Eagle getting EMB-190

[eaglefly]

One of my points is that AMR doesn't need the best engine on the best airframe.

They want a stand-up cabin that can hop around the eastern half of the U.S at a reasonable speed (.78 or better) that has a lower seat/mile cost than a 44 seat jet or an F-100. The 170 can do this. Used in a regional cost structure they could actually run flights against SWA or JetBlue.

Will the product be as good as JetBlue ?

Of course not.

But AMR believes that their network (ff miles) and connection synergy will be enough to retain and even attract new customers.

Same idea their using to run Eagle RJ shuttle against competitor mainline.

Pax will see this as a mainline type A/C as opposed to a hunch down the isle RJ.

Over the next 5 years or so, the real growth will be the 70 and 90 seat "small jet". Mainline will still be there but will lose 25 % to this A/C . The only way management can (or be willing) to realize an acceptable profit margin with these A/C is under a regional cost structure.

I don't like it, but I'm convinced that's the way it will be.

Watch U Mid-Atlantic. They will utilize this and AA, UAL and DL will be forced to compete.

The inexpensive (relatively) mainline cabin RJ will be as common in 2 years as smaller RJ's are now.

In '94 everyone laughed at the small RJ (except Comair).

Look out any terminal window now. No ones laughing now (especially mainline ALPA).

History is about to play itself all over again.

..."Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it".

Swallow hard. AMR knows EXACTLY want they want and how to get it.

 

[surplus1]

Surplus,

While I enjoy reading your posts, sometimes it appears YOU really enjoy trying to put a wedge between pilot groups. I know why you feel the way you do, it just appears you have a great many of us labled which is rather sad considering your background and intelligence. To put it politely don't peddle your injustices to the world to our pilot group, you seem to have enough on your plate with Delta.

Sorry it comes across to you that I'm trying to put a wedge between pilot groups. In reality I want to remove the wedge. The difference comes in how we go about doing that.

The perspective of the overwhelming majority (not all) of the mainline pilot group appears to be one that is willing to remove the wedge, provided it is done their way and at the expense of folks like me. Sorry, but I won't ever buy that.

Removal of the wedge is not charity on the part of mainline pilots (which many seem to think it is). It is mutually beneficial to both groups. Keeping the wedge in place is mutually detrimental to both groups. If we are going to remove it then we must do it together. In my book, together means that the playing field is level and we decide jointly what the strategy will be. It does not mean that the mainline group simply dictates the procedure and the terms and we have to blissfully accept.

What I fight against is not individual pilots. I fight against the idea that one group can call the shots for the other without its consent. Those days, IMO, are gone hopefully forever. To that I say good riddance.

I have noticed more unity between pilots on the Eagle and AA side over here. You also have 408 current flow through guys waiting to come over to AA. This SCOPE clause also affects them.

If there is really more unity, I am pleased. I know about the flow through. Some like that, but wich "some" is it? Those that have benefited from it. It is good for a percentage of senior AE pilots at the expense of the majority of AE pilots. Again I'm sorry, but I could never recommend that system to my pilot group. So far it (my group) has thankfully rejected that idea and I sincerely hope they will continue to do so. In other words, the terms of your flow through, would be totally unacceptable to us. It would never have been signed and it wasn't.

The scope clause affects the future of many that may want to fly something larger than a 70 seater for minimal pay and no pension. Not everyone like yourself is happy where they are at.

Actually my opinions have nothing at all to do with being "happy" where I'm at. They also have nothing to do with who wants to fly something bigger. The present Scope clause format is, in my opinion, detrimental to the Company and detrimental to both pilot groups. It has created the very wedge that you think I want to maintain.

The situation at AMR is admittedly different from that of my carrier. The reason for that is the existence of two separate labor unions on your property. AA Scope is legal, but I nevertheless think it is misguided, because it attempts to exclude and has created two airlines owned by the same Company. It is the cause of the conflicts of interest between pilot groups and needs to be changed. I am not advocating no Scope. Scope is essential, but the kind that you have in place is to put it bluntly, stupid. It helps no one and has created a mess.

In the ALPA scenario the effect of the similar Scope clauses is just as detrimental to both groups. Additionally, it's legality is highly questionable due to the fact that a single labor union represents both parties. It is not possible for that union (ALPA) to represent fairly the interests of both parties when it unilaterally negotiates Scope for one of the parties that damages the careers of the other. Again, that type of scope is the cause of the mess that we have and has created the wedge that will continue to divide us until it is changed. All the "honey" in the world will not alter that reality.

When two airlines are owned and operated by one Company, the type of Scope currently in place serves no purpose other than to divide the pilot groups and give management the upper hand at the bargaining table. The evidence of that is everywhere, you don't have to take my word for it.

As for not getting anything, boy that sounds just like the group YOU hate so much. The "whats in it for me attitude". There are 408 guys with numbers and another 200 that have already flowed through. (barring the events of 9-11 they would all be flying for us now) 25% currently of a pilot group going to mainline is something.

I don't hate any group. If you think that you are mistaken. However, I don't play second fiddle to any group either. The problem I have with "attitudes" is related to the attitude of those who think that I should be subservient to their whims. I'm not asking for favors and don't want any. A solution to our mutual problems is beneficial to both of us, not just to my side. I don't want "something for nothing", but I'm not going to give you something for nothing either.

Maybe I do have a "what's in it for me" attitude. Are you really trying to tell me that I should believe the other side does not? Remember, my side didn't write the Scope that excludes the others. They wrote the scope that attempts not only to exclude me from what is "theirs", but also to take from me what is mine.

If you believe that I should accept the idea that it is OK for that other side to take from me so that they may give to themselves, you will have an endless wait. I'm not trying to take from anyone but I'm not going to passively allow anyone to take from me, no matter what they think of my attitude.

If you would like to share what we jointly have, that's fine with me. Let's sit together and work out the details of how we will do that. Don't expect to dictate those details. On the other hand, if you do not want to share, that's OK with me too. In that case we will just continue to fight until one or the other prevails.

My friend I bare no animosity towards any pilot group. However, I will not allow myself to simply be stepped on by anyone. As long as you believe that you can step wherever you choose, including on my tail, then we will have differences. If you get bitten it will be your fault for not paying attention to where you step.

I flew up to JFK the other day through DCA on Eagle, the crew was great, they both treated me with respect as I did with them, THAT is the norm here not an isolated event. I wish the best for my Eagle brother and sisters as I once flew there. Still hoping some type of single list and combined flying could be had.

If you chose to ride on my airplane you would not only be welcome, you would also be treated with respect. That is the norm in my house (Comair) and is also the norm when I ride on Delta. That has nothing to do with the differences between us. The jumpseat is common professional courtesy and should never involve politics.

Thanks again to the wrong kind of Scope, we may well have come to the point where one list is of no benefit whatever to folks like me. For example, if we did that tomorrow it would simply mean that every one of my group would be standing on the sidelines and waving as others flew away in our aircraft. That kind of a "good deal" we can do without.

That is why I say that we cannot solve this difficulty with unilateral decisions from one side of the fence. Whatever we do we must do together or not at all. I don't think that divisive or creating a wedge.

P.S. Before you attack me, look what you wrote. Can you understand why people get upset with you. We both agreed earlier that you catch more flies with honey. You could do a lot more good and have a vast amount more listen if you were not so derogatory. AAflyer

There is no reason to attack you. I don't see you as an enemy even if we disagree. However, I will attack your ideas and I will defend my ideas. I expect you to do the same.

The only thing that I wrote that had anything to do with our differences was the last paragraph. I fail to see how or why you find it "derogatory".

There is a history of the relationship between the AA group and the AE group. I did not write that history. I just happen to know what it is. There is also a "proposal" on the table, made public by the AA group. I think that proposal is a wolf in sheep's clothing. While I do not expect AMR to accept it in that format, in my opinion, it would be of zero benefit to the AE group and great detriment.

I know that you call it a "one list" proposal, but I have read it. It's one list all right, the only problem being that if you get it your way there won't be any Eagle pilots on that one list. If you think that's somehow "good" for them, more power to ya. I think it would be a disaster for them.

It may upset you, but I see that proposal as a means to transfer the AE aircraft and flying to AA pilots and leave the AE pilots holding the bag. I do not see it as a merger of your lists.

You could say it's none of my business since I don't work for either airline. Unfortunately, if something like that flys at AMR in short order we would be facing the same concept here. Therefore, it is my business. My pilot group could never accept such a proposal.

So, I think the AE pilots should lookout for themselves, just as the AA pilots are looking out for themselves. I fail to understand what part of that you find derogatory.

What's a "fair" deal? Any deal to which we mutually agree, without preconditions.

What's an unfair deal? Any deal that is unilaterally decided by one group to be "best" for the other.

Regards to you.

 

[DoinTime]

They want a stand-up cabin that can hop around the eastern half of the U.S at a reasonable speed (.78 or better) that has a lower seat/mile cost than a 44 seat jet or an F-100. The 170 can do this.

The 170 has a MMO of .80. I seriously doubt it will be able to sustain cruise speeds anywhere near this. I bet the 170 is going to be a .70-.74 aircraft.

The 170 will probably acheive a lower seat mile cost than the F-100 or any 50 seater but it will always be high when compared to the A320 or 737's.

 

[Bluto]

Why would you expect that? The E-145 has a .78 MMO and it overspeeds easily if you don't watch it. I'm interested in your rationale.