Apa, Chq, And The Emb-170

[Cleared Direct]

July 22, 2004

BY FACSIMILE

Mark L. Burdette
Vice President - Employee Relations
American Airlines, Inc.
P.O. Box 619616 MD5624
DFW Airport, TX 75261-9616

Re: Operation of EMB-170 jets by Chautauqua Airlines

Dear Mark:

As you know, for the last several years, Chautauqua Airlines, Inc. has been a regional partner of American Airlines operating pursuant to Section 1.D. of the Scope Clause in our Basic Agreement. On July 13, 2004, Chautauqua filed an application with the Department of Transportation seeking certification to operate EMB 170 aircraft. I understand that Chautauqua intends to utilize these aircraft on behalf of United Airlines beginning in October 2004.

On behalf of the Allied Pilots Association, I want to clearly and forcefully assert that Chautauqua may not utilize the EMB 170 aircraft and continue to operate as a Commuter Air Carrier under Section 1 of our Agreement. The language of the Scope Clause is unambiguous: to be a “Commuter Air Carrier,†an air carrier must utilize “only (a) aircraft that are certificated in the United States and Europe with a maximum passenger capacity of 50 passenger seats or fewer and (B) aircraft that are not certificated in any country with a maximum gross takeoff weight of more than 64,500 pounds.†If Chautauqua operates the EMB-170, then it is no longer a “Commuter Air Carrier†under Section 1.B.4. and, accordingly, is no longer covered by the Section 1.D. Scope exception for “Commuter Air Carriers.â€

I request that American immediately clarify its intent to abide by the Agreement. The parties have agreed that any violation of the APA Scope Clause constitutes irreparable injury to American’s pilots. Together, we must avoid the imminent injury threatened by Chautauqua’s apparent intent to cease operating as a Commuter Air Carrier under our Agreement.

I look forward to receiving your prompt assurances.

Sincerely,

Captain Ralph Hunter
President

cc. Edgar N. James. Esq.
APA Negotiating Committee
APA Scope Committee
APA Board of Directors

 

[FWAAA]

Republic was granted the change by the DoT.

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/040729/295852_1.html

As an aside, as long as Republic flies 50 seaters (and smaller) for AX, what real difference does it make that it flies some larger RJs for other airlines?

Or is this just a distinction without a difference, as my grandparents used to say?

Now, if AA tries to get Republic to fly these for AX, now THAT would be a real scope issue.

 

[Winglet]

It matters not who they're flown for. If the outsourcer company has aircraft that exceed the contractural limit, it's a scope violation.

 

[FWAAA]

It matters not who they're flown for. If the outsourcer company has aircraft that exceed the contractural limit, it's a scope violation.

I realize that. My question is "Why does it matter what airplanes the company flies for other airlines as long as it flies complying aircraft (50 seats and less) for AA?"

What does the APA gain by forcing AA to cancel the contract with Republic and replace it with Trans States or some other outfit?

Like I said, distinction without a difference.

 

[Cleared Direct]

http://www.alliedpilots.org/Public/PublicR...ine/hotline.asp

This is Lynne Clark, Editorial Services Manager, with the APA Information Hotline for Friday, July 30, 2004.

CHAUTAUQUA AIRLINES: APA representatives met with Management this week regarding the recent announcement by Chautauqua Airlines (CHQ) that the carrier will be acquiring EMB-170s to conduct regional feed operations as a United Express carrier. Even though Chautauqua will not base these aircraft in St. Louis or use them as part of the American Connection service, APA reiterated its position that Chautauqua cannot operate a single EMB-170 and still remain a Commuter Air Carrier as specified in Section 1.D. of the contract. Management has stated their intention to comply with their obligations under the Green Book, and APA will continue to meet with the Company until the matter is resolved.

 

[Winglet]

Why does it matter? Because they large capacity aircraft have the potential to compete with our own AA narrow body flying and our pilots jobs. We should not, even indirectly, aquiese even potential flying to competitors.

 

[Oneflyer]

We should not, even indirectly, aquiese even potential flying to competitors.

Thats great. Make sure that you put AA at a competive disadvantage. That will really save jobs. Your logic is backwards, your actions force jobs elsewhere by not allowing AA to compete on a level playing field which stifles growth because routes are less profitable or in reality more of a money loser than they alread were.

Why not figure out a way to work with the company to include the 170 in the scope clause at rates that are realistic?

 

[AA80Driver]

Thats great. Make sure that you put AA at a competive disadvantage. That will really save jobs. Your logic is backwards, your actions force jobs elsewhere by not allowing AA to compete on a level playing field which stifles growth because routes are less profitable or in reality more of a money loser than they alread were.

Why not figure out a way to work with the company to include the 170 in the scope clause at rates that are realistic?

One flyer, if the APA did as you espouse, the APA and AA pilots would go away. While that may be an aspiration for you and your management bretheren, it's not a reasonable objective for AA pilots.

AMR received major scope concessions in last years contract. The quid is that AA pilots own all flying 51 seats and above with the exception of (25) CR7 currently on order for Eagle. APA will retain the flying in the 70-110 seat narrowbody range and is willing to negotiate. How will allowing violations or scope exceptions advance that objective.

Conversely, how will sticking to the contract and forcing the company's hand on CHQ put AMR at a competitive disadvantage? UAL replaced ACA in what...5 minutes. And DAL is also replacing ACA with ease. Their is plenty of RJ lift out there should AMR need it.

Additionally, with most 50 seat and below wraps lifted, AMR can now employ Eage to a larger degree than they could a year ago, so the need for contract lift may be diminished. Of course, even in today's environment, they are having trouble filling cockpit seats there and accepting additional flight hours from AMR due to the enlightend QOL and compensation, but that's a topic for a new thread.

 

[AV8NSIGO]

Actually, DAL is not replacing the ACA flying "...with ease," as previously stated.

SkyWay, if my information is accurate, told DAL no. They didn't like the code share agreement, revenue sharing, etc. This comes from an operator with operational experience in the DO-328 jet.

Personally, I hope Comair/ASA don't get the airframe because of maintenance, passenger comfort and speed issues. I liken the situation with the F-100s at AA to another carrier operating the DO-328 jet. Why operate an airplane which requires another program manager and associated support personnel? Why operate an airframe with marginal tech support? Fairchild-Dornier, like Fokker, is no longer in business. Why get raked over the coals on spares as AA is with the Fokker?

I understand the scope issue. However, this another example of one pilot group (APA) exercising remote control over a group of pilots (CHQ) whom the APA does notrepresent!

Fly safe!

 

[AA80Driver]

Actually, DAL is not replacing the ACA flying "...with ease," as previously stated.

SkyWay, if my information is accurate, told DAL no. They didn't like the code share agreement, revenue sharing, etc. This comes from an operator with operational experience in the DO-328 jet.

Personally, I hope Comair/ASA don't get the airframe because of maintenance, passenger comfort and speed issues. I liken the situation with the F-100s at AA to another carrier operating the DO-328 jet. Why operate an airplane which requires another program manager and associated support personnel? Why operate an airframe with marginal tech support? Fairchild-Dornier, like Fokker, is no longer in business. Why get raked over the coals on spares as AA is with the Fokker?

I understand the scope issue. However, this another example of one pilot group (APA) exercising remote control over a group of pilots (CHQ) whom the APA does notrepresent!

Fly safe!

APA is not exercising control over the CHQ group, it is exercising control over its contract with AMR. We have no duty to ensure that CHQ pilots have an opportunity to fly bigger airplanes. We also don't have the power to stop that. CHQ needs to decide what it wants to be: a commuter air carrier or a mainline domestic code share partner. Right now, it can't do business with AMR and be both.

 

[amcnd]

Well put AA80driver... What it comes down to is AMR willing to throw money at a company like CHQ when they realy dont help the bottem line like Eagle does. To me it is a wast of money and employ moral to have contract companys around. Keep it in the family!!

 

[Winglet]

AE . . . . family? AE people hate AA. Go to some of the AE boards and you'll see some of the vile names they call AA employees. With the amount of flying that's getting transferred to AE, I want a divorce. I be happy if AMR would sell AE.

 

[L1011Ret]

Far out - dictating what kind of business a company should conduct! "CHQ needs to decide what it wants to be: a commuter air carrier or a mainline domestic code share partner. Right now, it can't do business with AMR and be both." History is unequivocal, the harder you try to control what others do, the less control you end up having.

 

[AA80Driver]

Far out - dictating what kind of business a company should conduct! "CHQ needs to decide what it wants to be: a commuter air carrier or a mainline domestic code share partner. Right now, it can't do business with AMR and be both." History is unequivocal, the harder you try to control what others do, the less control you end up having.

Ok, please cite some examples of this unequivocal history lesson.

Neville Chamberlin comes to mind as an example where appeaement didn't work. Outsourcing small jet flying is another, because there is no end.

That's what your suggesting, right? Appeasemnent on scope issues.

 

[Oneflyer]

That's what your suggesting, right? Appeasemnent on scope issues.

You're right. Make it as difficult as possible on AA, so that as soon as you retire and take you're lump sum pay out, AA is forced out of business by leaner competition. Thats really the idea, suck as much out of AA as you can before you leave.

Lets be honest here, this is just a power play by the APA. They feel like they have to show AMR that they are still powerful after renegeotiating their contract last year. They need to show that "They won't be pushed around".