Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Eagle TA
- Thread starter Iflyamouse
- Start date
- Watchers 10
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
LAX FastRead
October 24, 2011
Fellow LA Pilots:
We have reached a critical stage in our negotiations with the Company. Last week, the Company agreed to begin putting our final proposal into language. The MEC was advised by the leadership that we would develop the language first, then decide whether to TA the proposal and send it out for pilot ratification. As you can see by this week’s MEC message, we were misled. The Company immediately put out a message indicating that we have a deal, followed by a message from the MEC leadership indicating the same.
Herb and I both believe that any deal we reach with the Company should live and die solely on its merits. We have repeatedly directed the MEC leadership to refrain from selling the deal and from using scare tactics to support a “yes” vote. All you need to do is read their recent message to see that our direction has fallen on deaf ears.
The following is our correction to last week’s message:
A number of pilots commented that AA cannot possibly bid out jet feed that quickly, but our internal analysis shows that it is possible, especially in the early years, which are most critical to Eagle. What is necessary for Eagle’s long-term survivability is the ability to grow and acquire flying elsewhere in the industry to offset any decrease in AA flying. Unfortunately, the current ASA contains such a rapid decrease in AA feed flying that it does not guarantee sufficient time to win feed contracts with other airlines.
Other pilots have commented that AA cannot afford to have Eagle fail. Although there is some validity to that comment, it is true only for the period of time necessary for AA to diversify its feed to other providers. Once again, our analysis shows that there is sufficient capacity available from our competitors to accomplish AA’s feed-diversification goal at a rate quicker than Eagle may be able to tolerate. In fact, upon the announcement of Eagle’s divestiture, a number of regional airlines inquired about bidding for AA feed flying.
In reality, the MEC has not been presented with any evidence to support the “internal analysis” done by the MEC office. We have only been told that other carriers are interested in our flying. When I inquired how other carriers had an excess of pilots and capacity, the leadership’s response was that several carriers were engaged in pro-rate flying which could easily be abandoned for more lucrative fee-for-departure flying. The regional industry typically does two types of flying: fee-for-departure and pro-rate. Fee-for-departure pays the carrier a flat rate to travel between points regardless of passenger count. In a pro-rate arrangement, the contract carrier income is based on the revenue generated on the route. No revenue equals no profit and potentially a loss. The percentage of pro-rate flying done in the regional world is a small fraction of the flying we currently do for American. Don’t be afraid of a straw man.
With respect to the impact on the LAX and JFK domiciles under the seniority wage band concept, every Captain in these domiciles will receive a raise. This is because the LAX- and JFK-based Captains’ seniority falls within either the CRJ Wage Band and they already fly the EMJ. Therefore, all Captains in these domiciles will now receive either CRJ pay, seniority permitting, or EMB-145 pay despite the fact that the CRJ and EMJ-145 are not operated in those domiciles.
The leadership chose to single out our domicile because Herb and I have shown opposition to the “deal.” They believe that the vast majority of our pilot group adamantly supports the path we have taken. They say that we tend to only hear from the 10 percent of the group who would complain regardless of what was on the table. Herb and I have engaged better than 2/3 of our pilots in LA. Your message has been consistent, and we have taken that message back to the MEC table. The reference to all LA captains is an attempt to appeal directly to you with the belief that you will say “Wow, I get a raise?! Where do I sign?!” There are several negative effects related to the wage band concept that you will not see in any MEC message. For example, if the Company finally opens a CRJ base in LAX, those pilots in the EMB seniority band will still receive EMB pay while a pilot seven years junior to you will be sitting on ready reserve being paid at CRJ rates because they were grandfathered while based in Chicago or N.Y.
If the MEC approves the final language of the deal, it will be sent out to you for ratification. There are many positive elements and many negative elements to this deal. In a nutshell, we are purchasing a longer term ASA with American with a seven-year extension to our contract. Herb and I encourage you to think critically, see through the spin, and make a well-informed decision. We are both available to answer any questions you may have.
Fraternally,
HM
BS
Flyby1206
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2004
- Posts
- 1,088
Do you think scope will allow larger, smaller, or the same sized aircraft being currently flown at the carrier?
Also from what I can tell this Eagle TA isnt true longevity pay, it is seniority pay. Depending upon your relative seniority among captains that will determine what payscale you are on.
Example- Lets say there are only 10 Captains at the company. The top 3 will get the CRJ payscale, the next 6 will get the ERJ payscale and the bottom 1 will get ATR payscale, regardless of what plane they are actually flying. So there will still be three different payscales (CRJ, ERJ, ATR) and depending on your seniority you will move from ATR to ERJ to CRJ pay when the people above you leave.
Last edited:
October 25, 2011
Fellow DFW Pilots,
After impassioned pleas by our chairman, vice chairman, and Negotiating Committee, the concessionary TA so long promised and labored over by our MEC leadership passed on Tuesday 9 to 4. Management had an enviable task; they could insist on the concessions that they were proposing or accept the concessions that ALPA was proposing. With our MEC leadership’s willingness to negotiate away any objectionable item, the proposed TA was resurrected, and the MEC was going to vote until it passed.
You need to be aware of what will happen in the next couple of weeks and months. You also need to be aware of what you may see and hear from both the MEC officers and management
With the passage of the agreement in principle, the bullet points passed between our negotiators and management will take the form of contractual language. That document, when completed, will be the one that the MEC will first have to vote on. Typically, a tentative agreement requiring membership ratification will indicate the level of support for the agreement by the MEC. If the TA passes the MEC, it should include a positive, neutral, or negative recommendation. We are less than amused that a few members of the MEC passed this agreement based on their view that this was the democratic process in action. It is the responsibility of the MEC to pass only an agreement that is truly beneficial to the pilots—not an agreement that contains the best concessions that pilots could vote for.
If the agreement is ratified, it will then be placed before the pilot group for a vote. Historically this process would take several months; but with both parties professing a “shared obligation,” and as closely as our MEC leadership has worked with management to bring this to completion, it is likely to occur much more quickly. Upon completion, the MEC leadership will start conducting “road shows” in an effort to convince you to vote for the TA. The company has already announced a series of road shows, which will undoubtedly espouse all of the benefits of the TA.
In the coming weeks you may also be the recipients of numerous varied and concerted attempts to frighten you into voting to pass the TA. It is left to us to offer an academic and unemotional counter-opinion—to illuminate the negatives that accompany this TA.
Once the bullet points are made available, Kelly, James, and I will break apart the TA section by section. We will tell you the good, the bad, and the ugly. In the end, understanding the facts and distinguishing them from the emotional and fearful pleas of the proponents of the TA will be key. We hope to make it clear why we voted no on two separate occasions.
We have an assignment for each of you who were not here in 1997. Seek out one of our senior pilots and have him/her explain to you what happened to our pilot group in 1997. Likewise, if you were here in 1997, talk with your first officers and tell him/her what your experience was after both ALPA and the company told you that any airline that didn’t vote for the agreement would not get the new jets and the flow-through to AA.
I will close with the immortal words of Sir Winston Churchill; “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
Respectfully,
Your Council 83 officers:
Fellow DFW Pilots,
After impassioned pleas by our chairman, vice chairman, and Negotiating Committee, the concessionary TA so long promised and labored over by our MEC leadership passed on Tuesday 9 to 4. Management had an enviable task; they could insist on the concessions that they were proposing or accept the concessions that ALPA was proposing. With our MEC leadership’s willingness to negotiate away any objectionable item, the proposed TA was resurrected, and the MEC was going to vote until it passed.
You need to be aware of what will happen in the next couple of weeks and months. You also need to be aware of what you may see and hear from both the MEC officers and management
With the passage of the agreement in principle, the bullet points passed between our negotiators and management will take the form of contractual language. That document, when completed, will be the one that the MEC will first have to vote on. Typically, a tentative agreement requiring membership ratification will indicate the level of support for the agreement by the MEC. If the TA passes the MEC, it should include a positive, neutral, or negative recommendation. We are less than amused that a few members of the MEC passed this agreement based on their view that this was the democratic process in action. It is the responsibility of the MEC to pass only an agreement that is truly beneficial to the pilots—not an agreement that contains the best concessions that pilots could vote for.
If the agreement is ratified, it will then be placed before the pilot group for a vote. Historically this process would take several months; but with both parties professing a “shared obligation,” and as closely as our MEC leadership has worked with management to bring this to completion, it is likely to occur much more quickly. Upon completion, the MEC leadership will start conducting “road shows” in an effort to convince you to vote for the TA. The company has already announced a series of road shows, which will undoubtedly espouse all of the benefits of the TA.
In the coming weeks you may also be the recipients of numerous varied and concerted attempts to frighten you into voting to pass the TA. It is left to us to offer an academic and unemotional counter-opinion—to illuminate the negatives that accompany this TA.
Once the bullet points are made available, Kelly, James, and I will break apart the TA section by section. We will tell you the good, the bad, and the ugly. In the end, understanding the facts and distinguishing them from the emotional and fearful pleas of the proponents of the TA will be key. We hope to make it clear why we voted no on two separate occasions.
We have an assignment for each of you who were not here in 1997. Seek out one of our senior pilots and have him/her explain to you what happened to our pilot group in 1997. Likewise, if you were here in 1997, talk with your first officers and tell him/her what your experience was after both ALPA and the company told you that any airline that didn’t vote for the agreement would not get the new jets and the flow-through to AA.
I will close with the immortal words of Sir Winston Churchill; “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
Respectfully,
Your Council 83 officers:
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
