APA Proposal to AMR Released

[FEDUPPILOT]

APA Proposal to AMR Released/Eagle Watch OUT!!

Here we go!! Get the KY!!! and assume the position!!!


hmmmmmm.......



Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 17:50:32 -0500
From: CA Steve Blankenship APA Communications Chairman
Subject: December Negotiating Update


Fellow Pilots:


It's Time, One Airline


The overriding purpose of our Scope clause is to provide job
security for our pilots. In our view, job security provisions
must operate on three levels. First, they should protect the
number of jobs at AA. Second, they must protect the quality
(compensation, work rules, benefits, quality of life) of those
jobs. Finally, these provisions should operate to protect our
work over the short and long term.


As you know, last month the BOD directed the NC to engage
management in expedited negotiations. These negotiations were to
focus on Scope issues including modifications to the commuter air
carrier exception, concerns over the ramifications of cooperative
agreements with international air carriers, and enhancing
protections in the event of a successorship or fragmentation
transaction.


Meetings over these issues occurred on eight days - two days in
November immediately prior to the BOD meeting and on six days
during the first two weeks of December. The initial sessions
focused on commuter air carrier exceptions and management
concerns over APA's desire to bring all flying back to AA.
Subsequent meetings also included discussions on other Scope
related topics. Currently negotiations are recessed while
management performs cost comparisons and analysis. Negotiations
resume on January 7, 2003.


In an effort to expedite the "expedited" negotiations, your NC
decided to give the company conceptual proposals on the structure
of an all flying contract, and on required changes to
restrictions on cooperative agreements with international air
carriers. We characterize these proposals as conceptual and
structural because they contained no hard numbers or specific
work rules. These proposals were important because they
represented a significant departure from APA's opening Section 6
positions on these topics. APA previously passed a proposal
relating to successorship and fragmentation. That position has
not changed.


All Flying Proposal


The APA proposal on all flying suggested creating a commuter
supplement to take the place of the current commuter air carrier
exception. All commuter flying and only commuter flying would be
performed by American Airlines pilots under the commuter
supplement. Commuter supplement flying would be defined by a
seat limitation (50 seats and below), weight limitation
(certificated weight of ERJ-145) and fuselage width limitation
(width of ERJ-145).


Flying would be limited by the above definition and AA pilots
would perform the flying. The restrictions would be based on:
. A maximum hull count based on narrow body aircraft'
. Hub arrival and departure ratios;
. Hub-to-hub prohibitions with very few possible exceptions;
. Block hour limits based on narrow body block hours, and;
. All commuter supplement operations would be limited to domestic
(including Canada/Mexico) and Caribbean divisions.


Maintaining these restrictions while foregoing other restrictions
currently in place would allow management to offset cost
increases by enhancing revenue potential (50 vs. 44 seats and
fewer specific market prohibitions). At this time, APA has made
no proposals regarding the specific numbers in these restrictions.


We made no explicit proposal regarding work rules or
compensation. We told management work rules and compensation
should be industry leading when compared to other commuter
carriers. Management decided to perform comparison and analysis
of this commuter supplement operation by modeling it after the
Comm Air contract and adding a premium. That analysis is ongoing
and will be reported to APA when negotiations commence next year.


APA proposed that all American Eagle pilots become AA pilots
flying under the commuter supplement. Seniority ramifications
would be negotiated between APA and ALPA. APA also proposed the
following:


. AA pilots on furlough would have access to all small jet
vacancies in the commuter supplement and commuter supplement
pilots could not access mainline vacancies until all furloughees
are recalled to the mainline.
. Commuter supplement pilots would gain the right to exercise
mainline seniority numbers when they upgrade to Captain.
. Company could hire into either commuter supplement or mainline
vacancies.
. Commuter supplement pilots would have access to mainline at
some agreed to ratio (specific number not determined). Assumes no
mainline pilot is furloughed.
. Mainline pilots would have the option of accepting a
displacement to the commuter supplement or a furlough in a down
cycle.
. Mainline pilots could only displace into commuter supplement
Captain positions. Only pilots displaced from commuter supplement
bid statuses would have recall rights into the commuter
supplement (except all current furloughees could recall into the
commuter supplement).
. Commuter supplement pilots cannot displace into mainline bid
statuses unless they had previously held any mainline bid status.


APA also indicated to management that we would discuss an
appropriate timeline for implementation, including an exit from
existing non-owned commuter agreements. APA maintained there
could be no embargo from negotiating about the commuter
supplement in future contract negotiations and that any
divestiture of commuter assets would have to be in accordance
with Green Book fragmentation provisions.


International Job Protection Provisions


APA passed a proposal to management to protect our jobs from the
potential threats of cooperative agreements with international
carriers. This proposal is designed to ensure APA pilots
maintain their jobs, absolute and relative, in up and down
cycles. It also serves to maintain job quality over the short and
long term. Once again, this was a conceptual and structural
proposal with no specific numbers discussed.


APA structured protections for two categories of cooperative
agreements. Code Share Only Agreements and Beyond Code Share
Agreements such as revenue sharing and joint ownership. Both
categories require:
. Notification Provisions
. Reporting Provisions
. Specific Remedy Provisions


Additionally each category required specific job protection
mechanisms for absolute downside protection and relative upside
protection.


Code Share Only Agreements would have downside protections based
on international flying baselines (current agreement). APA
proposes tighter triggers on baseline remedies. Upside provisions
would be based on block hour capacity baselines for the specific
agreement in question. Upward changes in the baseline would
require proportional increases in flying for AA pilots.


Agreements involving cooperation Beyond Code Share would have
downside protections based on absolute floors for credit time and
Captain and FO positions. These floors would be measured by A/C
and positions dedicated to the specific agreement and to the
airline in aggregate. This prevents management from shifting
flying from the protected routes. Upside provisions would be
based on block hour capacity baselines for the specific agreement
and trip counting mechanisms. Jobs for AA pilots must increase
proportionally.


Management now owes APA a response to these proposals. They have
committed to a response including cost analysis, competitive
comparisons, and potential counterproposals. The APA proposals
represent a significant departure from our previous positions and
give management the opportunity to chase new revenue
opportunities. It also represents the chance to turn constant
conflicts over Scope provisions into new cooperative directions
for APA and AA management. We look forward to positive response
from management early in the New Year.


Thanks for your support.


Captain Mark Stephens
Chairman, APA Negotiating Committee

 

[BEXFlyer]

Sounds to me like they want to merge the Jets and NOT the lists. No wonder they have been all smiles in the hallway. Am I reading this right?

From a disgruntled "Commuter Supplement" pilot, formerly employed by American Eagle.

 

[Airline Pilot27]

May I humbly suggest we take this over to our union website as I think that this thread will become a little ugly?

 

[FEDUPPILOT]

Why is it going to become ugly?? Its just the truth!

 

[dualrated]

I attended a briefing and Q&A by the APA Negotiating Committee Chairman friday. He had a few more details on the proposal than are mentioned in the above post. He said, loud and clear, with no ambiguity:

The APA proposal does NOT contain a mechanism to replace Eagle pilots with the current 900+ fuloughees from AAL. We don't want that, and even if we did, Carty would never agree to it because the training costs would be completely prohibitive. Why would he furlough 1000 current and quailified RJ pilots and replace them with guys who haven't flown anything in several months?

The proposal does contain language to loosen restrictions on the RJ in return for AMR combining AAL and Eagle and terminating any agreements with the Connection carriers. The vacancies created by this would go to AAL furloughees first, then to Eagle furloughees then new-hires. There was an AE-ALPA rep (a liason, I think) in the audience. I can't remember his name or his title, but if you can track him down, he can vouch for this.

It is a complicated proposal. It is also in it's infancy. No one knows if AMR is even seriously considering it, or if they are stalling again. Before anyone rolls the AMR fear-grenade down the middle of the aisle, check with your MEC and get the straight story from someone who has been briefed.

 

[Publishers]

considering it

If that is the equation, then they (AMR) are stalling for they are not considering this.

 

[Britpilot]

Assume the position. This is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt by APA to take the seats of Eagle pilots under the banner of a SSL.
Like the other flow through/flow back it leans very heavily on the side of the mainline pilot. One sentance says it all "mianline pilots could only displace into commuter supplement CAPTAIN positions" Yes, can't have those mainline guys flying as FO's, can we, simply wouldn't do. After all, their jobs are much more valuable than a mere commuter pilot.

 

[surplus1]

Some AA pilots with whom I have exchanged comments tell me that 85% of the Eagle pilots support this proposal.

Is that true?

 

[Rick1128]

Surplus,

As an X-Metro Airlines pilot, the original American Eagle, how would an AA pilot even know? The two groups don't really talk with each other.

This proposal appears to be way too one sided. They are holding up the 'Major Carrier slot' carrot to the commuter pilots again.

You Eagle guys might want to think about a counter proposal. Like Eagle pilots have super seniority over the AA guys. You have first shot at any Captain opening at AA. That any AA furloughee can bid into an Eagle F/O position. And AA guys are stapled at the bottom of your senority list.

After all, fair is fair.

 

[dualrated]

I understand the paranoia. Eagle pilots have been on the wrong end of the whip from AMR, and ALPA National, and indirectly from APA for a long time.

What I don't understand is the panic. The way I see it, current Eagle pilots stand to gain more than they lose, even if they never want to fly larger jets than the ERJ. This concept would negate the 16 year nightmare of a contract that Jeff Brundage and ALPA National sold to y'all five years ago. I'm sure all the Eagle guys here can speak to the inadequacies of the current contract better than I can, but I think everyone agrees it's a disaster. I would think that getting out from under that CBA and into one closer to ComAir's would be seen as a huge advantage. If nothing else, it means a contract that's ammendable before the Bush twins reach menopause.

And the halting of outsourcing is another huge advantage. I don't want to open up the "STL RJs should/should not be Eagle" can of worms, but I know that whole thing has y'all p!ssed. Rightfully so. Not to mention the sale of Executive. This proposal can stop all that. AAL pilots don't want to live looking over our collective shoulder waiting for Eagle to scoop up more of our flying. And if I were an Eagle pilot, I wouldn't want to be worried about outfits like CHQ, that will work for cost plus 2%--or even worse a mini-Lorenzo like Ornstein and Freedumb--scooping up my flying. Look what is happening at CoEx with the props and to Comair at MCO.

I'm not saying that anyone, including AAL pilots, should close their eyes and hold their noses and sign something without a lot of careful scrutiny. What I *am* saying is that both AAL and Eagle pilots have a lot more to lose by standing around and doing nothing or hoping the economy fixes all this for us or hoping Uncle Don won't beat us too badly.


P.S. Publishers--tell me again what it is you do for a living?

---edited for typo's--never learned to type with more than two fingers.

 

[Publishers]

point

Ask yourself if you were the CEO for AMR and you had a long term labor contract with Eagle, had an assortment of other carriers that you can utilize in short term situations without any long term burden, were considering selling all or parts of Eagle, want to maximize your cash flow when we come out of the recession,

I would want this deal, I don't think so.

American pilots had the opportunity to sign a deal that mirrored UAL for the most part and refused it. The new deal that they will get will look nothing like that one.

 

[trainerjet]

P.S. Publishers--tell me again what it is you do for a living?

He passes off his opinions as fact.

 

[80drvr]

Re: point

.

American pilots had the opportunity to sign a deal that mirrored UAL for the most part and refused it. The new deal that they will get will look nothing like that one.

So when did we have this deal? I must have been asleep for that TA vote.

 

[dualrated]

Ask yourself if you were the CEO for AMR and you had a long term labor contract with Eagle, had an assortment of other carriers that you can utilize in short term situations without any long term burden, were considering selling all or parts of Eagle, want to maximize your cash flow when we come out of the recession....

Ask yourself if you were the CEO for AMR and had a huge portion of your wealth and compensation wrapped up in company stock, and you are hearing from your bankers that you need at least some labor peace in order to borrow cash against the airplanes you own that are rapidly declining in value because a few of the girls in your CEO club are about to liquidate theirs for pennies on the dollar. And imagine you are sitting across from an arbitrator that has already ruled against you once regarding your scope-ducking shenannigans and you may just lose the use of the bottom-feeder companies you've been using to abrogate the intent and the language of said scope clause. And imagine that you know that if you do lose, your "RJ world-domination plan" will be even further behind Delta's and their 49% domestic ASMs at DCI. Combine all this with an ego that won't fit into the Cotton Bowl (which doesn't have a roof) and the worry that the very real possibility of bankruptcy is looming over your portfolio and your "legacy"--the same legacy that bought tons of TWA capacity and debt at a time when even my mailman knew the airline market was getting very, very soft--and that you stand to become the *second* Carty brother to auger in an airline....and you *might* be willing to look and see what the pilots have come up with. Again, I don't know if they are serious about it, but they are at least politely listening instead of rejecting the concept with zero discussion like they did about a year ago.

American pilots had the opportunity to sign a deal that mirrored UAL for the most part and refused it. The new deal that they will get will look nothing like that one.

Ummm, okay. If you are talking about the company opener in August of 2001, you are way off. Otherwise, I don't know what you are talking about. As a matter of fact, I think neither of us knows what you are talking about!

 

[Publishers]

AMR

If you think this is how these guys think, good luck to you. AMR went to the APA and offered to do a contract very similar to UAL. That concept was rejected.

This is a subject that my American pilot friends talk about on the golf course all the time. They acknowlege that rejection looks pretty stupid as a hindsight event.

Sorry you get so worked up over this. In the end, who is right will be evident.

 

[3HOLER]

Publishers - once again you are blabbing about stuff wich you obviously don't have a freakin' clue about and as usual, you continue to look like an idiot. You are obviously an amateur and you need to keep you conversations with your "buddies" on the golf course to yourself because you are a dork and no one wants to listen to your crap! So shut the hell up unless you can contribute something meaningful to the thread. And have a nice day.

 

[dualrated]

Golly! I didn't know I was worked up. Maybe I should relax and spend some time out on the links with my AA pilot buddies who also have no idea what you are talking about! Let's see...four of us, plus you...that makes at least five people who have no idea what you are talking about.

Again, if you are talking about the opener in August of 2001, when Jeff Brundage tried to talk us into volunteering for "Baseball-Style Arbitration" in exchange for DAL +1% and no other details on scope or work rules, you are still way off. If you are talking about the post-sickout contract extension TA that was rejected, that didn't resemble UAL's contract either. Way, way off.

If you think this is how these guys think, good luck to you.

If you think CEO's don't make "business" decisions with an eye toward their own stock holdings, you haven't been watching the news in the past year or so.

In the end, who is right will be evident.

For the record, I haven't claimed to be right. I am neither optimistic nor pessimistic about APA's chances for getting the carriers combined. In fact, my lack of confidence in AMR's motives is what compelled you to chime in with your opinion (which was stated as fact)

This thread has crept far away from it's original subject, and I get to go fly for the next few days, so I'll let someone else wrap up Publisher and put him under the tree.

Merry Christmas to all...

 

[FEDUPPILOT]

Lets hope for the best and expect the worse! I hope santa leaves good news under the tree this year! We sure could use some! HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO ALL!!!

 

[Draginass]

Maybe everyone should wait until the negotiators iron out something that they think is presentable to both groups, then make judgements. Getting the blood up this early isn't useful. I think an agreement is possible between AA and AE pilots, but getting AMR on board is the hard part.

"Some AA pilots with whom I have exchanged comments tell me that 85% of the Eagle pilots support this proposal."

Given the early stage of the negotiations, I doubt if even 50% of AE pilots even know any details of anything, much less voice support for it. I dare say that a vast majority support the concept of integrating the pilots groups . . . . but then the devil is always in the details. They need to negotiate with their own self-interests at heart, just as the APA will.

 

[Publishers]

3holer

Once again someone has raised the intelligence quotia of this fine board.

Your right, the 30 years I have spent in aviation give me no voice in this when faced with the logic and presentation of professionals like you who resort to name calling and tell people to get off the board if they do not agree.

If I was wrong and it was DAL +1% and not UAL, I apologize. Nevertheless, there were offers that look good in hindsight.

Yes I think CEO's pay attention to the stock price. In fact, I can't think of any CEO of a public company that does not as that is what the shareholders pay him for.

It is sort of like a pilot. The passengers usually come out all right if the pilot and the aircraft come out all right. The pilot takes care of himself and his aircraft.

It is amazing how quick the employees of US saw the light and approved massive changes when faced with leadership that could not care less if the airline existed or was liquidated.

My position is that this proposal and anything like it is dead on arrival.