AA baffled

[The Goose]

This "joint business venture" is all about "shared revenue from both airlines". How does that not make it a "codesharing" deal?

As my previous example showed, AA isn't using codesharing to "totally dismantle" parts of its domestic network. If that were the case, there would be no routes in the system that were operated by both AA and its partner (Alaska Airlines, in my example).

But we'll go one more: codesharing expands AA's network and benefits its passengers by way of convenience. If an AA passenger in SEA wants to fly to Hawaii, she would have to fly to ORD or DFW if there were no codesharing. Instead, she can fly SEA-LAX on an AS codeshare and hop on an AA flight to HNL. AA hasn't (in my memory, at least) ever flown SEA-LAX (except via SJC pre-9/11). The revenue benefits AA, and the convenience benefits the passenger. There's no less flying since AA wasn't flying the route (nonstop) in the first place.

Most of us understand that codesharing increases revenue for the company (whichever) without lifting a finger and how it works but your pro-company stance doesn't take into account the effect on the individual - flying branded (AA or whatever airline), in the case of codesharing doesn't necessarily translate to paid time for any particular company's workers.

It's not an issue of "dismantling" a given route structure; it's an issue of the paid work going away (with respect to a particular group) due to flying by another airline regardless of the branding. While good for the company, it's certainly not good for any workgroup for their work to be performed by someone else.

 

[eolesen]

It's not an issue of "dismantling" a given route structure; it's an issue of the paid work going away (with respect to a particular group) due to flying by another airline regardless of the branding. While good for the company, it's certainly not good for any workgroup for their work to be performed by someone else.

That's the point you're not getting, Goose.

Nobody's work goes to someone else. It stays the same. Instead of three DFWLHR flights by both carriers, it becomes two, and one shell is freed up to fly LHRXXX or DFWYYY.

Again, neither partner in UALH OR NWK saw a redu ction in flying due to ATI. That's why VS is fighting so hard against approval. If approved, AA & BA stop fighting each other for market share at LHR and can focus on taking market share away from Virgin and UABD.

Regardless, nobody lost their job at any carrier receiving ATI to the other carrier. Domestic/regional codeharing has cost mainline jobs as flying was outsourced. But that's not the case with international codesharing.

 

[tfc767]

You guys can preach the benefits of code share/JBA/ATI, etc etc until you're blue in the face.

The fact is, we (pilots) are currently in Sec 6 negotiations. That means that the contract needs to be strictly followed as proof that both parties are serious about moving forward. The very fact that AMR is proposing a deal that is NOT COVERED in our contract shows us that AMR likes to do pretty much as they please, completely disregarding the contract in this crucial time. Sorry, that won't fly. AMR needs to meet with APA in order for this deal to proceed.... and not only that, they need to show APA that this deal is beneficial to us and does not hurt us in the long run.

 

[Bob Owens]

That's the point you're not getting, Goose.

Nobody's work goes to someone else. It stays the same. Instead of three DFWLHR flights by both carriers, it becomes two, and one shell is freed up to fly LHRXXX or DFWYYY.

The freed "shells" have been going to the desert lately.

 

[eolesen]

The freed "shells" have been going to the desert lately.

Really? How many 763 or 777 are out there?

Or has engineering found a way for the A300 to finally make it across the Atlantic with a full pax load and no fuel stop in either Halifax or Shannon?

Tfc, you say the contract doesn't address it. It does. By definition, codesharing is a JV.

Last I checked, what is proposed doesn't involve equity, nor does it involve any change in control. There's no domestic codesharing.

AMR Legal isn't dumb. They probably wrote this to the letter of what is permitted, and given that this is the third attempt for AABA, I suspect the previous two contract negotiations took an ATI agreement into consideration when discussing Scope. The fact there's no prohibition on a JV is just as telling.

Or maybe your negotiators were idiots and didn't bother to notice the NWKL & UALH agreements and say "gee, wonder if AA will do one of those....".

Either way, I don't think APA has a tree to pee on here.

E

 

[L1011Ret]

You guys can preach the benefits of code share/JBA/ATI, etc etc until you're blue in the face.

The fact is, we (pilots) are currently in Sec 6 negotiations. That means that the contract needs to be strictly followed as proof that both parties are serious about moving forward. The very fact that AMR is proposing a deal that is NOT COVERED in our contract shows us that AMR likes to do pretty much as they please, completely disregarding the contract in this crucial time. Sorry, that won't fly. AMR needs to meet with APA in order for this deal to proceed.... and not only that, they need to show APA that this deal is beneficial to us and does not hurt us in the long run.

First you say its not in your contract, then you say AA is disregarding your contract. Which is it. AA therefore has no obligation to you.

 

[eolesen]

I'm still waiting for the proof that pilots have lost out.

Mr. TFC has made some bold statements that yet have to be proven true:

Are you kidding me? In EVERY CASE in the past, code share alliances have NEVER benefited pilots/FAs and have ALWAYS resulted in erosion of flying.

and

In EVERY instance in the past, these kinds of agreements have resulted in AA PULLING their own aircraft out of markets to let the code share partner do all the flying! Wow, what a windfall!

AA & IB have been partners in oneworld for almost ten years. AA has yet to pull out of MIA-MAD during that time, and has added JFK-BCN. Net gain in flying for AA pilots.

AA & QF have been codeshare partners for decades. The build-up at LAX has been in large part due to the feeding of QF's four or five evening departures to Oz. Net gain of flying for AA.

AA & JL have been codeshare partners for a while. No loss of Japan flying aside from SEA-NRT and SJC-NRT, both of which were doomed when the dot com bubble burst. Yet there was no net loss of flying for AA, as LAX-NRT, JFK-NRT, and added DFW-NRT & ORD-NRT flying appeared. If anything, net gain for AA pilots.

AA & MX have been codeshare partners for a couple years, and in 2009, they'll enter oneworld. No loss of Mexico flying that I can tell the entire time the codeshare's been around.

AA & AS have been codeshare partners for over 20 years. Aside from pulling out of ANC after the Reno deal, there's been no loss of flying for AA. If anything, it's a net gain because AA would have never been able to make the seasonal flying to ANC work without the ability to get feed traffic from AS pax at ANC.

Plus, as AS has added their own nonstops from SEA to places like MIA, ORD, DFW, DCA, etc., there's been no loss of flying for AA pilots in those markets. I'll call that a draw, since they're mostly hub markets which have all increased, but you can't attribute that to the codeshare.

AA and Air Pacific have codeshared for about ten years. No loss of flying for AA.

AA and Cathay Pacific have been oneworld partners for years. Same thing for Finnair, Malev, and Royal Jordanian. No loss of flying for AA.

AA and LAN have also been codeshare partners in Chile, Peru, and Argentina. Net gain of flying for AA pilots to all three countries, but it's hard to say how much of that is due to feed in SCL, LIM, etc. and how much was just organic growth.

AA had a codeshare with Sabena and their successor Brussels Airlines. Likewise with Gulf Air, El Al, and No loss of flying for AA pilots.


Now, there have been a few losses in flying, too.

AA had a codeshare with Swissair and their successor. No loss of flying during the codeshare, although ORD-ZRH did move to DFW-ZRH. JFK-ZRH still survives, but the other flying died after Swiss decided to merge with LH....

AA used to have a codeshare with LH once upon a time, and during that time, AA used to fly to MUC, DUS, STR, and FRA. The LH codeshare ended when they became partners with UA in what led to become Star Alliance. Since then, AA's pulled back on all services to secondary destinations in Germany, mainly because they lost the feed that the codeshare offered. Net loss to the pilots, but only because the deal went away.

AA & EI were oneworld partners up until a year ago. AA didn't pull out of SNN or DUB while EI was part of oneworld. AA did pull out of SNN, but not because of the codeshare, but because they were required by law to serve SNN up until open skies took effect. Now, they don't have to, and they don't.

Even in the AA/Canadian Airlines deal that died with CP being bought out by Air Canada, AA pilots didn't lose any flying while they were still part of oneworld. If anything, it increased to YYZ, YVR, and YUL, and any loss in flying was a direct result of losing the beyond traffic generated by the codeshare.


That's all verifiable history, sir. Go look at the OAG's, go look at timetables, go look at old bid sheets...

Whatever you want to look at, the erosion you claim above is nothing more than a bucket of prop wash.

Do me a favor and inform yourselves before you post this type of clueless stuff. APA and the other unions are sick and tired of all the lies coming from Centerport. No we don't trust them AT ALL. If we reject something from the company, you can BE SURE it is with good reason - because we've been lied to several times in the past!

Do yourself a favor and stop drinking the APA hate-aid. You've obviously been a bunch of crap from your union reps, becaise nothing you've posted is even remotely true.


If anything, the only loss of flying as a result of international codesharing has been when the relationships have been terminated. If anything, you'd think APA would be smart enough to realize that entering into a stronger partnership is what will guarantee long term flying opportunities for AA's pilots.

 

[FWAAA]

First you say its not in your contract, then you say AA is disregarding your contract. Which is it. AA therefore has no obligation to you.

I gave up responding to their nonsensical circular arguments a while ago.

Joint ventures not mentioned in the contract and thus are prohibited? I'm amazed that deficient analytical skills like that are possessed by someone who can actually pilot an aircraft (which requires superior analytical skills).

 

[tfc767]

First you say its not in your contract, then you say AA is disregarding your contract. Which is it. AA therefore has no obligation to you.

JBA is not covered in our contract.

By attempting to sign a JBA deal with IB/BA, AA is therefore disregarding our contract.

AA has every obligation to discuss this with APA first.

But since you delight in ridiculing everything the APA does in attempting to restore our profession, I don't expect you to understand.

 

[tfc767]

I'm still waiting for the proof that pilots have lost out.

Mr. TFC has made some bold statements that yet have to be proven true:

https://www.alliedpilots.org/DNN/LinkClick....105&mid=496

Before you continue to ridicule yourself, eolesen, watch and learn a history lesson, instead of buying in to all that management crAAp. Code sharing, when properly adhered to AS IT IS LAID OUT IN OUR CONTRACT, can be beneficial. But when they start coloring outside the lines, AA pilots will fight it tooth and nail, because it represents a real threat to our flying. Otherwise, we'd be for it, doncha think?

 

[upsilon]

JBA is not covered in our contract.
By attempting to sign a JBA deal with IB/BA, AA is therefore disregarding our contract.
AA has every obligation to discuss this with APA first.

Something not covered (nor even mentioned) in a contract between two parties must be 'discussed' with the other party before any action. Under this reasoning, AA could not buy aircraft or fly a new route without 'discussion' with APA. There is no obligation in law to even 'discuss' a JBA with APA. And there is no legal meaning to the the word 'discuss'.

 

[eolesen]

https://www.alliedpilots.org/DNN/LinkClick....105&mid=496

Before you continue to ridicule yourself, eolesen, watch and learn a history lesson, instead of buying in to all that management crAAp. Code sharing, when properly adhered to AS IT IS LAID OUT IN OUR CONTRACT, can be beneficial. But when they start coloring outside the lines, AA pilots will fight it tooth and nail, because it represents a real threat to our flying. Otherwise, we'd be for it, doncha think?

Whatever, TFC. You'll soon need a ladder to go along with your shovel....

I've posted information about every codeshare known to AA over the past 20 years to refute your idiotic statements that there's been erosion for the pilots on every codeshare. I didn't even bother to post what I have on the UA & NW ATI experiences....

You have yet to post anything except for union propaganda.

You're over your head on this one, son.

 

[tfc767]

No prob, "son." You're so busy trying to refute me with all of your stats and data regarding this type of threat that you fail to realize the real issue - that of the company deliberately circumventing our contract during section 6 negotiations.

 

[tfc767]

AA/IB code share: ORD-MAD? IB. JFK-MAD? IB. BOS-MAD? IB. MIA-MAD? IB.

AA/Qantas: LAX-SYD? SFO-SYD?

AA/Cathay? Don't even get me started. These are just some examples of flying that AA could perfectly well do, but chooses to let the code share do the work.

Keep buying into the management line that "those routes just aren't profitable." Gee, I wonder how DL can launch all those new int'l routes and STILL lose money, huh?

Code share = outsourcing, plain and simple.

 

[FWAAA]

In post #40, tfc says "Code sharing, when properly adhered to AS IT IS LAID OUT IN OUR CONTRACT, can be beneficial."

The next day, tfc tells us that AA's codesharing with IB and QF, as provided in the APA contract, has harmed AA pilots because it means that AA doesn't have to fly nonstop USA-Australia or nonstop USA-Spain (except for MIA-MAD on flight 68/69) or USA-HKG.

Until very recently, with the new Open Skies agreement with Australia, USA-Australia nonstops have been very restricted and did not permit new entrants to begin daily service. So the QF codeshare permitted AA customers to book AA tickets that AA couldn't fly on its own. I remember AA's former service to Australia via HNL.

Not long after AA took delivery of its first 777, AA flew one of them ORD-HKG to prove it could be done. AA applied for rights to fly to HKG but was denied (I think CO won that round to start EWR-HKG).

Spain? I don't have the numbers on the viablility of increased AA flying to Spain (I suspect eolesen might) but seems to me that if it was viable (as in, the market is big enough for AA and IB flights), AA would be doing it. I suspect that AA will increase its flying to Spain if this antitrust exemption is approved.

Essentially, tfc now says that there's a whole lot of flying that AA has never flown on its own that it would have started if not for the codeshares his own union approved. Why not expand that list to every city on every continent where AA has never flown? If you're gonna make a poorly fashioned argument that's short on logic, might as well take it to the extreme.