First Class Cabins Coming to Eagle

[jimntx]

Second, Negotiate pay rates for EVERYTHING thats AMR, not AA or A/E.

Need I remind you that the company has already announced that AE is for sale. What is their motivation for negotiating equal pay rates for AA and AE? You will never convince anyone at any airline that rj employees and mainline employees should be on the same pay scale--regardless of whether or not it is true, honorable, or ethical.

I can just see the brouhaha that would develop if a pilot or f/a chose to stay at AE and was making more than a more junior person at mainline. BUT THEY'RE AT EAGLE, FOR CHRISSAKES! THEY CAN'T BE MAKING MORE THAN ME. I'M FILING A GRIEVANCE.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Granted the current APA contract does prevent this,.......BUt this is not an IMPOSSIBLE problem to fix.

The problem - from the pilot's perspective - is this.....

If the "They can be operated cheaper" argument to put ~100-seat E190/195's at Eagle is accepted, the same argument would apply equally to putting C-jets at Eagle. Then the 737. Then the 757. Then the 767. Then the 777.

So if the union accepts the basic argument - if it's cheaper we allow it - there's no point on the aircraft size scale where it doesn't apply. So either an arbitrary line is drawn - planes bigger than X are flown by mainline - or there is not a line at all.

Of course, the alternative is one airline, one pilot group, one contract that flies every size airplane. But that horse left the barn a long time ago and probably can't be put back in it's stall.

Jim

 

[FWAAA]

Still depends what they could negotiate with the mainline pilots and flight attendants. If I understand correctly (and someone correct me if I am wrong), it is current contract stipulation that any a/c with over 70 seats MUST be flown by mainline. Having an a/c larger than that but smaller than S80 would defeat the purpose if it had to be staffed at mainline rates.

I could be wrong but I think the APA's scope clause covers everything with more than 50 seats; a longstanding exception has existed for the ATRs and a more recent exemption covers the 25 70-seat CRJs.

The Eagle pay rates for the CRJs aren't all that far away from the old F100 rates. I'd like to see the APA and the company reach a compromise that would keep the (inevitable orders for) 190s/195s at mainline but with rates that are a slight break from the old F100 rates. With a small F cabin (maybe 9 seats in a 1-2 configuration), a 90 seater could work in many markets that currently see the CRJs or MD-80s.

 

[jimntx]

With a small F cabin (maybe 9 seats in a 1-2 configuration), a 90 seater could work in many markets that currently see the CRJs or MD-80s.

I agree, but I don't think that is the company's thinking. I still think that they have a dream of fulfilling Crandall's vision of AA doing nothing but International, and AE doing ALL domestic--at AE rates, not AA rates.

 

[eolesen]

I could be wrong but I think the APA's scope clause covers everything with more than 50 seats; a longstanding exception has existed for the ATRs and a more recent exemption covers the 25 70-seat CRJs.

The Eagle pay rates for the CRJs aren't all that far away from the old F100 rates. I'd like to see the APA and the company reach a compromise that would keep the (inevitable orders for) 190s/195s at mainline but with rates that are a slight break from the old F100 rates. With a small F cabin (maybe 9 seats in a 1-2 configuration), a 90 seater could work in many markets that currently see the CRJs or MD-80s.

All true on the scope, and I agree on the rates -- if the book for C-jets or E170's and above were reasonable, I could see management agreeing to keep that work at the mainline.

Either model would make a great shuttle aircraft for markets like BOS-LGA-DCA or SFO-LAX. Then again, that's what we said about the little-motor-Fokker 20 years ago... Performance didn't exactly match the promises...