That's not quite true.
IF Eagle is divested (most likely thru a spinoff to the shareholders), AMR has repeatedly said Eagle will maintain a relationship feeding AA and that is a certainty. However, as a seprate company not owned by AMR, it could purchase another certificate and fly whatever they want as a stand-alone carrier under THAT certificate. It didn't work for ACA becasue they relied on money losing 50-seaters and were on their own without a hidden interest from a deep pockets corporation. Express Jet has some of the same problems.
In effect, the new Eagle Holdings, Inc. (EHI) would own two airlines, one feeding AA under scope restrictions and one COMPETING WITH or flying former AA routes PURCHASED from AA. AMR would then likely get a second feeder elsewhere to take over some of the current Eagle routes flown by former Eagle aircraft in order reenact the whipsaw strategy of the past.
AA would shrink to flying long range domestic and International being fed by two "Commuter air carriers" within scope restrictions and shareholders would own and cash in on a new short/medium range high frequency low-cost domestic operation using cheaply flown 100-seaters.
That way AA's high labor costs would be contained in more profitable operations, a new carrier owned by the current shareholders would cash-in on the profitable new carrier and the regional feed to AA would be whipsawable with much cheaper labor with staggered contracts and associated threats every few years.
In this scenario the only losers are the employees of AA and Eagle, with the possible exception of the more senior Eagle pilots who would be flying 100 seaters for what they now fly 50.
Perhaps this scenario is what the APA fears.
Last edited:
