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

Letter from Eagle To ALPA. More BULL!!!!

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


Well-known member
Feb 5, 2002
RE: 14 EMB's

I have received many messages concerning the recent announcement about 14 of our EMB 145's going to Trans States.

I want to share a copy of the letter that V.P. Mike Costello sent to Captain Herbert Mark, regarding this issue. I understand everyone's concern regarding this matter and will provide any information I can. I think this letter provides some good background surrounding the issues and why the airplanes must leave Eagle.


July 19, 2002

Via fax and US Mail

Captain Herbert Mark
Chairman, Eagle MEC
Air Line Pilots Association
1001 W. Euless Blvd., Suite 415
Euless, TX 78040

Dear Captain Mark,

I was surprised to receive your letter dated July 17, 2002 where you express your opposition to our plan to remove 14 EMB-145 aircraft from our fleet.

You letter suggests you believe our selling or otherwise removing aircraft from the Eagle fleet invokes the "Successorship" language found under Section 1. D. of our agreement. While you don’t specify the exact language on which you rely, I must assume you refer to the language which states: "In the event the Company sells or transfers all or a part of the operations covered by this agreement, the Company will, as a condition of such sale or transfer afford the opportunity for pilots who are transferred with such operations to return to the Company…."

I remember the first time we briefed ALPA on our initial jet aircraft orders. In fact, we have held numerous discussions and briefings with ALPA concerning our initial firm orders for fifty EMB-145 and twenty-five CRJ-700 aircraft. From the outset, ALPA was aware of the 67 aircraft cap specified in the AA/APA agreement. We discussed the fact that our order of 75 aircraft exceeded the cap, and advised ALPA of our plan to remove aircraft from our fleet at some point in the future in order to comply with the cap – all without any objection from ALPA! To my knowledge, ALPA has never taken the position that the removal of aircraft from our fleet would constitute the sale of an "operation" and thereby trigger the "Successorship" language.

Following our initial order of jet aircraft, jets with fewer than 45 seats became available and we added many of these smaller jets to our fleet. This allows us to operate considerably more jet aircraft than were ever envisioned when we reached our agreement in 1997. In fact, today we have over 130 jet aircraft, almost double the 67 jet aircraft we initially advised ALPA to expect before aircraft with less than 45 seats became available.

Page 2

Complying with the 67 aircraft cap by returning EMB 145’s is nothing new, ALPA has been aware of this plan from day one. Additionally, I am sure you are aware that since our agreement was reached in 1997, we have removed many aircraft from our fleet by either selling them or by returning them to the manufacturer. Former Eagle aircraft are flying at other carriers and not once has ALPA attempted to invoke the "Successorship" language or complain about these transactions. To now claim that a former Eagle aircraft flown by another carrier is somehow in violation of the agreement seems inconsistent with ALPA’s past positions and expectations.

I do appreciate your concerns, and I can assure you the removal of aircraft from our fleet is not something we take lightly. Frankly, it is also something we would like to avoid. I believe our interests are aligned, we both want to grow Eagle into the largest operator of regional jets, however, we are unable to do so under the existing circumstances. We have no choice but to operate Eagle consistent with not only the 67 aircraft cap, but also with the ASM cap triggered by the AA furloughs.

While there are also other reasons for our belief that there has been no violation of Section 1. D., a lengthy and argumentative letter at this time would make our efforts to work together more difficult. With the hope of making the best of a distasteful situation, I look forward to sitting down to discuss our respective views on this matter. Hopefully, we can work through this together, and find a way to get back on our growth plan.

75 - 67 = 8
Why is Eagle giving TSA 14 jets instead of 8 that would be required to stay under the 67 jet cap??
We discussed the fact that our order of 75 aircraft exceeded the cap, and advised ALPA of our plan to remove aircraft from our fleet at some point in the future in order to comply with the cap – all without any objection from ALPA!

Ummmm......yeah, but at that time there also was no plan to keep those RJs doing feed to American through any "American Connection" nor "reverse code-share." :mad: :mad:

It always surprises me how management seems to think everyone but them is so utterly stupid. Stupid enough to believe the blatant crap they put out.

Latest resources