American Eagle Pilots Express Outrage Over Concessionary Agreement

[gogogadget]

The point of this argument is that that there are people like you that just pipe up because is sounds good and have absolutly no idea what is happening around them. A total loss of SA because you are to ingrossed in why the bulb is burned out.

******
Oh, by the way I won''t ever be on your list I have a job lined up so as soon as they start about 6 more classed I will be out of this dump so settle into your life of flying the CRJ at regional wages and helping perpetuate the domestic flying of the RJ.
******

This is exactly what I am talking about, what do you care you are out of this "DUMP"? I hope your lofe is much better where ever you go and YOU dont forget where you cut your teeth!

******
doesn''t eliminate the outsourcing it just expands it i.e. 110% growth to mainline narrowbody fleet, it doesn''t raise any kind of bar it just lowers it i.e. "cost nuetral transfer" of the CRJ''s and agreeing to fly them for regional wages, it doesn''t bring the pilot groups together to battle AMR it just further seperates them i.e. APA coming out with a side letter to AMR even before consessions were asked for by AMR for stealing the left seats of Eagle aircraft and the list goes on.
********

No it does not eliminate the outsourcing, at this point it controls it. APA is of the mind set that it is better to have it on our list and to work to improve it than to let is fester and grow out of our control like the 50 seats and below. I do not know what happened when the Eagle MEC came to APA when AMR was about to sell Executive, but you can keep blaming APA if you like, does not matter to me one bit. Regardless of the situation and the emotions, if The two groups want to work together to fix this problem, they can or they can go at it like the LLC guys. The stealing the seats thing is just a fix to the problem of AMR not interpreting the original deal like they were supposed to. Eagle sure didnt have a problem letting AMR dictate the relatively small group of flow backs, especially when it means that the fewer flow backs, the more upgrades, durring tough times!

Like I said before, this argument is against the majority of Eagle pilots that do not want to make Eagle a career and are using it as a stepping stone. I respect the Eagle pilots and their right to be upset. I hope things can be worked out!

You know, this thread is getting too long and you just cant please everyone. Cleared Direct and Blueside I hope you have a great life wherever it leads. In the mean time I will continue to work to make flying at American a Job people will want. And when it stops being fun, It is time to move on!

Gadget

 

[bluesideup]

The stealing the seats thing is just a fix to the problem of AMR not interpreting the original deal like they were supposed to. Eagle sure didnt have a problem letting AMR dictate the relatively small group of flow backs, especially when it means that the fewer flow backs, the more upgrades, durring tough times!

Like I said before, this argument is against the majority of Eagle pilots that do not want to make Eagle a career and are using it as a stepping stone. I respect the Eagle pilots and their right to be upset. I hope things can be worked out!


----------------

What!!!!!!! thats the best I have heard yet. The stealing of the seats is to fix the way it was suppose to work. You just keep living in your fatasy world trying to rationalize the way you stole the seats. Please explain to me how your new TA in any way is suppose to fix the many problems with the flow through/back. Maybe we should have arranged a deal with AMR to give us the rights to your captains slots because we did not receive the 50% of every class that was initally promised to us through the flow through. That would make things right huh?

No, please get your facts straight AMR didn''t dictate anything about the relatively small amount of flowbacks. They came back as per the agreed way by all four parties there were no people that were denied the flowback because AMR just decided it would be better that way. They didn''t flow back becuase they 1: weren''t seinor to the people they would displace 2: didn''t meet the total time requirements 3: elected not to come back to Eagle and not because AMR dictated they couldn''t to anyone.

Don''t like my one about my airline is broke well here is one you should get used to hearing if this actually happens. "SCAAB"

 

[jetdryvr]

ScAAb might be the wrong term here.

 

[Duditz]

The complaints (from APA as well as ALPA) that the Letter 3/ Supp W didn''t "work the way it was supposed to" may be correct but "...supposed to..." is in the eye of the beholder.

IMO, the agreement was implemented as written...the 2nd group of AA furloughees had only enough seniority to displace the 1st group, those previously furloughed were entitled to new openings (ie LAX jets), 50% of the new hire classes did go to Eagle Pilots (..who had completed IOE as CJ Captains..) One can argue "supposed to (intent?)" all day - certainly Gogogadget does - "...Commuter flying is and always has been a way to build time, pay your dues...and Pay at the major is expected to be higher than pay at the commuter, not visa versa...

I would much prefer if Gogogadget and those like him would stop trying to rationalize their positions and admit they are doing what they are doing not out some concern for a "Profession" or other pilots but because they can.

 

[Winglet]

Like it or not, the industry is changing and you can bet that those "major" jobs are things of the past. Look for Mr. Arpey to continue to migrate all domestic flying to commuter grade compensation.

For all you guys at Eagle, I hope you like it there, ''cause that''s as good as it''s ever going to get from now on. Although, after 25 years or so you might be able to get an AA international wide-body F/O job for 90K a year . . . and that''s in 2009 dollars.

 

[Cleared Direct]

----------------
On 5/7/2003 9:15:14 PM gogogadget wrote:

Cleared Direct,

First, my statement on myopic was based on your continued response that Eagle is not growing. It seems that you can only twist things to improve your point of view.
----------------​

Gogogadget,

It is called factual information. Something your posts have none of or a bunch of changed facts after you get corrected over and over again.

----------------
I am not defending the apa position that all 70 seaters should be at AA. I have an Idea, why not keep the current 70 seaters at Eagle and AA take all jets that are not on the property yet and just let Eagle only fly jets 50 seats and smaller, sound good?
----------------​

Sounds good to me as long as there is no additional changing of Letter 3 without all 4 parties agreement. Having the 70 seaters at AA is a good thing as long as you guys don't slut yourselves to get it. Take the additional 70 seaters, but make it a job worth going to. Not an Eagle job at AA!

----------------
Or would it be better for eagle to Blindly grow into the major international airline that it is or will be some day? (That would be arrogant my friend) By the way, eagle currently operates 10 CRJ700's and will take delivery of 8 more in 2003.
----------------​

Here is some more of that factual info for you. According to the DOT, American Eagle has been a major airline for some time now. They even fly to international destinations in Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean. Actually American Eagle operates 12 CRJ-700s to date.

----------------
My position is simple, Regardless of this TA and how you feel about it. Eagle is just as much an incentive for AMR to outsource and degrade the airline profession as is a BK induced concessionary TA approved by APA. Having Eagle increase in capacity beyond the commuter role it plays is the same as hiring sweatshop workers in Honduras. The work rules are less, the pay is cheaper and the turnover is high!
----------------​

So why did APA allow Eagle to be created? Why did APA allow Eagle to get RJs? Why on earth did APA contractually agree to let Eagle have 70 seat RJs? And most importantly if APA is going to sacrifice so much this time round, for God's sake why did they not re-capture all jet flying and stop the American Connection?

----------------
I am sure you can remember the pay for training fiasco that was here in the 90's? Many foreign pilots came to the US, subsidized by their country and paid people to sit right seat to build time. Same thing at Comair and others, until the industry just would not support the scheme for all the hiring that was going on. (If you let them have it, they will run you and the profession through the ringer all the while destroying lives and careers)
----------------​

American Eagle is one of the few carriers who have never had any pay for training.

----------------
I am not knocking eagle pilots at all, I am just looking at the big picture that management sees when they do strategic planning for the future. If you allow Eagle to fly the 70 seater, then the 90 seater comes then the 110 seater comes then the 134 seater comes and guess what? Everyone that flies them will be paid just like Eagle and work 90 hours plus just like eagle and have no retirement just like eagle, and many of these same pilots bitc!!!!ing about 1 aircraft that they are barely flying just to build time durring the down time and move on to SWA and JBLU and UPS and FEDEX will have left what legacy? For 90% of pilots, Commuter flying is and always has been a way to build time, pay your dues and move on to better flying.
----------------​

Unfortunately times are changing. The so-called regionals are different now. Pilots are going there with the intent to stay. They are no longer just feeder airlines. They are also starting to get retirement and other mainline benefits. All ask you again. Why did APA contractually agree to have Eagle fly 70 seat jets?

----------------
The difference between APA lowering the pay rates is that of the things easier to re-obtain pay would be easier than retirement, and Pay at the major is expected to be higher than pay at the commuter, not visa versa. Delta is still holding the bar up for now.
----------------​

I got news for you. You can have the best scope clause, retirement, and pay; but all it takes is just one of your competitors having less. If your competitor has a cost advantage than it will migrate in that direction. The new Low Cost Carriers, the expanded role of regional partners, and the online ticket sales have forever changed our industry. If the pilot labor unions act together, we can stop some of the erosion of our jobs. Instead we play perfectly into the hands of management and fight between mainline and regional.

----------------
Eagle outsourcing has to be stopped or managed, and it has to start somewhere. Was the way it was done in this TA the right way? I do not know, nor do I know the details of how and why it happened like this. If you think Eagle should keep growing exponentially and that 10 aircraft (On property) or even 50 aircraft is enough for control the outsourcing, then keep right on preaching.
----------------​

The right way was the way it was originally headed. It is through unity with all AMR unions to control all flying done at AMR. Instead we have a rushed and dictated contract that does more damage than I could have ever imagined. Now some pilot jobs at AA will actually pay less than Eagle pay. Eagle has been given way too much scope relief. And even American Connection can grow further. Nice job!

----------------
I have just as much respect for eagle pilots as I do the guys I fly with every trip! And that is not arrogance, my friend, It is FACT! And as a fun poke..........Signing off as a EMB Captain is arrogant, sounds like you have issues or might be compensating for something!!! (Does that make you some sort of authority)
----------------​

My signature block includes DFW EMJ Capt so that everyone posting knows my base, equipment, and position without having to look at the profile. It is common and even requested some times on the ALPA National message board. This helps distinguish between airlines, mainline and small jet operators. Some even put their seniority number. From the info in your posts, I would guess that you are a junior AA pilot. If you included an informational signature block, I would not have to guess. Maybe I should include my APA seniority number? No, you would still treat me like sh*t. I will not get into a name calling fight with you no matter how low you stoop.

 

[Cleared Direct]

----------------
On 5/7/2003 11:59:02 PM heavy767 wrote:

My man cleared direct seems unhappy, can't blame him really. I wish we would channel our energy to get together as one airline. I will have more on that next week when I get back from the APA board meeting. There is a way out of this, we just gotta figure it out.

----------------​

Kind of hard to work with anyone when you are not even invited to the party.

It does not look like Darrah wants to figure a way out of this thing. Now he has threatened to use APA's one allowable change to exercise APA's right to flowback to the EMJ Captain positions. See latest letter in response to Darrah's threat below. Seems like a bit of an idle threat, because the one change must include swapping of something of equal value. Hmmm, how much does it cost to displace 450-500 CJ Captains and train AA furloughs to take their place? Not to mention all the additional domino training costs with the displacements. APA's guess is 10 million. They are dreaming.



May 12,2003

VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL

John Darrah
President
Allied Pilots Association
O’Connell Building
14600 Trinity Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Worth, TX 761 55-2512

Dear Captain Darrah:
This letter will confirm the positions taken by you and your Negotiating Committee during the meeting on Thursday, May 8,2003 among representatives of American Airlines, American Eagle, APA and ALPA. Our representatives reported as follows:

You stated that if necessary you will ask your Board of Directors to alter APA’s agreement with American Airlines to the effect that furloughed AA pilots will displace into EMB commuter jet captain positions, “as written.â€￾

You suggested that if necessary you would utilize the provision of your tentative agreement that allows one issue to be renegotiated. You further suggested that you are prepared to ask your Board to accept additional wage concessions to cover the cost of providing what in your view would be additional captain seats for furloughed AA pilots. You stated that this “is not a bluff.â€￾ You estimated it would cost $10 million to achieve the above.

You acknowledged that ALPA was not involved in the negotiation of the new flow-back provisions of the recent AA/APA agreement. Captain White stated that if he was an Eagle pilot he would prefer the new AA/APA agreement to the implementation of Letter 3/Supplement W.

You and Captain White suggested that union-to-union dialogue is necessary. Captain White stated that he prefers negotiation to arbitration.

In response to the briefing that I received from our meeting participants, and in order to set the stage for potentially productive dialogue, Vice-chairman Dave Ryter contacted your office on Thursday, May 8, to arrange for immediate discussions. His contact information for Friday, Saturday and Sunday was left with your secretary. After receiving no response to Ryter's call, I asked ALPA President Duane Woerth to contact you on Friday May 9. His weekend contact information was left with your secretary as well. Again, there has been no response from you. Based on this and numerous past attempts at engagement by ALPA that have gone unanswered, it appears that you have no genuine desire to find solutions to the many flow back issues; solutions that are mutually acceptable to American Eagle pilots and American Airlines pilots.

This is unfortunate but not entirely unexpected, and as such, ALPA will continue to take all necessary steps to protect the contractual rights and expectations of the Eagle pilots. Longevity and seniority are basic tenets of our agreement. If I am misreading your silence, please feel free to contact me. ALPA representatives can be made available to meet in a four-party context. If you are interested in a productive dialogue, I do ask you to keep in mind that we will not respond to threats such as were delivered to our representatives last Thursday. Please keep in mind as well that all changes to Letter 3ISupplement W require four-party participation and consent. This should have been the case from the start.

Yours truly,
Herb Mark
Chairman, Eagle MEC

HM/et

cc: Duane Woerth
Eagle Master Executive Council
Jeff Brundage
Mark Burdette
Mike ########
Rose Doria

 

[gogogadget]

Cleared Direct,

While my position remains the same regarding the outsourcing issue, there is one thing that we do have in common. That one thing is dealing with a John Darrah. The current Contract APA has is a direct result of, in my opinion, a leader gone bad. His arrogance precedes him and his integrity is nil. A very young AA F100 Captain(paid like a 777 I captain) that has publically stated his various and colorful engagements with ALPA''s Duane Worth to include the socalled friendship between the spouses. My only advise to you is to be careful what you ask for............

Gadget

 

[FWAAA]

The real issue that no one has addressed is whether ALPA is a necessary party to the agreement; just because they were at the table and signed the prior agreement doesn''t mean their signature was required on the prior agreement.

Does ALPA contractually "own" the flying of the CRJ-70s or were they just expecting to get it? Does ALPA have a scope agreement that preserves all 50 seat RJs for ALPA members?

Accordingly, is it possible that the latest APA-AA agreement doesn''t actually need the signature of the ALPA??

I''ve seen lots of multi-party agreements where one or more parties signed yet didn''t need to bother. Could that be the case here?

Looks like the position of AA and APA is that ALPA isn''t an essential party. Who''s right?

 

[Cleared Direct]

----------------
On 5/14/2003 8:55:32 PM FWAAA wrote:

The real issue that no one has addressed is whether ALPA is a necessary party to the agreement; just because they were at the table and signed the prior agreement doesn't mean their signature was required on the prior agreement.

Does ALPA contractually "own" the flying of the CRJ-70s or were they just expecting to get it? Does ALPA have a scope agreement that preserves all 50 seat RJs for ALPA members?

Accordingly, is it possible that the latest APA-AA agreement doesn't actually need the signature of the ALPA??

I've seen lots of multi-party agreements where one or more parties signed yet didn't need to bother. Could that be the case here?

Looks like the position of AA and APA is that ALPA isn't an essential party.

----------------​

APA and AA are attempting to put furloughed AA pilots on our seniority list outside of Supplement W/Letter 3. Do you really think that this can be done without the agreement of the union that represents the pilots on that seniority list. Get real!

How would you like it if AA put America West union workers on your seniority list, and said they did not need your approval?

Even APA is worried about the legal end of it now. Here is the latest letter from Mr Darrah back to Eagle ALPA. Darrah gives every excuse he can dream up as to why he did not call back ALPA. They still won't even give us the agreement yet.


__________________________________

May 14, 2003

Captain Herb Mark, Chairman
ALPA - Eagle MEC
1101 West Euless Blvd., Suite 415
Euless, TX 76040

Dear Captain Mark:

I was sorry you were not able to attend the meeting between APA, ALPA, American and American Eagle management on Thursday, May 8. It was my impression this was to be a meeting between the principles of our respective unions to resolve our misunderstandings. I was surprised that none of the ALPA Eagle MEC Officers were present, and that instead your legal counsel was your primary representative.

Over the past couple of weeks, you and other ALPA Eagle representatives have made numerous misleading public comments not only to your membership, but also to others about recent events. You have intimated that APA has not disclosed the resulting provisions of our recent agreement or our intentions throughout our negotiations with you or other members of ALPA Eagle. To the contrary, we have been more than forthright with our intent during the past year.

It has always been APA’s goal to regain all flying done by AMR for pilots on the American Airlines pilot seniority list. This was our goal during Section 6 negotiations and our goal throughout the final days of our discussions with AMR management that ultimately led to our $660 million concessionary agreement that was reached on March 31. I say “regain all flying†because as you are aware, prior to our 1987 contract, American Airlines pilots performed all flying on behalf of AMR. It has been our pilots’ goal since that time to recapture this provision of our contract, just as it has been with many other provisos of our contract that we have conceded in the past.

In numerous meetings and discussions with you and your predecessors, we have been completely open about our intent with regard to not only all flying, but failing that, the recapturing of 51+ seat RJ flying for American Airlines pilots. Yes, we want all flying, and yes, we want a common seniority list for all AMR pilots, American Airlines and American Eagle pilots alike. But in the end, AMR management would not concede on these issues. We were therefore left with the prospect of either entering bankruptcy or conceding on these issues and the other $600 million-plus items that we ultimately did concede to management.

As you know, APA and ALPA Eagle have met several times over the past year to try to find common ground. Sometimes these conversations were successful, and sometimes they were not. During the week of Monday, March 17, APA Vice President Captain Bob Ames and I met with you, Eagle MEC Vice Chairman First Officer Dave Ryter and Executive Administrator First Officer James Magee to brief you on the status of our negotiations to that point. At this meeting, I expressly conveyed to you that AMR management had signaled a willingness to give APA pilots the 51+ seat RJs if APA would relax the restrictions on 50-seat and below RJs. Your only response was that ALPA Eagle had a no-furlough clause and that you did not see how AMR management could agree to anything that would result in an overage of American Eagle pilots.

It was not until the final days of these negotiations, March 30-31, that we negotiated changes to our Scope clause (Scope being the very last item negotiated besides APA’s upside provisions). Negotiations concluded the evening of March 31. That evening I checked my phone messages that I had not received due to my being in around-the-clock marathon negotiations, and noticed that you had called at the end of the week of March 28. The next morning I phoned the ALPA Eagle MEC office to speak with you. I was told that you were not available because you had gone to Spain for your daughter’s wedding. I asked for MEC Vice Chairman First Officer Dave Ryter and was told he was not available. I was informed that Executive Administrator First Officer James Magee was in the office, so I spoke with him. I briefed First Officer Magee on the status of our negotiations and he asked that I send him our contractual language. I told him that we were still working on finalizing the language and we would send you copies when it was completed.

The next evening I left for a week to hold a series of road shows throughout our system to brief the APA pilots on our tentative agreement. I then had a Board meeting the following week. During this time, members of your organization began a very public campaign of accusing APA of unfair treatment during our negotiations. I received no phone call from you prior to these public statements. I subsequently received a barrage of letters filled with legalese signed by you making what can only be characterized as false and inflammatory allegations and statements against APA.

I had hoped the meeting last Thursday would be an opportunity to finally resolve these misunderstandings. But as I said, neither you nor anyone else from the elected leadership of ALPA Eagle attended that meeting. Instead, the meeting took on more of the tone of a deposition, which was confirmed by the letter I received from you dated May 12.

Following that meeting, I attended a meeting with AMR CEO Mr. Arpey that concluded at approximately 6 PM. The next day, I was at APA for several hours and then left for the rest of the afternoon. That evening I had a voice mail notifying me that ALPA President Captain Duane Woerth had called late in the afternoon on Friday and would be calling again Monday afternoon. Contrary to your letter, he left no weekend contact numbers.

On Monday afternoon, I received a phone call from Captain Woerth. He called on your behalf to request that APA and ALPA meet to resolve our disagreement over the application of Supplement W. I told him that I had a Board meeting beginning on Wednesday, but I would be available the following week for a meeting. I then told him I would call him back on Friday to confirm the date.

Shortly after that phone call, I received a fax from you characterizing the meeting that I attended with your representatives the previous Thursday. This fax also contained a chronology of your Vice Chairman’s efforts to contact me late on Thursday. As of the receipt of that fax, I was unaware you had tried to contact me. I asked my Secretary, Sue Pyle, if you had called last week. She said you hadn’t, but that First Officer Ryter had called late on Thursday. I asked her why she hadn’t told me, and she said that I had already left for my meeting with Mr. Arpey when Mr. Ryter had called, and that she had sent a message to my personal e-mail at home. Furthermore, she was sick and did not come to work on Friday, so she could not confirm that I received the e-mail. I did not check my personal e-mail over the weekend. It was my anniversary and Sunday was Mother’s Day, so I took the weekend off from work.

While coordination and communication could obviously have been better by both parties, given what I have been dealing with, I have tried to keep ALPA Eagle abreast of the events at APA as best I can.

Your recent written communication and your representation at meetings by legal counsel, and not by ALPA’s elected leadership, gives me a clear indication where ALPA Eagle is concentrating its focus and more than likely its future efforts. You state that you seek resolution, but your letters are filled with antagonistic and confrontational sentiments.

In the context of your fax dated May 12, you state you wish to confirm the positions taken by my Negotiating Committee and me. Let me be clear that I do not agree with your counsel’s summation of that meeting. Secondly, in the closing paragraph you state I made a threat to your representatives-I did not make a threat, but simply told them what I am prepared to do. I am sorry if they believe this to be threatening, but it is reality.

With that said, I cannot understand how you, as the representative of more than 2,000 American Eagle pilots, are asking that we exercise our rights to forcibly displace more than 450 of your CJ Captains out of their positions in the name of complying with “your view†of the application of Supplement W. You surely understand this has been a contentious issue with our pilots from the outset of our tentative agreement. With regard to this issue, I have a tremendous amount of regret over the impact that our recently concluded agreement will have on our junior-most pilots-no different than the frustration being exhibited by you and your staff in the letters that you have been writing.

I have done everything I can to be as forthright with you as possible. It cannot be any surprise to you that APA secured 51+ seat RJ flying. We have told you from the outset that this would be one of APA’s goals and I informed you immediately following management’s positive response to us in mid-March. If someone in your organization or at Eagle management has misled you, that is a matter between you and them. But nothing in Supplement W prohibits us from reacquiring what we gave away in 1987, the 51+ seat RJ flying.

As for furloughs at ALPA Eagle, I can certainly sympathize with you and your pilots. No one knows better than the pilots of APA about the effects of furloughs. We will have more pilots furloughed from American Airlines than are contained on your entire seniority list. At last count, nearly 3,000 APA pilots will be without jobs by next May. As a byproduct of this furlough, hundreds of APA pilots will also lose their bids as Captains. So I can understand your pilots’ objections to the negative career implications from the application of Supplement W and APA’s agreement. But even with all that said, from what was briefed to us at our meeting last Thursday, it appears the effect of furloughs at ALPA Eagle is a matter between ALPA Eagle and Eagle management, not APA.

It was made clear at the meeting last Thursday that in ALPA Eagle’s view, furloughed American pilots do not have the right to displace into a CRJ Captain position even if the furloughed American pilot is senior to the American Eagle pilot on the American Airlines seniority list. In ALPA’s view, the only way to attain these positions would be to displace the ERJ Captains first by exercising our rights under Supplement W.

This position by ALPA Eagle raises some very interesting points. To prevent the occurrence of future grievances, we must all be clear on the application of Supplement W. Secondly, from my vantage point, it appears that under your interpretation of Supplement W, furloughed American Airlines pilots should displace your current ERJ Captains out of their positions. To do otherwise would likely place all parties in a very protracted grievance situation, given our differing views on APA’s latest agreement and the application of Supplement W.

As I stated earlier, the APA Board of Directors meets this week in DFW. I will brief the Board on these latest developments and the positions of the ALPA MEC.

Sincerely,

/signed/,
Captain John E. Darrah
President

cc: Board of Directors
National Officers
Captain Duane Woerth
First Officer Dave Ryter
Jeff Brundage
Mark Burdette
Mike Costello
Rose Doria

 

[G4G5]

You are arguing semantics. AA mgt and the AA pilot don't care about being on the Eagle list. It's all about who gets to fly AMR's 51+ seat jets. That's it, not the list. I have said this before, if AMR mgt was concerned about the Eagle pilots or their list, then why were they left out of the one list meeting back in March?

I am not try to start a fight but your concentrating on the verbage of sup W, when AA mgt is asking the question, who will fly the 90 and 110 seat jets? If USAir is any indication the ERJ 170 is on the way. AA mgt was not about to have a common type rated aircraft (you pick it either the Crj70/90 or the Erj) flown by to different sets of pilots & fa's on 2 different operating certificates. The 70 seat erj's are going to wind up on the AA pilots list.

So you can argue all you want about sup w ca flow backs but the real battle was over who flies the 70/90/110 seat jets. This where your union let you down, again. The Apa already had the 90/110 seat jets so for AMR mgt to trade the rights to the Common Type rated 51+ seats jets was not that big a deal. Especially when you consider that the Apa pilots gave back $660 million in concessions (by AA mgt's calculations, in reality $850 million) and 3000 pilot jobs.

How much did Eagle provide in concessions towards AMR's recovery?

I have heard every excuse in the book, from "we are already the lowest paid" (what does this have to do with the apa pilots, you negotiated your contract) to, "we were never asked"

The reality is Eagle is part of AMR and while every other work group provided hunderds of millions in relief you provided nothing, not a dime. So cry all you want over the 70 seaters(like we are crying over our concessions), The writing was on the wall last March. It's not personal its business and with AMR it's all about the $$$$$$$$, not me vs you or Eagle vs the APA.

It would have cost AMR more to let Eagle fly the 90/110 seaters (contractually belong to the APA). AA mgt was not willing to fihgt it in BK court when you consider that the USAir pilots got the rights to the ERJ's.

Bottom line, AMR got $660 and all they had to do was give up 25-crj70's. Yeah the APA really pulled one over on you guys. We got hit by the same bus that ran you guys over, the only thing is now we have a different driver.

 

[FWAAA]

----------------
On 5/15/2003 9:09:50 AM G4G5 wrote:

You are arguing semantics. AA mgt and the AA pilot don''t care about being on the Eagle list. It''s all about who gets to fly AMR''s 51+ seat jets. That''s it, not the list. I have said this before, if AMR mgt was concerned about the Eagle pilots or their list, then why were they left out of the one list meeting back in March?

I am not try to start a fight but your concentrating on the verbage of sup W, when AA mgt is asking the question, who will fly the 90 and 110 seat jets? If USAir is any indication the ERJ 170 is on the way. AA mgt was not about to have a common type rated aircraft (you pick it either the Crj70/90 or the Erj) flown by to different sets of pilots & fa''s on 2 different operating certificates. The 70 seat erj''s are going to wind up on the AA pilots list.

So you can argue all you want about sup w ca flow backs but the real battle was over who flies the 70/90/110 seat jets. This where your union let you down, again. The Apa already had the 90/110 seat jets so for AMR mgt to trade the rights to the Common Type rated 51+ seats jets was not that big a deal. Especially when you consider that the Apa pilots gave back $660 million in concessions (by AA mgt''s calculations, in reality $850 million) and 3000 pilot jobs.

How much did Eagle provide in concessions towards AMR''s recovery?

I have heard every excuse in the book, from "we are already the lowest paid" (what does this have to do with the apa pilots, you negotiated your contract) to, "we were never asked"

The reality is Eagle is part of AMR and while every other work group provided hunderds of millions in relief you provided nothing, not a dime. So cry all you want over the 70 seaters(like we are crying over our concessions), The writing was on the wall last March. It''s not personal its business and with AMR it''s all about the $$$$$$$$, not me vs you or Eagle vs the APA.

It would have cost AMR more to let Eagle fly the 90/110 seaters (contractually belong to the APA). AA mgt was not willing to fihgt it in BK court when you consider that the USAir pilots got the rights to the ERJ''s.

Bottom line, AMR got $660 and all they had to do was give up 25-crj70''s. Yeah the APA really pulled one over on you guys. We got hit by the same bus that ran you guys over, the only thing is now we have a different driver.

----------------​

Probably the best written 8 paragraphs ever posted to this BB. You speak the truth.

You left out one additional gift from the APA to the ALPA:

Eagle can now fly something in excess of 600 50 seaters.

Look for Eagle to place a large order for RJs (just like at U) sometime this summer.

 

[Cleared Direct]

----------------
On 5/15/2003 1052 AM FWAAA wrote:


You left out one additional gift from the APA to the ALPA:

Eagle can now fly something in excess of 600 50 seaters.

Look for Eagle to place a large order for RJs (just like at U) sometime this summer.

----------------​

How is additional RJs at Eagle a gift to ALPA if they are going to be staffed by APA pilots? Put the planes at AA and for God''s sake at least fly them for more money than Eagle.

 

[Cleared Direct]

----------------
On 5/15/2003 9:09:50 AM G4G5 wrote:

You are arguing semantics. AA mgt and the AA pilot don''t care about being on the Eagle list.
----------------​

Fine, put the new planes at AA and staff them with APA pilots. There would be no complaints if that was what is done. Instead, we have AA and APA agreeing to something they can''t do.

----------------
It''s all about who gets to fly AMR''s 51+ seat jets. That''s it, not the list. I have said this before, if AMR mgt was concerned about the Eagle pilots or their list, then why were they left out of the one list meeting back in March?
----------------​

Yes, it is about the 51+ seat jets. APA has also put an illegal grab for more 50 seat jets also. No one ever said AMR cares about the seniority list.

----------------
I am not try to start a fight but your concentrating on the verbage of sup W, when AA mgt is asking the question, who will fly the 90 and 110 seat jets? If USAir is any indication the ERJ 170 is on the way. AA mgt was not about to have a common type rated aircraft (you pick it either the Crj70/90 or the Erj) flown by to different sets of pilots & fa''s on 2 different operating certificates. The 70 seat erj''s are going to wind up on the AA pilots list.
----------------​

My quoting of Supplement W contractual language is only to defend ALPA''s contractual rights when it comes to the attempt by APA to grab more seats than is allowed by the contract. Yes I absolutely agree the 51+ seater RJ will eventually only be operated at AA.

----------------
So you can argue all you want about sup w ca flow backs but the real battle was over who flies the 70/90/110 seat jets. This where your union let you down, again. The Apa already had the 90/110 seat jets so for AMR mgt to trade the rights to the Common Type rated 51+ seats jets was not that big a deal. Especially when you consider that the Apa pilots gave back $660 million in concessions (by AA mgt''s calculations, in reality $850 million) and 3000 pilot jobs.
----------------​

My union has not let me down. Eagle ALPA never had any exclusive rights to any aircraft size. We simply had the contractual right to fly up to 67 jets that are between 45 and 70 seats. That''s it, nothing else. By no means has Eagle ever had any type of exclusive rights to 70 seaters.

The seventy seaters that are being operated at Eagle today can''t merely be transferred to AA without an agreement with ALPA. Even APA and AA agree in the TA that they have to come to agreement with Eagle ALPA on what to do with the Eagle Right pilots that are in the CRJ-700. You are right it is not that big of a deal, but they still have to agree.

With all the concessions that APA I would have expected them to get much more.

----------------
How much did Eagle provide in concessions towards AMR''s recovery?

I have heard every excuse in the book, from "we are already the lowest paid" (what does this have to do with the apa pilots, you negotiated your contract) to, "we were never asked"

The reality is Eagle is part of AMR and while every other work group provided hunderds of millions in relief you provided nothing, not a dime. So cry all you want over the 70 seaters(like we are crying over our concessions), The writing was on the wall last March. It''s not personal its business and with AMR it''s all about the $$$$$$$$, not me vs you or Eagle vs the APA.

It would have cost AMR more to let Eagle fly the 90/110 seaters (contractually belong to the APA). AA mgt was not willing to fihgt it in BK court when you consider that the USAir pilots got the rights to the ERJ''s.

Bottom line, AMR got $660 and all they had to do was give up 25-crj70''s. Yeah the APA really pulled one over on you guys. We got hit by the same bus that ran you guys over, the only thing is now we have a different driver.
----------------​

While Eagle did lose a little money in 2002, they actually showed a profit in the 4th quarter. Now that we have been put on a fee for departure agreement with AA, watch for even better numbers. We compete directly with AX now on an even scale. They are trying to make us look profitable to sale us off.

I agree that in an ideal world all AMR companies should share in the concessions toward recovery. The reality is that Eagle never shared in the profits of AMR like AA employees have. During growth times most AA employees will comment that Eagle is a separate company and not part of AA. Now during the down times we are the same company.

If you are going to ask me to participate in the shared concessions, then invite me to the table to choose where those concessions come from just like you were able to do. Instead they have been illegally dictated to us outside of our contractual obligation.

At least you were able to choose what lane your were in when the bus ran you over.

 

[FWAAA]

We obviously disagree about the number of APA-represented AA pilots will choose to fly a 50 seat RJ. You fear that many will, I predict: hardly any.

So instead of having the right to fly 67 50 seaters, now you''ll probably have about 600 of them. People can argue all day about how many displaced AA pilots will choose to fly them.

Concessions suck. Everybody gave up something (even the lowly ALPA Eagle pilots).

But the concessions are in place, and now it''s time to move on and turn things around. THEN, everybody can get back what''s theirs.