APA, CHQ, and the EMB-170

[surplus1]

Part 2 of 2

Seriously, what makes you think CMR or ASA will win a bid for 70 seat flying over the other carriers. Since we get paid more, we can just add an * to the bottom of our bid and say "we will do it better." DAL has already proven that doesn't matter anymore even if it were true.

Whether or not CMR or ASA will "win a bid for 70-seat flying" depends on who we are bidding against and how much we want to keep the flying. If holding on to the flying we have requires us to compete with the bids of others, then eventually we will have to do so, whether we want to or not. At some point that "game isn't worth the candle."

If the Delta pilots copy the USAirways pilots and bid to fly the 70-seaters for $58 per hour in the left seat, FAR work rules and no benefits, exactly what do you think we will have to do to keep the flying from going to Delta mainline?

Look at JBlues compensation for the EMB-190. If Delta wants that airplane, what do you think the Delta pilots will have to do to get it? Answer: Match JetBlue. If they don't, where to you think it will go? Answer: To whomever will do the work for the price the Company wants to pay. If that is CMR, then CMR pilots will have to match JBlue compensation and work rules. The same applies to everyone else.

Do you think CMR will be able to hold its current 70-seat rates in that scenario? The answer is NO. We will be in the same situation that the Delta pilots are in now. They can't hold their compensation while AA, AAA, UAL, CAL are all doing the same thing for far less. It's that simple.

What you are seeing today are the effects of unrealistic scope clauses and stupid underbidding of each others flying. We can shout from the roof tops how evil management is but truth is that many pilot groups and our union have helped mangement to do this by our own behavior.

Was it really necessary for the SKYW pilots to low-ball their compensation to "get United's flying"? Was it necessary for Air Wisconsin to do the same? Was it really necessary for Mesa to do what it did, or did that happen because of yet another stupid scope clause? Did USAirways pilots really have to give up their longevity and fly for such low rates just so they could keep the PDT/ALG pilots out of the equation and then outsource half their flying to Mesa and others? Is it really necessary for NW to low-bid the CR7 just so they can prevent Mesaba and PCL from flying it? Was it necessary for AA to underbid Eagle so they could attempt to take the CR7's from the Eagle pilots (which they didn't get anyway)? The answer is NO. None of those things were really necessary, they were conscious choices intentionally made.

When pilots decide to engage in bidding wars against each other nobody wins! We ALL lose and that is exactly what is happening. Somebody has to speak out against it. It is foolish and a recipie for disaster.

We can't do much about the non-union carriers but we could stand together within our unions. Are we doing that? NO. Our union has adopted policies that virtually force its members to compete agains each other for the same flying. It has devided the union and it is damaging every one of us, major and regional alike. It's time to stop the foolishness. We can't start that by staying within our own turf with respect to mainline vs. regional. Next the regional pilots can stop attempts to screw each other for "growth", and the mainline pilots can stop attempts to compete on the basis of pilot pay only.

By the way, I give the Delta pilots full credit for realizing that they can't buy Delta's future with their pay rates alone. The Company does need their help but stupidity on their part will not save Dela Air Lines. Prudence is wisdom.

Noone should force his Company into bankruptcy by unreasonable compensation demands but all of us should realize that we cannot solve structural problems by flying for free any more than management can "shrink the airline to profitability". No pilot group has ever "saved" a company by working for next to nothing.

The only reason we have 70 seat jets and regional guys making $125,000 a year is because of DALPA's scope.

Because of DALPA's Scope? If you honestly believe that I really don't know what to say to you. I can't think of anything that could be further from the truth. I do not understand what leads you to believe that, and I am not being facetious.

Maybe I'm all wet but please, tell me how you came to that conclusion. If I've missed something I would really like to know what it is.

As for the $125,000/yr I think you're stretching things a bit. The higest possible pay rate at CMR is currently $113.12 hr. It takes 18 years longevity to get there. We have about 80 captains with that much seniority. We are limited to 1000 hrs per year like everyone else. Senior pilots have lots of vacation time and few if any fly 1000 hours per year. So, it would take quite a bit of soft time (of which we have little) to achieve the number you posted and only 80 pilots could possibly do that.

Our senior pilots are paid fairly, but I don't think we need to exaggerate. Anyway, please note that it would take more than a 50% pay cut for these senior pilots to match the USAirways 70-seat pay rate. Where would that leave you on the resulting sliding pay scale?

Think about it and remember ... be careful what you ask for, you might get it.

 

[Draginass]

The APA contract does not prevent any company outside of AMR from doing anything. It merely states (in terms agreed upon by AMR) that AMR can't give business to another company that flies those aircraft.

Just recently when AMR violated the contract, it cost them $23 million.

 

[surplus1]

Part 1 of 2

Thanks for your reply. I now have a much better understanding of where you're coming from and where you want to go. I will try to reply and keep it as short as I can, but this is likely to be another 2-Part diatribe. You've got me riled up so fair warning in advance … you will not like this.

my cause is defending the Comair and ASA pilots careers from a far greater threat than harmful scope, and that's way, way too liberal 50 seat and under scope

Your goal seems to be the same as mine, i.e., defending the Comair pilots' careers. There are major differences on how best to go about that. I'm not angry about you methods, but I am angry about your attitude. More on that later.

You say way too liberal 50-seat and under scope -- that's our first difference. Why not way tos liberal 70-seat and under scope? It appears you are willing to write off the CR7, I am not. If you succeed in limiting us to 50-seats, which is exactly what the Delta pilots want to do, you may well eliminate your own job in the process.

actually it is. In fact, that's all it is. Do you think management wants to pay us our current rates, or pay some cd lineholders almost 100 hours a month for flying 20? We desired it, we got it, they agreed, and now they must honor it. A labor contract is about nothing but that labor group's desires]

Again our difference appears to be minor in that; mostly misunderstanding on your part. I did not say that contracts aren't designed to fulfill your desires or mine, which I agree with you they are. I said contract law doesn't do that. That's a subtle difference, but key to our disagreement. The contract, as you say, is indeed all about that labor group's desires. Contract law, which determines the validity of a contractual provision or of the contract in its entirety has nothing to do with desires. Regardless of what we may have wanted, if the contract doesn't legally provide that, or if the contract or any part of it violates the law, the desires are out the window and the law will govern.

A contract cannot be challenged on the basis of its not satisfying the desires of the parties. It can be challenged on its conformity with law and it will be interpreted on what is legally enforceable. That is what I meant.

I won't argue the merits of the AA contract again but I will say this. First: IF the contract between CHQ the corporation and AMR the corporation does not include a provision requiring CHQ to recognize AA scope language that leaves this: AA scope is enforceable against AA but is not enforceable against CHQ. Therefore if AA/AMR cancels its contract with CHQ by attempting to comply with a provision of its contract with APA to which CHW never agreed, CHQ will have legal redress against AMR/AA and APA, for the resulting loss of business.

Second: If the APA's AA scope clause does not name Republic Holdings or Republic Airlines or both, but names only CHQ, then it is not enforceable against the others and they can do nothing to prevent Republic from operating E-170s for itself or for anyone else.

Contract law is pretty basic in this area. A contract between two parties cannot bind a third party without the consent of that third party. You and I may agree to anything we want however, neither one of us can cause that agreement to govern the behavior of John Doe without his consent, obtained in advance; not after the fact.

My read of the languange of the AA contract finds nothing to indicate that it is enforceable against Republic Holdings or Republic Airlines. Likewise, it is only enforceable against Chautauqua if CHQ agreed to recognize its terms. Since CHQ is not a signatory to the APA contract we know it did not recognize it. Now, it is possible that the contract between AMR and CHQ contains a clause that would bind CHQ to the AA scope clause. (I don't have a copy of that contract so I can't tell.) If it does NOT and AMR terminates the contract, CHQ has cause for action against AMR for the resulting damages. That is contract law and it has nothing to do with the desires of the pilots on either side of the fence.

For reference, please refer to Section 1.G.1. of the Delta PWA and you will see language of the type that could be used to cover such scenarios I don't find that type of language in the AA contract.

of course you did. because you think that will give your case some steam when you try to get the 57 70 seat limit overturned, as well as the block hour restrictions, the stage length restrictions, etc of the 50 seaters, and don't forget those pesky limits of zero on how many 757's, 777's and MD-80's we are allowed to fly.

Come on now, you're going from the sublime to the ridiculous without cause. No one that I know of has made even the slightest suggestion that we should expect to operate the same types of aircraft that the Delta pilots currently fly. That would be as stupid as their attempts to limit the types that we fly. You are letting your imagination (sounds more like theirs) run out of control. The other items you mention are an infringement on our territory and they do need to be removed.

What you fail to realize, or more likely chose to ignore, is that we aren't going to win any free for all bidding war against the likes of CHQ, MAG, Mesaba, Jet Blue, MidAtlantic/USAirmainline, SkyWest or anyone else. We need more scope and it needs to be limiting and harmful to other groups. That's what scope is, what it should do and what we need to make it do.

What we need is job security. Scope that is harmful to other groups does not necessarily achieve that. There are many examples today of what bad scope can't do. American has harmful scope against Eagle, but 2500 AA pilots are unemployed. USAirways had scope that was harmful to everybody and his brother; 1870 of them are unemployed. United had scope harmful to others; 2000 are unemployed and they had to give it up in bankruptcy. Delta has scope that is harmful to CMR and ASA; they have 1000 pilots on the street. NWA has scope that is harmful to MSA and PCL; they have 720 pilots on the street. The only thing that harmful scope has accomplished to date is an increase in the salary of lawyers. It's bad business and the proof of the pudding is the pot.

None of the airlines you listed have any scope that is harmful to us and we don't need any that is harmful to them. What we do need is to eliminate the predatory Delta scope that is harmful to us and agree with each other that we will no infringe on their territory and they will not infringe on ours. Such an agreement can be made without the consent of the Company. If such an agreement was in place it would effectively prevent the Company from playing us against each other. Where the respective areas of jurisdiction begin and end requires mutual agreement. They cannot be dictated by either party. Until we both decide to work with each other, the Company will take advantage of our divisions, just as it is doing now.

We cannot prevent the airlines you mentioned from agreeing to compensation packages that are less than our own any more than they can prevent us from agreeing to more than they have. Attempts to do so are a waste of time. The meetings of the type you mention where we all agree to be "nice", invite malfeasance. They won't be kept and they can't be enforced. Therefore, they are useless. We cannot scope them out and prevent Delta from doing business with them and we should not try. There are other and better ways to guarantee our job security and even ensure our future growth. You need to think out of the box.

One is to reach agreement with Delta (the company, not the pilots) as to the percentage of total DCI flying that will be available to us including, but not limited to, our share of future growth. We can start with what we have now. We will not be able to get ALL of the future growth. We don't need to. We need a percentage of that growth (perhaps similar to the percentage of the total that we now have). The rest will go to others. Greed is the cause of the current disputes. If we are not willing to relinquish our greed, we can't expect others to do so. Let's make agreements with each other that are workable, not those that invite betrayal.

Another is to guarantee that transfers of equipment or flying will require our pilots to "go with the airframes", have seniority integration, and suffer no loss in pay or benefits as a result. We need new and innovative solutions to the problems, not more of the same old tired scope clauses that do not work when misapplied. If the pilots have to move with the equipment, the incentive of the Company to transfer equipment just for kicks, will be greatly reduced if not entirely removed.

Do we need a scope clause at all? Of course we do but, if we have the other protections needed, all the scope clause has to do is ensure that only Comair pilots fly those aircraft assigned to Comair. That is the true purpose of Scope. It was never intended to be a predatory tool that pits pilot against pilot, airline angainst airline. Its purpose is job protection; not job theft. What we are dealing with today is a perversion of Scope an that is exactly why it doesn't work.

None of this will just happen because we want it. It will have to be negotiated. However, if we can agree amongst ourselves, chances are good we can get the Company to agree. As long as we do not have aunified front, it is easy for management to tell us to pound sand. Again, think out of the box.

Continued

 

[surplus1]

Part 2 of 2

Either you believe we would get more A/C because you think we are "the go to carrier" or a 29% profit margin machine about to buy TWA, OR you think we will bring Delta mainline planes our way and you will then get a raise. Nither is going to happen.

I don't think any of those things, but rather than argue with you, why don't you just tell me your magic solution? Tell me how you plan to eliminate CHQ, SKYW and whomever replaces ACA. After you have succeeded in doing that and we now have ALL the "Connection" flying, tell me how you're going to prevent the Delta pilots from changing their scope clause again and taking most or all of it away? Are you really naieve enough to believe that they "love you" or that they give a da*n which little regional does DCI flying? Don't kid yourself. The only thing they want is no DCI flying at all. They want to do the flying themselves. They have figured out that they should not have let it go and they want it back. If they have to eliminate you in the process they will do it in a heart beat. They have been trying to do that for some time and they are trying as we write.

We have to make an accomodation with them as to how we're going to devide the flying. We both want the same thing; job protection. We must find a way to provide it to each other. This is not going to be a love-in, it is a marriage of convenience and necessity. They are not going to do this because they "want" to, we must find a way to show them that the alternatives are not in their best interests. When they see that they will talk. Before they see that, whatever you hear is pure political BS. They support Duane Woerth's "brand scope" because it is completely in their favor. It would give them what they have not been able to get so far, total control of all the flying. You need to figure out that total control for them equals total loss of control for us. Our very existence would be at their complete mercy. Only a fool would want that.

Of course. You already have your upgrade. Your line. Your weekends off (if you want them) your holidays off and summer vacations. The types of trips you want. Comair could furlough 500 or hire 3000 and your life wouldn't be impacted in the slightest. The growing junior majority feels differently and is slowly making our voices heard. While you are fighting for your 10% raise to fly the 767, we are fighting for our very livelyhoods because we see the trend vector going harshly in favor of the contractor whores and its direct impact on us. Far more severe than not getting more 70's or any 90's or any 757's. The RJDC preaches junior pilot rights all the time, but that's not their priority. They want the chance for greater than a staple at DAL and/or the walls of scope brought down because they think they have at least a chance at winning a bidding war, and/or a massive million dollar payday from the courts.

You must have a junior Delta pilot for a neighbor. You are preaching division and animosity within your own pilot group and playing right into the hands of your enemies. If you don't know that charity begins at home, you need to learn. Let me ask you this, if tomorrow Comair furloughs 270 pilots, will you still have a number? What happens to your job if Delta transfers the CR7's to the mainline and 50 CRJs to ASA? Will you still keep your job? That is exactly what I am trying to prevent young man. I'm not trying to fly a 767 or a 737 or anything else at Delta.

You are right, my job will still be here if we furlough 500 so if I was thinking like you accuse me of thinking I would not write any of this because I would not care what happens to you. That is NOT my attitude and it is not the attitude of any senior pilot that I know. It is also not the attitude or the purpose of the RJDC. I don't know where you got that wild idea, but you're so far in left field that I can't even see you.

The RJDC is not promoting any merger with Delta pilots. I am personally opposed to one. If CMR could do that tomorrow we'd lose more that a thousand jobs and yes, I would still have mine, but you would not have yours. That is NOT what I want nor does anyone else that I know.

I don't mind debating with you, but you pi*s me off when you try to divide us with that sort of BS.

Chautauqua or other carriers in the infamous "portfolio" are not a benefit to Comair pilots, but they are not the greatest threat either. The greatest threat is folks who seek to divide us among ourselves. You are afraid and I understand that, but you are afraid of your own brothers and that is wrong, and you have no reason to be. When the chips are down the only one that will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you is another Comair pilot. You need to figure that out fast and don't forget it.

Yes, I want a return to unlimited 70-seaters like we had before it was arbitrarily taken away. I know that doesn't mean we will get them all, but if we do what we need to do we will get some of those to come; a lot more than we have now. Hopefully half with the other half going to ASA.

The Chautauqua threat is more in your head than anywhere else. Yes, their lower wages give them an advantage in some cases and so do the lower wages at SKYW, but we can't change that and there are bigger fish to fry. Instead of worrying about what they have or might get, we need to worry about keeping what we have now and about how to get more without giving up our contract. We will not do that by promoting a dispute between our own senior and junior pilots.

We may have a few senior a$$holes that are dreaming about 757 bidding rights but I'm not one of them and I don't know any of them and they are certainly not in control of the RJDC. There is no senior majority and no junior majority in our airline, we are all Comair pilots. If you can't be a Comair pilot and stand with the rest of us, then please go elswhere where that kind of infighting is popular. I suggest PSA where you can upgrade in a hurry by selling out your brothers. Man you really pushed my buttons with that garbage.

Yes, we need job security; we will not get it by fighting with each other. If we are going to have any chance at all we have to stick together. Scope against CHQ and SKYW is not achievable and "brand scope" will protect us from nothing. The Delta pilots already have everything on the line. If you think they are going to risk more so that you can have "brand scope" you're nuts. IF they negotiate for that it will be because it benefits them, not you. We need innovative and new ways to protect our job security and they're out there, we just have to open our eyes. Talking and planning how to get "harmful scope" towards others isn't going to cut the mustard.

The Company is not going to merge us with ASA and we are wasting time pursuing a pipe dream. We need an agreement with ASA, on e that we can make without the Company for our mutual benefit; not an improbable merger. You don't buy something from the Company that it can do without your help at great benefit to itself. The more you tell them you "want" it, the more it will cost you and the smaller your chance. A merger with ASA would prevent ASA/CMR from being played against each other, but it would not stop us from being palyed against Delta or anyone else. Get creative instead.

Kissing the backside of ALPA or the Delta pilots will also get us nothing of benefit to us. Yes, we need their help but they need ours too. They need to stay away from our aircraft types and we need to stay away from theirs. We can work together for the common good without either one of us giving up anything to the other or trying to take from one another. If we do NOT do that, we WILL end up in a bidding war and it won't be with Chautauqua, it will be with Delta mainline. There is NO WAY that can be of benefit to them or to us.

Whew, I'm worn plum out. Yeah I know, thank the Lord for small favors.

Regards

 

[amcnd]

This has gotten out of hand. The main thing to focus on is in the contract is defines a comuter as -50 seats and 64,500lbs Except Eagle's 50 CRJ-700. CHQ /RPB is no longer a ""comuter"" in the eyes of the APA. I belive it is in AMR's best intrest to keep everything in house...Eagle. Why wast money when Eagle is a proven product taht si making 40mil a quarter.

 

[DrinkSweetTea]

5 Pages for 15 ERJ140s. 15 ERJ140s that will still be 15 ERJ140s next year. CHQ is not going to grow AA. Why is AE so threatened by 15 planes? We havent signed a new deal to add 60 next year, these are the same 15 we've been operating, and the same we will operate next year. Its just out of spite, and nothing more.

 

[80drvr]

This has gotten out of hand. The main thing to focus on is in the contract is defines a comuter as -50 seats and 64,500lbs Except Eagle's 50 CRJ-700. CHQ /RPB is no longer a ""comuter"" in the eyes of the APA. I belive it is in AMR's best intrest to keep everything in house...Eagle. Why wast money when Eagle is a proven product taht si making 40mil a quarter.

Agree w/ everthing except the 40M/QTR. Must have missed Eagle's conference call. How do you back up that data when the only one that actually reports is AMR.

 

[80drvr]

5 Pages for 15 ERJ140s. 15 ERJ140s that will still be 15 ERJ140s next year. CHQ is not going to grow AA. Why is AE so threatened by 15 planes? We havent signed a new deal to add 60 next year, these are the same 15 we've been operating, and the same we will operate next year. Its just out of spite, and nothing more.

It's not out of spite. It's out of serious concern for the future of mainline narrowbody flying. Just because mainline pilot groups have made serious strategic mistakes in the past doesn't mean they should continue to do so moving forward.

 

[amcnd]

Eagle made 30mil from the months of april,may,june and is on track to make 120 mil in pre tax earnings. No there is no growth for AX, I belive do to the jet for jobs part of the APA contract. AX can't grow there ASM's while AA as pilots on the street. AX has added new citys, but have decreased in others. the fact is the wording and the stipulation on what a ""comuter"" is. iI there to not let AA code with any airline like Alaska, without the consent of the APA.

 

[vc10]

Two things:

1) Eagle is 100% owned by AMR, which is free to make any internal arrangement it wants between the mainline and Eagle. AMR determines to which airline, mainline or Eagle, it credits a dollar of revenue (and to some extent, expense). Therefore, any "profitability" of Eagle is completely notional (same deal with Delta and ASA/Comair). In fact, Eagle is pretty widely reputed to be among the highest cost regionals in the industry, mainly because it's run like it's part of the mainline, with a lot of extra overhead.

2) AMR looks like it's stuck between a rock and a hard place on the Chautauqua thing. On the one hand, it looks like a violation of scope for CHQ to fly the E170. On the other hand, CHQ has a contract with AMR that doesn't appear to stop it from flying the E170 for someone else. So were AMR to try to get rid of CHQ, CHQ could sue AMR for breaking a valid contract.

So the APA could sue AMR for damages, but the question is, how is the APA damaged? Any way you look at it, the damage to the APA from AMR permitting CHQ to fly the E170 for a small period of time is going to be less than the damage to CHQ of breaking the AMR contract...

Eagle made 30mil from the months of april,may,june and is on track to make 120 mil in pre tax earnings. No there is no growth for AX, I belive do to the jet for jobs part of the APA contract. AX can't grow there ASM's while AA as pilots on the street. AX has added new citys, but have decreased in others. the fact is the wording and the stipulation on what a ""comuter"" is. iI there to not let AA code with any airline like Alaska, without the consent of the APA.

 

[80drvr]

Two things:


2) AMR looks like it's stuck between a rock and a hard place on the Chautauqua thing. On the one hand, it looks like a violation of scope for CHQ to fly the E170. On the other hand, CHQ has a contract with AMR that doesn't appear to stop it from flying the E170 for someone else. So were AMR to try to get rid of CHQ, CHQ could sue AMR for breaking a valid contract.

So the APA could sue AMR for damages, but the question is, how is the APA damaged? Any way you look at it, the damage to the APA from AMR permitting CHQ to fly the E170 for a small period of time is going to be less than the damage to CHQ of breaking the AMR contract...

Has anyone on this board seen the AMR/CHQ agreement? Seems it would be prudent for the contract to have an out for both parties if things chAAnge. Given that AMR would be subsidizing relatively big airlines to compete against itself, would they be in favor of allowing this to move forward?

 

[amcnd]

The agrement was posted about 5 years ago when it first came out.

Also Eagle is fee per departure.Wwihch is a undisclosed amount to us, but we are told it is very competitive with what other airlines are getting. So YES Eagle is posting a profit with the same income as CHQ/TSA. The only difference is the profit goes to AMR's bottem line. not (Hulas or bedford)?

 

[80drvr]

The agrement was posted about 5 years ago when it first came out.

Also Eagle is fee per departure.Wwihch is a undisclosed amount to us, but we are told it is very competitive with what other airlines are getting. So YES Eagle is posting a profit with the same income as CHQ/TSA. The only difference is the profit goes to AMR's bottem line. not (Hulas or bedford)?

I dind't think AMR had an agreement w/ CHQ until after the TWA acquisition. Let me see if I can follow your logic here. Eagle is fee for departure (an undisclosed amount) and CHQ is too. Therefore Eagle must be posting the same profit as CHQ/TSA.

I would agree that whatever Eagle generates goes to AMR's bottom line.

Taking a good look at AMR's 2Q 10Q. Regional affiliates generated 505M revenue w/ 517M in operating expenses.

And what is Hulas?

 

[catIIIc]

Taking a good look at AMR's 3Q 10Q. Regional affiliates generated 505M revenue w/ 517M in operating expenses.



It looks like the regional affiliates created a 17 million dollar loss to AMR's bottom line. I am so glad Eagle is growing and AA is furloughing.

 

[Hoot R. Hunter]

Eagle should always post a profit with a fee/departure of cost + 8%. Their break-even load factor is zero.

The bottom line is a different matter. In 2003 (from the AMR SEC filings), AA paid out $1.550B in regional departure fees (Eagle, Chautaugua, Trans States) and received $1.519B back in revenue for an operating loss of $31M against the AMR bottom line. AMR also listed an additional $207M of regional expenses (RJ acquisition costs?) for the year. The regional contribution in 2003 was far from rosy.

2004 will be a telling year because AA has given Eagle most of the former F100 cities and now even more of the S80 flying. The 2004 filings will vindicate or vilify these decisions.

Regards,

 

[surplus1]

Since Eagle and the other regionals are losing so much money, maybe AMR should shut them down, buy more DC-9s and Fokkers for the mainline, and then they could lose 3 times as much money flying aroung empty. But, the furlouged could all be recalled and work until AA goes Chapter 7. After that they can all move to Jet Blue and live happily ever after. Right?

 

[shuttlecraft]

you can all stop arguing. Shuttle America Airlines, a Wexford owned airline, will start taking deliver of the ERJ 170 at the end of the year. that's good news.

 

[Cleared Direct]

AGREEMENT
between
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.
and
THE AIR LINE PILOTS
in the service of
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.
as represented by the
ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION
Effective: May 1, 2003


SECTION 1

RECOGNITION AND SCOPE

B. Definitions

4. Commuter Air Carrier

The term "Commuter Air Carrier" refers to any Air Carrier utilizing only (a)
aircraft that are certificated in the United States and Europe with a maximum
passenger capacity of 50 passenger seats or fewer and (b) aircraft that are not
certificated in any country with a maximum gross takeoff weight of more than
64,500 pounds. If an aircraft type operated by an Air Carrier otherwise meeting
the conditions in the preceding sentence is recertified with a maximum
passenger capacity of greater than 50 passenger seats, the Air Carrier
operating said aircraft shall remain a Commuter Air Carrier so long as it
operates said aircraft with no more than 50 passenger seats.

C. SCOPE

1. General.

All flying performed by or on behalf of the Company or an Affiliate shall be
performed by pilots on the American Airlines Pilots Seniority List in accordance
with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, except as expressly permitted
in provisions D. – K. below.

D. Scope Exception: Commuter Air Carriers

1. Commuter Air Carriers and Section 1 Limitations.

The Company or an Affiliate may create, acquire, maintain an equity position
in, enter into franchise type agreements with, and/or codeshare with a
Commuter Air Carrier, and flying by any such Commuter Air Carrier shall not
be subject to the limitations of Section 1.C. above, so long as any such
Commuter Air Carrier operates in accordance with the limitations set forth in
this Section 1.D.

2. American Eagle, Inc. and Executive Airlines, Inc.

American Eagle, Inc. and Executive Airlines, Inc. may operate, in the
aggregate, no more than 43 ATR 72 aircraft or other turbo prop aircraft
certificated in the United States and Europe for a maximum passenger capacity
of between 51 and 70 seats, without losing their status as Commuter Air
Carriers.

3. Purpose; Intent of the Parties.


a. Primary Purpose.

The primary purpose of a Commuter Air Carrier is either to provide
passenger and/or cargo revenue feed to Company flights and/or to enhance
the Company’s overall market presence.

b. Role of Commuter Air Carriers in Company’s Development.

The parties recognize that Commuter Air Carriers have played a role in the
development of the Company as the world’s premier airline. Additionally,
the Company and the Association acknowledge that the passenger feed
provided to the Company’s domestic and international system strengthens
the Company, thereby providing enhanced career opportunities to American
Airlines pilots.

c. Markets in Which the Company Cannot Earn an Adequate Return on
Invested Capital

The Company will operate American Airlines service in markets where such
service can earn an adequate return on invested capital. This provision will
not require the Company to operate a particular service, but instead, if the
Company could operate a service and earn an adequate return on invested
capital, the Company may not place or maintain the Company code on such
service by a Commuter Air Carrier. Notwithstanding this prohibition, if the
Company orders additional aircraft to fly such a route, the Company may
place or maintain its code on the route or frequency during the time
between order and delivery of the additional aircraft. Similarly, if the
Company is procuring an airport slot, gate and/or other route authority to fly
such a route, the Company may place or maintain its code on the route or
frequency during the time required to procure such a slot and/or authority.

d. Parties to Meet in the Event of Problems.

It is not the intent of either the Company or the Association to limit the
expansion of Commuter Air Carriers in developing new markets. If at any
time it is determined that these provisions are impeding the ability of
Commuter Air Carriers to fulfill their primary role in support of the
Company’s system, the parties agree to promptly meet and discuss
appropriate modifications to this Agreement.

---------------------------------------


LETTER JJ (6)

AmericanAirlines®

September 22, 2003
Captain John E. Darrah
President
Allied Pilots Association
14600 Trinity Boulevard, Suite 500
Fort Worth, TX 76155

Re: Trans States Airlines – ATR Exception (Section 1.D.2)

Dear John:

This letter modifies the agreement between the Allied Pilots Association (“APA”) and American Airlines, Inc. (“Company”) dated May 1, 2003 regarding Section 1 - Scope. Specifically, the parties agree to make an exception in which Trans States Airlines (“TSA”) may operate, in aggregate, no more than three (3) ATR 72 aircraft or other turbo prop aircraft certificated in the United States and Europe for a maximum passenger capacity of between 51 and 70 seats, in the American Connection Operation in STL without losing its status as a Commuter Air Carrier.

The parties also agree that TSA may replace and/or substitute these aircraft with like or similar aircraft.

Sincerely,
/signed/
Mark L. Burdette
Director - Employee Relations
Agreed:
/signed/
John E. Darrah
President
Allied Pilots Association

 

[amcnd]

Do you know if there is still a J4J protocall in the contract for the nonowend carrier's? Last I heard was AX can'nt grow beyond it's current ASM's unles they have a J4J deal. And if no deal is reached it would go to a arbitrtor for a industry avrage deal.

 

[Cleared Direct]

Do you know if there is still a J4J protocall in the contract for the nonowend carrier's? Last I heard was AX can'nt grow beyond it's current ASM's unles they have a J4J deal. And if no deal is reached it would go to a arbitrtor for a industry avrage deal.

No ASM restriction is in place now. That all went away with the terms of the new contract. The new restriction is quite liberal with the ability to go to 110% of the narrow bodied fleet at AA. The J4J letter is still in place and attached to the current contract. I will try and get an electronic copy and paste it in a later post.