Trouble at AMR

[G4G5]

Continued

~~
Couple of other points :

-Going to be A LOT more than 1500 mainline furloughs (especially, when Baseball-Style Arbitration becomes a reality).

G4G5’s reply
With the 1500 number I am dealing in facts. Could it be more, absolutely (let’s hope not). Could it be less, absolutely? As you can see section 6 for us is nowhere in site, so don’t put all your eggs in a baseball cap. What happens if UAL and/or U go ch7 in the next 6 months? Or the economy turns for the better? Both realistic possibilities. Or War and the economy sours? 1500 is what’s planned for this year, let’s not try to predict the future. Even one furloughed pilot is too many, that’s my point, and unless you have a better plan, the one list concept is the quickest way to get guys back, on both sides.

One fact that I can tell you is our furloughed pilots are tied to your growth (scope) so what’s good for us is good for Eagle and what’s bad for us is……….

~~
Get pay rates up ? OhhhhKaayyy, yep, thats exactly what Carty wants. You just keep right on believing that.

G4G5’s reply.
Try to think big picture, Carty wants to see his revenue go up. Cutting pay rates and fleet size makes market share go down. With the current Scope clause he is being hindered. If he has to give a pay increase to get X number of additional 50/70/90/100/110 RJs he will be glad to do it IF he can make his revenue and market share increase by Y%. That’s what they are sitting down to discuss now. He is telling the APA what he wants and what he is willing to pay and the APA is telling him what they will give back and what pay rate(bennies, work rules) they want. Either side can say, no and walk away. Then pay rates stay the same and for Carty so does the number of Eagle RJ’s. You can’t make money flying aircraft you don’t have. Again that’s what this is all about getting more flying for both sides.


~~
But to Reiterate, FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME, I AND MOST EAGLE PILOTS DO BELIEVE A "ONE-LIST" SCENARIO IS GOOD FOR ALL PARTIES, BUT THE STIPULATIONS IN THE CURRENT PROPOSAL ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE.

What is there about that statement that you do not understand ?

G4G5’s reply,
Nothing. My answer is that it has not been completed, AMR and the APA are still negotiating. For the umpteenth time the proposal is better then your current 12 year contract.

The proposal:
Gets rid of reverse code sharing
Stops the sale of executive
Improves the flow through.
Gets a pay raise
Improves quality of life and benefits
Gets our furloughed pilots back quicker
Allows for growth at Eagle and AA mainline

Do you deny this?
~~
-Why are only the APA and AMR negotiating ? Maybe you should ask the APA that. Again, you imply we at Eagle are just "afterthoughts" and should just hold on to Daddy's trouser leg as he walks aroung the house. I'm pointing out contractual protections we have that allow us to have a say in our futures. You refuse to accpet that and cover your ears while saying, "LAAH,LAAH,LAAH, LAAH".

G4G5’s reply
I imply nothing. Eagle is not invited for a variety of reasons.
You don’t have a Scope clause that concerns AMR mgt, so you have nothing to give back in order to negotiate with or you would have been invited.
Your MEC has done nothing to try and improve the situation, no plans to help improve AMR’s bottom line, or you would have been invited.
While you seem to feel that Carty needs the Eagle pilot approval to shift flying and aircraft, he does not, or you would have been invited.
That was my point, by the virtue of the fact that Eagle is not at the table it should tell you that he can do what he wants with your assets, the APA can not. While you think the one list is a screw job so be it, it’s not. The APA has the power to: Negotiate all 70/90/100/110 seat flying with or without Eagle. They can give scope relief on the 50 seater in turn for all new ERJ 170 series flying, which is above 75K#. Then can negotiate pay rates and do it all without Eagle, and you can keep your contract for the next 12 year, which is what it sounds like you want. That’s fine with me, I think it hurts the Eagle pilot(you miss out on a great opportunity to instantly improve all of the items I mentioned without having to “baseball style” arbitrate a hand full every few years) but if that’s what you want, OK.

What the APA is trying to avoid is another Scope confrontation down the road. As long as there are two lists AMR mgt will always try to play the two sides against each other. It may not happen next year but with two lists you can guarantee that something like this will happen again.

“LAAH,LAAH,LAAH, LAAH” would have been a good answer too

 

[Draginass]

Although the APA is talking closely with AE ALPA, the fact that ALPA isn't a part of the company discussions right now says it all as does their relative silence. AE ALPA's poor contract doesn't give them any leverage, and they know it.

 

[Loafman]

The relative silence is due in part to the very unlikely chance any of this will ever come to pass.

 

[eaglefly]

Nice trip ?

Cool. Allow me to retort.

You say, "Eagle aircraft will be flown by Eagle pilots".

I say, "Thats a pretty clear statement" (not much "wiggle room").

CEO ? Publicly traded Company ? Board of Directors ?

What do these have to do with our LABOR AGREEMENT ?

Absolutely NOTHING (and I don't know where you came up with this ?).

Our contract does not REQUIRE the transfer to be between two seperate publicly traded companys. It stipulates that if it is (our operations) transferred to a group of pilots NOT covered under (or listed in appendix A) of our contract than it is considered a "TRANSFER OF OPERATIONS".

Our LABOR AGREEMENT states that if our operations (fleet/route combo) are transferred away from THE PILOTS LISTED IN OUR CONTRACT, than the stipulations within our contract apply (it and everything in it go , too).

-Our "operations" are considered to be a route/aircraft combo"

Does AA mainline fly 50-seat RJ's between DFW-LIT ? ORD-CLE ?

Nope.

Do you DBA "American Eagle" ?

Nope.

If AMR transfers 634AE (or ANY of our CURRENT aircraft) to mainline and puts mainline pilots in it and flys one of our CURRENT routes with it, is it a "TRANSFER OF OPERATIONS" ?

Better believe it is.

Has Eagle or its pilots ever flown out of STL ?

Nope.

Is that a "transfer of operations" ?

Nope, but since our contract stipulates that a "company aircraft" is one that is "owned or leased" by the company (Yes, AMR Eagle !) and that any such aircraft will be flown by pilots on our "system seniority list", our grievance over the STL transfer will require AMR to actually sell them and offer proof of sale or transfer our pilots and contract with them. (greivance awaiting decision).


Could AMR hand over all NEW RJ deliveries to mainline to be a new "American Connection" carrier with mainline furloughees (similar to U's Mid-Atlantic) ?

Nothing in our contract to prevent that.

Can AMR "sell" Executive ?

Yep, no prohibition against it, but contract and pilots go with it though.

Why ?

Because it is a "transfer of operations" covered by our contract (actually, it is a "sale", but this is in the same protectional language in Section 1 as it specifically says " sells or transfers").

Why is it a "transfer (sale) of operations" ?

Because these AIRCRAFT AND ROUTES are CURRENTLY operated by an airline DBA as "American Eagle" and flown by pilots on our "SYSTEM SENIORITY LIST"

What is our "System Seniority list" ?

Snapshot from contract (Page 129) :

-------------------------------------------------
Appendix A
Pilot's System Seniority List
-------------------------------------------------

You're contract may say "company seniority list", but ours says "system seniority list".

Incorrect - Our contract DOES NOT state that only Eagle will feed mainline. It only offers protections on what we CURRENTLY operate (aircraft/route combo). (baseless assumption with misunderstanding).

You seem to claim to know more about my contract than I do. I know very little about yours. You obviously no very little about ours (I realize that may sting your ego a bit, because apparently you think you do).

Baseball-style arbitration save the Executive sale ?

Huh ?

Baseball Arbitration is more likely than you think.

AMR has TIME. The sale of Executive and if necessary the SF3 ops (with pilots and contract mind you) will allow AMR to accept ALL 35 of our scheduled RJ's for 2003 (and stay under the ASM cap to boot). Thats 12 months to work on Baseball arbitration. Why capitulate now ? Any APA grievance will take till the end of the year anyway.

As far as 70-seaters goes, while true they were offered to the APA in exchange for dropping virtually ALL restrictions on <50 seaters (which you guys voted down), AMR had NO intention of placing them at mainline. The 25 CRJ700's would hve been leased out to another regional.

Tough to compete when you're the ONLY airline flying a 70-seater at mainline costs against competetors at a regional cost.

It is my understanding that Embraer is currently working on a 75,000 LB MTOW version of the 170 (currently 79,500 Lbs.).

Why would they do this ?

Is there ANY other airline out there with that number listed in their mainline pilots Scope clause ?

Did Embraer not construct and certify A WHOLE NEW AIRFRAME at the specific request of a certain airline (44-seat Emb-140) to GET AROUND mainline scope ?

Certainly a modification to a not-yet-certified airframe would be simple.

"Get around" mainline scope. Interesting concept. Does Carty have a track history of that ? Again, he has a WHOLE YEAR if he needs it.

All this notwithstanding, lets highlight a general concept that COULD screw us in the future (without the proper protections for the Eagle pilots). I realize you're convinced that A.) We have NO say in what happens to us (I guess we'll just have to disagree)and that B.) you think this initial proposal MUST be a better deal than what we have now and we should mindlessly agree to anything thats put in front of us ( I guess you think getting hit with a bat in 2003 will help us recover from the knife wound sustained in 1997).

1.) OK, lets say that ALL the regional Aircraft go to the APA for control and we get the "new and improved flow-thru" in exchange (Gee thanks). ALPA gets the boot (and thus we have agreed to "sign away" any future say or protection to the whims of the APA).

Now, since were NOT "one list" but an acquired subsidary of pilots that have "promises", if things deteriorate enough, whats to prevent APA determined changes in the future that would harm the "supplimental pilots" (mostly Eagle pilots) at the expense of "original mainline pilots" ?.

NOTHING.

Would they "sacrifice" a bunch of "commuter pilots" that they previously had not represented, to benefit "the majority" ?

Naahhhh, Not the APA (tell that to the former TWA pilots).

After all, we certainly wouldn't hold a majority vote (if we're even allowed to participate at all).

We'd be SCREWED.

2.) ALL new "vacancies" will go to mainline furloughees. What language protects CURRENT Eagle pilots from displacement into lesser paying aircraft or undesirable domiciles ?

NOTHING.

Come to think of it, what language offers ANY future protections for Eagle pilots ?

I know "just trust us, we know whats best for you".

Uh-huh.


These are just two examples, but are there numerous other areas that our MEC has to identify and discuss with AMR and the APA to fully understand ANY agreement ?


Do all the protections of the future seem to favor the mainline pilots over the "acquired" Eagle pilots (especially with regard to our current protections - I know "they don't exist").

It certainly seems so.

Would anybody in a sane frame of mind just skip cluelessly down this path to "grandmothers house" without SERIOUS protections ?

Not unless they're nuts.


Would YOU want us to have any say in our future ?

From your posts, apparently not.

*Incidentally, the APA has backed off calling it a "one list" proposal and is NOW refering it as "combining AA and Eagle flying" (interesting).

Right now, most of us see this as a group of used car salesmen holding up a lease agreement and wanting us to sign without examining the fine print or understanding the future ramifications. Especially, when some of the people associated with this deal imply we better "accept it" or else.

Would that make you suspicious ?

WE WANT TO BE "ONE LIST", BUT TO GIVE UP OUR PROTECTIONS FOR PROMISES FROM THE APA WITHOUT PROTECTIONS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

When the original flow-thru was concieved, did the APA unilaterally dictate all the details to Eagle ALPA ?

No.

Suppliment W/Letter 3 was a LOA between APA and ALPA that REQUIRED negotiation and agreement (as well as the signatures of the negotiators and Union presidents Sovich and Babbit).

Nothing has changed (except the names).

BTW, do you think ALPA is going to stand aside and wave goodbye to a couple of MILLION dollars in annual dues money ?

Talk about a WHOLE new obstacle.

G4G5, if you understand NOTHING of what I've said ALL ALONG, let me reiterate ONE MORE TIME.


-------------------------------------------------
ONE..........LIST...........IS.........GOOD.......
FOR.....BOTH.......PILOT........GROUPS..............
--------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------
MOST......OF....US....AGREE.....WITH.......
..ONE.....LIST.........................................
-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------
SOME....OF......THE......STIPULATIONS...
..IN....THE....CURRENT...PROPOSAL......
...ARE....NOT...ACCEPTABLE.....TO...US..
..AND....IT...IS...NOT..."ONE LIST".......
-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------
IF...AMR...AND...APA.....AGREE....ON......
..THE....FEASIBILITY.....OF...ONE...LIST.
..THAN...WE..HAVE....CONTRACTUAL....
..RIGHTS...TO....PARTICIPATE...IN...THE.
MAKEUP...OF....OUR...FUTURE............
-------------------------------------------------

Just as in 1997, IF and when any concept that directly affects us is agreed upon by AMR and APA, Eagle ALPA will become part of the NEGOTIATION process.

You disagree with me.

'kay.

Since we're never going to convince each other of much, why don't we agree to disagree.


* agreed loafman.

 

[dualrated]

Evidently, AMR has a counter-proposal, and it has already been given to the NC. The union leadership hasn't been briefed, so no word on whether it's a serious effort or not, but at least its a counter-proposal instead of a flat "No thanks" like the last time.

For whatever it's worth, I was told at a union meeting that AMR is the sole reason for the provision for hiring into mainline as well as the commuter supplement. The company has stated this is a deal breaker for them.

I don't think it really matters. Who is going to be hiring into any mainline in the foreseeable future? UAL and US? Both of them might not even be a paint-scheme next year. Delta? Their MEC graciously told the junior guys to get bent by approving code-share and, more importantly, letting Leo use DCI for 49% of all DAL domestic block-hours! What's to stop them from dumping down to the stove-pipes when half of their domestic flying is going to the RJ? When will those guys be coming back? The only people who are forecasting any hiring are Kit "Make the check out to Kit" Darby and his troop of starry-eyed CFIs. But AMR says it wants access to military types. I guess they heard about the impending "massive pilot shortage" at one of Jim Jones, er, I mean, Kit Darby's seminars.

 

[jetexas]

AMR must not be too serious about a merge then..

From talking to many fellow Eagle pilots, the deal breaker for us on a merge (if we are even given a choice) is the provision that AA could hire directly into mainline or the commuter supplement. Funny how AMR management has picked this as their deal breaker as well.
From past experience, this would mean that when AA is hiring one day, virtually no one at Eagle will be included. We would have AA numbers but have people who are still years away from getting hired by AMR with AA numbers senior to us in the future. That is, when and if hiring starts again.
There's a lot left to be seen. I guess we'll find out in a few days what the "counter proposal" from AMR is.

 

[seagle]

I think we have gotten off the path here. The title of this thread "Trouble at AMR" is a little more reaching than one pilot list, who's a better pilot, who's flying what and so on. Let's not forget something very important about AMR. AMR stock was trading more than 10 times what it is now trading about 3 years ago. Who's to blame? I believe management is. However, they have all the excuses: the economy, 9-11, loss of the business traveler, war with Iraq, fuel prices, and bla, bla, bla. How is it that others are in the black? Is the economy costing SWA 2 Billion a year? NO. Is the loss of the business traveler costing Jetblue 2 Billion a year? NO. Are fuel prices costing Airtran and Alaska Airlines 2 Billion a year? NO. AMR management has a financial responsibility to its shareholders and employees. Management will blame anyone and anything to preserve their multimillion dollar jobs. They will pit one pilot group against the other to create a distraction while the company slowly disintegrates because of their ineptness. When it all goes bye, bye, you lose your job and they walk away with millions. Don't fall into their trap, work together for all the pilot groups and hold management accountable everyday for their actions, or in this case their inability to effectively and profitably manage a corporation like AMR. As a manager you can delegate authority but you cannot delegate responsibility. And management is responsible for the solvency of AMR Corporation!

 

[eaglefly]

It must be noted that many months ago AMR listed a MULTITUDE of reasons against the "One Seniority list" concept.

ONE of those stated reasons (there were several) was that it would leave AMR uncompetetive with regard to the ability to "have access to" the pool of available military pilots in future hiring situations.

The APA included that provision in the initial proposal in the belief that it would make the concept more likely to win acceptance. So it was not "at AMR's request" , but more of a strategic decision based on AMR's previous excuses against the concept.

I certainly do not claim to have inside knowledge of the progress of the talks, but have heard that although AMR has not said "no", they have remained "cool" to the idea and thus after 6 days of meetings since AMR has come back to the table (and almost a month of review) there has not been a breakthrough.

Maybe someone has more information on that as well as why the head of the negotiating team (and one additional member) have quit suddenly in the middle of talks.

Unsure of the meaning of this latest development.

 

[dualrated]

Eaglefly--

I guess I wasn't clear. I didn't mean to imply that AMR "requested" APA to craft a proposal that allowed for hiring directly into mainline. What I was trying to communicate is that, in my opinion, this part of the proposal exists not because the APA leadership wants to get all their squadron buddies hired, but because this is the only way APA can get those geniuses at AMR to even consider it.

And I still think it's a moot point for the next decade. But I certainly understand your concern.

On a side note, our NC is currently self-destructing. Four of the five original members have quit or been forced out by the BOD in the last 30 days. Don't know what that means, but it can't be good for anyone except one white-haired canadian (and maybe one high-level union official with management aspirations, a la Jeff Brundage). Perhaps as a result of the shake-up, there is not much info is getting out about the counter proposal. And I wouldn't expect any reaction other than "cool" to any proposal from APA.

 

[AAsRedHeadedbro]

G4G5,

I apologize for the rather personal remark that I made to you - you know..."holier than thou...etc."

It is not normally my style. Your response to me was rather level headed and it just highlighted the abrasivness of my post to you.

Again, my apologies.