Just How would APA do this?Eagle Jets?

[surplus1]

Many of you who are on the "outside" are arguing apples against oranges.

AA pilots are not ALPA. ALPA national can't assist them in the screwing of "lesser pilots", otherwise they already would have done so, a'la J4J. ALPA has only one dog in this fight - and this fight is not between APA and Eagle ALPA.

Eagle ALREADY has 140 RJ's and contractual rights to fly them. The APA knows the ONLY way to get the current Eagle RJ's is to accept the pilots with them. Previously (prior to the sick-out), the APA offered to fly the RJ's for what the Eagle pilots were flying them in a last ditch effort to get them on their property (even sent their guys over to the Eagle hanger in DFW to "asses" them) using Eagle F/A's, MTX and ramp. AMR wasn't interested.

Yes sir, I am indeed an "outsider" in that I am not an Eagle pilot. However, whatever happens on your property will affect what happens on mine, and vice versa. Neither one of us may like that but it is nevertheless true. Therefore, I'm not as much on the outside as you infer.

I am very much aware of the differences between the APA and the ALPA. I am also aware of the ALPA's active efforts to first solicit enough "cards" to bring about an election (which failed and was abandoned) and second, the current effort to actively pursue a merger with the APA.

Whether you choose to believe it or not, ALPA will readily abandon the Eagle pilots if it has to choose between them and a merger with the APA. Meanwhile, ALPA will do nothing on behalf of Eagle that could alienate the APA. If you do not understand that I'm sorry for you.

I am also familiar with the APA proposal with respect to Eagle. You can see what I think of it by reading my comments to AAFlyer if you wish.

Your statement with regard to the APA's previous effort to place the 70-seat jets at AA is not fully accurate. The truth is that the APA and AMR reached an agreement (TA) on that. It was not rejected by AMR, it was rejected by a vote of the AA pilot group. I think that proves rather conclusively that if the deal is right, AMR would accept it. Apparently they thought that deal was "right" or a TA would not have been reached.

Yes, I'm an "outsider" but I'm not ignorant of public events that affect our industry. Neither am I ignorant of union politics.

I'm not asking you to accept my opinions. I'm certain you have the ability to choose for yourself. Here's hoping you'll see fit to protect your own interests, 'cause the only interests that current APA proposal protects are those of the AA pilots.

The APA and Eagle ALPA both are aware that any solution to the outsourcing/whipsawing problem MUST come from cooperation and agreement from both sides.

You'll get no argument from me with the idea that the pilot groups should work together. I'm all for cooperation and agreement but the devil is in the details. Just be careful what you "agree" to. You just had an excellent example of what "agreement" can mean at the USAir Gruop wholly owned subsidiaries. If the equivalent is what you want, I offer condolences.

I apologize for my paranoia. Someone said that when you know they're out to get you, paranoia may not be a bad idea. GWB seems to understand that with reference to Iraq. Perhaps you should take a second look with reference to the APA and for that matter, the ALPA as well. The career you have to save is your own.

 

[TWA Dude]

If I may expand on surplus1 a little. The way the APA and ALPA treated the ex-TWA pilots leaves me with little doubt about how unions are working for pilots: it's every man for himself, and it's JUST BUSINESS. ALPA wants more high dues-paying members so that's what they'll go for (at least until they're broken apart by the courts). APA wants to get its furloughees flying again so RJs is what it's going for. At least the APA BOD and the Eagle MEC are talking about possible deals.

I wish I could say that all pilots are looking out for each other but it just ain't the case. I and thousands of other pilots are unemployed now and it's dog-eat-dog out there. Most mainline pilots believe that RJs are a threat to their livilihoods so of course they're doing whatever they can to control them. If the result is fewer jobs for the Small Jet pilots than I'm sorry, but it ain't personal. I encourage everyone to fight for what's best for their careers, and good luck.

 

[surplus1]

I wish I could say that all pilots are looking out for each other but it just ain't the case. I and thousands of other pilots are unemployed now and it's dog-eat-dog out there. Most mainline pilots believe that RJs are a threat to their livilihoods so of course they're doing whatever they can to control them. If the result is fewer jobs for the Small Jet pilots than I'm sorry, but it ain't personal. I encourage everyone to fight for what's best for their careers, and good luck.

Unfortunately, a lot of what you say is true and reflected in the attitudes of mainline pilots. They have, IMO, created a conflict of interest where it was not necessary.

As long as mainline pilots maintain the attitude you express, i.e., "If the result is fewer jobs for the Small Jet pilots than I'm sorry, but it ain't personal" , you in fact make it personal. You see, that small jet pilot happens to be me. While I regret that you have lost your job, I'm not about to let you take my job and make it your replacement.

The idea that you think you should be able to do that and that I should agree that it's OK, creates the conflict between us. We could solve this problem by working together, but we can't seem to agree on what "working together" means.

From my perspective (speaking in generalities) the mainline pilot defines "working together" as: what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine. That will never fly with folks like me.

My group will indeed fight for our careers. We may lose the fight but by the time its over your group will surely know that you've been in a fight. This one will be no holds barred. Like you say, it's not personal, it's just business.

 

[eaglefly]

Surplus, lets gets some FACTS stright.

1.) You have not been and are not now privy to whats occuring at AA/Eagle with regard to outsourcing.

2.) You DO NOT have ANY idea of what is happening inside the APA MEC(neither do I).

3.) You DO NOT have ANY idea of what is happening inside the Eagle MEC.

4.) You DO NOT have ANY idea what has been discussed between our two MEC's.

You're making sweeping assumptions on things you HAVE READ IN THE MEDIA. You are then turning your assumptions into likelyhoods and/or certaintys based on YOUR interprtation of what you have read.

If you would reread my post , you'll note that my statements regarding AMR interest was in regard to ALL RJ's and was PRIOR to ANY RJ hitting Eagle property. Yes, AMR was willing to sacrifice the 70-seater at Eagle (two years after Eagle got jets). But it was IN EXCHANGE for Eagles ability to operate MANY more 50 seaters with less restrictions (which AMR requested - MORE RJ's at Eagle with LESS restrictions). AMR would not have placed 70-seaters at mainline but would have leased them out or sold them. Too expensive at mainline costs.

I assume this weekend you'll go to a football game and from the upper deck, angrily declare to those around you that you don't like what your team is saying in the huddle down on the field.

Most at Eagle see the light perfectly well. We are under NO illusion that the APA will represent the interests of its membership first. But the APA is aware that the pilots at Eagle have some contractual rights on this issue as well and a strong-arm takeover won't work.

breath deeply, clean the saliva off your keyboard and accept the fact that in this situation...........

...you have NO idea.

 

[surplus1]

Surplus, lets gets some FACTS stright.

1.) You have not been and are not now privy to whats occuring at AA/Eagle with regard to outsourcing.

2.) You DO NOT have ANY idea of what is happening inside the APA MEC(neither do I).

3.) You DO NOT have ANY idea of what is happening inside the Eagle MEC.

4.) You DO NOT have ANY idea what has been discussed between our two MEC's.

1. Almost everyone with any real knowledge of the industry and the internal workings of the ALPA is privy to what's occuring with regard to outsourcing, not only at AA/Eagle but everywhere else. It's really not the mystery you seem to think it is.

2. You are correct, I do not know what is happening inside the APA (which by the way has no MEC, its the BOD), I only know their public proposals. However, while I don't know just as you admit you don't know, I have no shortage of ideas.

3. Lot's of people have many ideas of what is happening inside the Eagle MEC. Those ideas are much more than innuendo. Remember, you're in ALPA and whether you know it or not, your representatives talk. Other people listen. In addition, your MEC has a history that is not exactly secret.

4. Wrong, I do have several ideas about what has been discussed between your two MEC's. Your MEC has made several of its "discussions" public. ALPA has issued press releases about it. Further, your MEC has exchanged ideas with other MEC's. A lot of "ideas" can be developed by listening.

Now what exactly is the axe that you have to grind with me? Are you upset because I think regional pilots should defend their rights? If that's your problem, you'll just have to live with it.

Are you upset because I think mainline pilot groups want to solve their own probems by taking from regional pilot groups? If that's your problem, tough. That's what I beleive and until I am shown otherwise, I'll continue to express my views. The evidence is there for everyone to judge. You go ahead and make your judgements, I have no problem with your opinions. If you can't deal with my opinions, then punt. Can't punt, then ignore me. I assure you I won't mind.

You're making sweeping assumptions on things you HAVE READ IN THE MEDIA. You are then turning your assumptions into likelyhoods and/or certaintys based on YOUR interprtation of what you have read.

You're entitled to your opinion my friend, but I think you are making a lot of assumptions yourself about what I read in the media or how I interpret it. The truth is I put very little credence in the media about anything. My opinions are based on personal experience, not media hype, not forum hype and not ALPA propaganda.

I assume this weekend you'll go to a football game and from the upper deck, angrily declare to those around you that you don't like what your team is saying in the huddle down on the field.

If you make that assumption, feel free to add it to the list of inaccurate assumptions that you have already made.

If you feel that my opinions with respect to the ALPA are erroneous presumptions, then go ahead and refute them. I think there is enough history and enough evidence to support my presumptions in that regard.

Most at Eagle see the light perfectly well. We are under NO illusion that the APA will represent the interests of its membership first. But the APA is aware that the pilots at Eagle have some contractual rights on this issue as well and a strong-arm takeover won't work.

I certainly hope your "assumptions" are correct. Time will tell.

It would be a violation of their feduciary responsibility to their membership.

Recognize that quote? It's what you wrote. I responded by saying "If that thought wasn't so sad it would be funny. Tell me when ALPA has NOT violated its feduciary responsibility to its regional pilot members. They will do it again and you will be the victims."

If you disagree, then why didn't you attempt to refute that. Come up with some times when ALPA hasn't done that. Make your case. Instead, you responded by telling me that my "drooling Paranoia won't fly." Surley you can do better than slurs? Give me some substance instead of simplistic rhetoric.

I have already said that the Eagle pilots could decide for themselves. I merely hoped that this time you would indeed see the light and not repeat the types of decisions that you have been duped, by ALPA, into making in the past and are now noted for. Instead of convincing me that you will not repeat your past mistakes you appear to be working overtime at proving that you just might. If I was not concerned in the past, you're giving me reasons why I should be in the future.

breath deeply, clean the saliva off your keyboard and accept the fact that in this situation........... you have NO idea.

There you go again. Do you have some sort of fixation with drool and saliva?

While you may disagree with me which again is your right and a right that I respect, the truth is I know quite a bit about "this situation". A great deal more than just having an idea and, at the very least, as much as you.

Again, I wish you and all the Eagle pilots well and sincerely hope that you will "see the light" in time to stop your "friends" in high places from screwing you more than they already have.

Just beware so that this time they don't kiss you and tell you how much they love you before they fork you. (Sorry about my bad spelling).

Regards

 

[skydiverdriver]

I really didn't mean what I said before. One list would make the sale of Eagle more difficult? Does that make any sense? Why would they sell a part of American? Of course it would make it impossible. That's the whole point silly.

 

[Publishers]

for sale

If AMR did one list, it would make the sale of Eagle harder if not impossible.

 

[seagle]

I believe that Eagle ALPA must move cautiously on this one. AMR once offered the CRJ's to APA as previously stated and we all know that history has a way of repeating itself! "Divide and Conquer" can once again come into play and let's be very honest here. If APA was offered the CRJ's and possibly all the ERJ's they would take them in a heart beat. And I really couldn't blame APA, they too must watch out for their pilot group. It is a very tenuous time at AMR and I hope both pilot groups (APA & ALPA) will work very closely together on this one and do RIGHT for both pilot groups. There are great possibilities for both pilot groups and I can only hope that greed stays out of the equation.

 

[trainerjet]

Therefore, I'm not as much on the outside as you infer.

The writer/speaker implies...(strongly suggests, insinuates)
The reader/listener infers.....(deduces, concludes)

 

[surplus1]

The writer/speaker implies...(strongly suggests, insinuates)
The reader/listener infers.....(deduces, concludes)

Thank you. You are correct. In this case the reader (eaglefly) both deduced and concluded, i.e., inferred.

Now that we agree, do you have anything constructive to contribute or do you simply wish to be petty?