray.

 

[surplus1]

There is no "full proposal" that the APA prepared along with the January 18 proposal. What was released was all there was. The idea was to invite the three parties to the table to work out the specifics.

Are you serious?

Do you mean to tell me that you guys are ready to put your jobs on the line based an a press release summary of a proposal from the APA that does not exist?

No personal offense intended, but I didn't think there was still any professional pilot left anywhere that was gullible enough to do that. Guess I have a lot to learn.

If there really is "no full proposal" and all you have is a "summary press release" followed by another APA/ALPA "press" release, then somebody is selling you a used car driven only to church on Sunday by an 85 year old lady. In view of the history at AE and the 16 year "industry leading" good deal that somebody sold you before, I would think you'd be more alert.

Tell me your kidding please, I can't believe all this hype over something that doesn't really exist.

 

[Draginass]

DaveGriffin -
Here's your April Fools news release:

APA announced 1 Apr the details of a proposed integration plan they submit to the company's regional carrier for their consideration. The proposal includes full DOH bidding seniority with no fences, and pushing the company for full retro pay for those flow-through pilots and other pilots with applications in with mainline, as well as those who unsuccessfully interviewed with mainline at any time during the past 16 years. During a recent vote, the APA also will seek reaffiliation with ALPA. A mainline spokesman said that although historically integrations use pay, benefits, equipment, and career expectations as baselines for integrating seniority lists, the mainline pilots feel that is grossly unfair to fellow professional pilots, regardless of experience level, previous work history, or complexity and size of equipment flown. In the future, the company is also being urged to favor minimally qualified pilots instead of pilots with previous military experience. "We feel that military pilots tend to be rigid whereas minimally qualified pilots are easier to mold into our corporate ethos." The spokesman also went on to say that this proposal is just an openers, and that there is more flexibility should the regional pilots find any elements in the proposal objectionable.

 

[surplus1]

AA has lost many routes to AE and consequently jobs. Eagle has replaced AA on numerous flights out of PHX, LAX, SJC, DCA and RDU to many former narrowbody destinations.

Are you trying to tell me that every time the Company changes equipment on a route it sends the airplane that used to fly that route to be parked in the desert? Have those equipment substitutions resulted in a reduction in your block hours? If not, you haven't lost any jobs. Your airplane is just flying to a different place.

The recent reduction in your ASMs is caused by the downturn in the economy and the 9-11 attacks on our country. Neither of those events have anything to do with Eagle. They are also losing business for the same reasons. If Eagle wasn't there to keep some passengers coming, your ASM would have been reduced even further. The exact opposite of what you claim.

When you look at growth over the last decade, Eagles seat mile growth is somewhere around 20% while AA's is around 2%. These are approximate numbers, so anyone who has the latest actual numbers please join the fray.

So there has been a different growth rate at AE than at AA. How does that equate to your losing jobs? Do you actually believe that if AE did not exist it's 20% ASM growth would suddenly appear on the bottom of the AA ledger and make your growth 22%? I hope that's not what you think, 'cause that's not how it works.

AE is a much smaller company and it is much easier to show a higher percentage growth rate in a small company than it is in a large one. You are looking at apples and comparing them to oranges. I don't have the numbers to do the math, but if you didn't have AE it is just as propable as not that your 2% positive could have been 2% negative, without the feed generated by AE.

There are markets in which large aircraft (which includes your AA narrow body equipment) are simply unprofitable and smaller aircraft make money on the same route. If I followed your hypothesis, all the airplanes would be triple sevens. How many jobs would you lose then?

The CASM of the small aircraft is much higher than the CASM of your larger equipment. You can bet your bottom dollar that the second your management knows that it can show a higher yield by using bigger airframes, it will take AE off the route in a heart beat and give it to AA. That's what it should do and that would NOT mean you were taking anything from AE.

AE does not reduce your growth rate, it actually maintains or improves it. That is why management operates AE. They aren't busy trying to figure out how to replace you, they're busy trying to make a buck.

I think we pilots too often forget that the purpose of the operation is to make profit for the shareholders, not provide jobs for us. I'm about as far from being a management puke as you can get, but I'm not without common sense either.

Your airline just grew by a big margin due to the acquisition of TWA. Not too much before that it grew due to the purchase of Reno. How many of you do you think might be furloughed today if those things had not happened?

I don't think you should outsource your flying, but the fact that your contract allows some of the flying to be done by a subsidiary is not the company's fault and it is not Eagle's fault. It is your fault (along with that of every other major airline except SWA).

All those little airplanes that you're complaining about (Eagle) should have been flown by AA pilots from day one. You didn't want that (for whatever reason) and so you got what you wanted (the creation of a subsidiary). Now you're complaining about it. Too late, the horse is already out of the barn.

I agree there's a need to fix it and get all the airplanes in one stable, but that means the Eagle pilots should come with their airplanes. ALL of them! It does not mean that you should transfer their airplanes to you and put them on the street.

Sorry for the rant. Sometimes it is just necessary to tell it like it is and fortunately I don't have to be "politically correct". I am not an AE pilot or an AA pilot.

This whole thing is a big problem and it needs to be fixed. It can't be fixed by one group of pilots shafting another group of pilots just because they can.

I think your group is on the right track, i.e., all the flying done by one pilot group. However, the methodology summarized sounds veryssuspect to me, not like a workable deal. That's why I asked for the "full proposal." I can't form a legitimate opinon based on a press release. The AE pilots on this board seem to think they can. God help them.

Best regards.

 

[Steve McCroskey]

Surplus
Unless I missed a post I haven't read of any AE pilots endorsing or blindly signing on to the APA proposal on this web board. You asked for the details and the few available have been provided. Give the AE pilots a little credit for having enough sense not to march ignorantly into an agreement such as this (we have been burnt before ie, current contract). The AE pilots I have spoken with are cautiously optimistic about the idea of one listing but are not willing to jeopardize their futures with out concrete details. Anyway the cart has gotten before the horse, unless AMR changes their previous stance on this issue it may go no further than the current proposal and this web board. Thanks for your thoughts on all of your posts, you really seem to think things through before responding. Just remember others put the same amount of thought into their respective futures.

 

[surplus1]

Surplus
Unless I missed a post I haven't read of any AE pilots endorsing or blindly signing on to the APA proposal on this web board. You asked for the details and the few available have been provided. Give the AE pilots a little credit for having enough sense not to march ignorantly into an agreement such as this (we have been burnt before ie, current contract). The AE pilots I have spoken with are cautiously optimistic about the idea of one listing but are not willing to jeopardize their futures with out concrete details. Anyway the cart has gotten before the horse, unless AMR changes their previous stance on this issue it may go no further than the current proposal and this web board. Thanks for your thoughts on all of your posts, you really seem to think things through before responding. Just remember others put the same amount of thought into their respective futures.

Steve,

Kudos, kudos. You can't believe how good it makes me feel to know that AE pilots are being cautious. In most cases, I can't tell who's an AE pilot and who isn't on this board. While this is a great forum, there are other boards too.

There have been some that think the proposal is manna from heaven. Others see it as a "one list" proposal. I can't find a single person that has actually seen the proposal. Just the summary press release. The plan outlined in that summary scares me to death. I believe if it were done that way, more than half of the AE pilots would wind up on the street.

I don't see this as a genuine "one list" proposal. Yes, they would wind up with one list at AA, there just wouldn't be any Eagle pilots on it or at best very few. And by the way, they already have one list at AA.

A proposal that transfers Eagle airplanes to another airline without the Eagle pilots that fly them today, SUCKS and, IMO should be dumped like the garbage it is. Obviously, it is up to Eagle pilots to do what they want, but it is also true that what you do will affect other pilots like you. I happen to be one of those. I know what happened to you all in '97, I know it has hurt you and I know it has hurt every other regional pilot. I know how it happened and who did it to you. I don't want to see it happen again.

When I see a "joint" press release with ALPA's name on it and supporting that proposal (as outlined in the summary), I have to wonder who is representing whom. I'm not afraid to ask out loud.

If another pilot group were to make a proposal like that to us, I have no doubt how Comair pilots would respond. I hope Eagle pilots will do the same. While I believe that a single seniority list is one way to solve the problems, if that new list doesn't include ALL the Eagle pilots, then it’s a scam. A clever way to steal your aircraft and dump you in the process. Call a spade a spade. Considering the battle that AA pilots just had with the TWA integration anything they propose needs to be reviewed through a fine tooth comb. On face value of the published summary, this one doesn't even warrant that.

If you don't agree I'm sorry, but that's my opinion and I think I can defend it logically.

 

[Steve McCroskey]

Surplus
I agree that any transfer of AE aircraft w/out ALL AE pilots is unacceptible and should be rejected.

 

[Draginass]

Given that AMR refuses to even acknowledge the idea, I think getting all sweated up over a company integration pretty pointless.

I think it would be a "given" that in any combining of AE and AA, there would have to be full recalls of all furloughed pilots - AA, LLC, & AE. I know I wouldn't support it unless there were.

 

[Ameriagle]

Perhaps Phase III should be Phase I! Even then I am on the street with an AA number. I would rather have my job. APA has certainly not made a proposal with MY (Eagle) interest in mind.

 

[surplus1]

Perhaps Phase III should be Phase I! Even then I am on the street with an AA number. I would rather have my job. APA has certainly not made a proposal with MY (Eagle) interest in mind.

Three cheers for you!! I'm happy to see you are reading between the lines of the press releases, as you should.

Even if Phase III was changed to Phase I, there would still be problems for you at Eagle. The whole thing (as released) is just too vague and very dangerous for AE pilots.

What would happen for example, if AMR bought another "real airline" (like Reno?) between one of the "phases"? Would you wake up one morning and suddenly find that the new airline's pilots had been tacked to the AA list ahead of Eagle pilots and you just lost 300 numbers? When that happened before, what was the impact on the "flow-through" agreement that you already had with AMR/APA? How has the TWA acquisition affected that FTA?

Why is your union (ALPA), charged with representing the interests of Eagle pilots, entering into a joint press release (that supports the proposal) with the APA (charged with representing the interests of AA pilots)? Were the Eagle pilots given and opportunity to determine their support or lack of support for the "proposal" before the joint press release?

Earlier in this thread, another Eagle pilot told me that there was no full proposal, just the summary press release. If that is true, is your union supporting a proposal, the full content of which it has not seen? If the union HAS seen the full proposal, why haven't the Eagle pilots?

It looks like there's enough yarn in this "proposal" to knit about 2400 sweaters, one for every Eagle pilot. You'll need them when winter sets on your seniority list and it will, if this were ever accepted by AMR. It gets real cold when you live on the street.

Someone told me that the AE pilots were "cautiously optmistic". While I admire a positive attitude, I gotta tell you that what I read in that summary of the proposal leaves no room for optimism cautious or otherwise. Guess I'm decidedly pessimistic about this one. It's the classic "Wolf in sheep's clothing"!

You can bet a dollar to a donut that if this proposal had been made by Eagle instead of the other way around, you would not see the APA entering into a joint press release with ALPA endorsing a propsal, the details of which they had never seen. The APA leaders would be tarred and feathered by AA pilots if they did that.

I can't believe the APA would make a proposal to management as significant as this one could be, without having worked out the details of what they would like to see happen. Granted the concept can't really hurt AA pilots as outlined, but it could destroy AE pilots if it's what the summary says it is. To endorse it while blind folded is folly in the extreme.

I'm not critical of the APA for making this proposal. From what we know about it, it appears to be very much in the best interests of AA pilots and that is who they represent. Kudos to them. What boggles my mind is the other side of the equation.

The agenda is clear to the informed. Transfer the jets to the mainline and we've solved "the problem". That's true, but for whom? For AA pilots? For ALPA? for APA? Yes to all of the above. I just can find Eagle pilots anywhere in that equation that matters.

IF AMR by chance were to accept this proposal, there is no doubt that it would ultimately affect every regional pilot in the industry since other majors would follow. There is not one mainline pilot group that would not like to see the RJs transferred to the mainline list (without their current pilots). Since ALPA represents a majority of those regional pilots, I have to wonder how many of their leaders were consulted BEFORE the joint press release that endorses the idea.

 

[eagleatr]

I think what you are seeing is that most Eagle pilots are just happy to no longer be considered the "enemy" by APA. I know of no people that I work with at Eagle that have blindly endorsed the proposal by APA. I think we all realize that this is the position that APA would like to negotiate from.

Everyone realizes that there must be a lot more specific information given before I, or any other Eagle pilot I know, are ready to sign an agreement to go over to APA.

One thing I will admit, is that ALL of the Eagle management are a bunch of idiots, IMHO. They are going to turn this company around by furloughing more people and parking more planes.

I guess I don't have the BIG picture.



Eagle ATR

 

[SF3CAP]

I think it's far more likely that Eagle is sold-off than integrated with AA.

 

[pilot141]

Ok, I admit I'm a little late to join this (sitting reserve in MIA - ugh)

The agreement reached between the APA and AMR in 1987, as I understand it, releived AMR of many of the scope clauses as long as what was to become American Eagle (previously a lot of regional carriers) was to be used to feed AA routes. IE, send Saabs into Amarillo to get pax into DFW for their final destination. While I don't have specific contract language for this, I believe that there are specific provisions in the contract for "non-feeder" jet operations - ie, AE operating a jet from RDU-PHL and making money. Yes, an RJ makes sense on this route now, but this route is shaky in contract enforcement.
What I have here is a post from John Darrah, APA president.
I don't know if this qualifies as "merely a press release" by the harsher critics or not - I post it here for what it's worth.
FYI, I'll be at my Reserve job for the next week, without e-mail, so I won't be able to respond to flames!

April 1, 2002

Fellow Pilots,

Over the last several weeks, AMR management has made several confusing and misleading statements with regard to the ASM and block-hour limitation provision of the American Airlines pilots’ contract. We want to set the record straight.

On February 1, American Eagle management said that the only way for Eagle to stay underneath the ASM cap was to cancel unprofitable cities, reduce frequencies, park aircraft, and consider selling Executive Airlines. Such actions would clearly result in the furlough of American Eagle pilots. As you know, the Allied Pilots Association made a proposal to management on January 18 that was designed to address management’s stated need to preserve commuter feed to American Airlines and keep the carrier’s recovery going strong. The ultimate effect of APA’s proposal would have been to combine American Airlines and American Eagle. It has never been APA’s intention to cause any additional furloughs at American Eagle or to use this proposal as short-term "furlough protection" for the American Airlines pilots. The proposal is designed to meet APA’s long-term goals by eliminating any scope concerns.

APA made its proposal in response to management’s request for relief from the ASM and block-hour caps that are in effect due to the furlough of American Airlines pilots. American Eagle President Peter Bowler, commenting on the proposal, said that he "was a little confused about how it works." He went on to say that it was not a realistic proposal and that if it were good idea, someone else would have done it. In his February 13 message, American Eagle VP Flight Operations Ed Criner expressed "great concern" about the "continued job security" of Eagle pilots if management were to agree to APA’s proposal. "If APA’s offer was accepted, it is foreseeable that Eagle pilots would continually be displaced from their equipment and hundreds of our pilots would be furloughed," Criner wrote. American Airlines management responded by indicating that it did not have any interest in even discussing APA’s proposal. Criner’s "great concern" about the prospect of displacements and furloughs is nothing more than a classic fear grenade with no factual basis.

In a letter to American Eagle employees on March 14, Bowler said "…unless there is a breakthrough in discussions between AA and its pilots union, we may still be required to proceed with a sale of our Executive and Miami operations at some point in the future." It is hard to imagine that anyone would see this for anything other that what it is: an attempt to circumvent the ASM and block-hour caps. At best, selling off Eagle piecemeal in this fashion would be a definite gamble that does nothing to address the longer-term problem or to enhance shareholder value. Rather than trying to negotiate a solution with APA, AMR management has pulled from their playbook the same old whipsaw tactic. Our pilot groups will not be fooled, and we will not allow management to divide our collective membership.

One of APA’s biggest concerns is the continued outsourcing of mainline flying (flying that is not intended to provide feed) to American Eagle and other commuter air carriers. AMR management has made it clear that "small jets" such as those flown by American Eagle and the American Connection are revenue generators and not feeder aircraft. In 1987, the APA agreed to a "Commuter Air Carrier" exemption to their scope clause. It was never APA’s intention to exempt a major airline such as American Eagle from the scope clause. By combining American Eagle into American Airlines, Eagle would no longer be a competitor to AA.

Meanwhile, there is a very real, ongoing threat to Eagle pilots’ job security in the form of American Connection carriers Trans States and Chautauqua. These carriers have been replacing Eagle in a variety of markets. If not for the ASM and block-hour caps in the American Airlines pilots’ contract, it is conceivable that the outsourcing of Eagle’s flying to the American Connection carriers might well be accelerated.

The leadership at APA and the Eagle ALPA MEC remain convinced that the best solution for all concerned is to transition to one carrier operated under the American Airlines banner. Although management decided not to enter discussions in response to APA’s January 18 proposal, American management and the APA will be addressing the commuter affiliate issue during the course of their current Section 6 negotiations.

As this situation continues to develop, we will keep you informed.



Sincerely,

/signed/,

Captain John Darrah Captain Jim Higgins
APA President American Eagle ALPA MEC Chairman

 

[bluesideup1]

I believe that there has been a mixup here. There is no connection to the proposal that was made by APA in regards to the relaxing of the ASM's in January and the latest letter put out by both APA and ALPA. Yes both deal with combining Eagle and AA but the most recent one is just a pre cursor to the fact that APA is now serious about getting scope undercontrol by merging the two lists and with there section 6 openers coming up they are sending a message to management that they are tired of having to negotiate scope ever 4 years and giving up something in the process only to have management circumvent it. ie 44 seat RJ's. Control over all RJ flying by having all the pilots on one list takes away managements whipsaw ability and allows the pilots to speak as one voice. It took APA a couple contracts to figure this out but now hopefully they will go to the mat with it and make it happen. Even if both APA and Eagle are granted one list the details have not even begun to be hammered out. So please don't confuse the two letters and don't worry about detail 512 when detail number 1 is still up in the air.