Smilin' Jack


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Smilin' Jack   » Specific Airline Discussions   » American Eagle, American Connection   » Eagle's integration into mainline American?

   
Author Topic: Eagle's integration into mainline American?
10229
Post Captain
Member # 290

Icon 11 posted      Profile for 10229   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Does anybody know what alpa's grand plan to merge Eagle into the mainline? Watch your back folks; with friends like Alpa, who needs enemies?
Posts: 432 | From: New York  |  IP: Logged
Somewhere over America
Post Captain
Member # 791

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Somewhere over America     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 10229:

[ 07-26-2002: Message edited by: Somewhere over America ]


Posts: 29  |  IP: Logged
10229
Post Captain
Member # 290

Icon 6 posted      Profile for 10229   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Somewhere;
You must be one of the msg. board's intellectuals. I love your wit, really I do.

Paul

Posts: 432 | From: New York  |  IP: Logged
Legacy
Junior Poster
Member # 1841

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Legacy         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Somewhere over America:

[ 07-26-2002: Message edited by: Somewhere over America ]



Super80:

Grow up!

[ 07-28-2002: Message edited by: Legacy ]


Posts: 4  |  IP: Logged
dogdriver
Post Captain
Member # 1517

Icon 5 posted      Profile for dogdriver     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
10229,

By saying "watch your back folks" are you implying that someone is going to screw the AE guys? Would stapling them be a screw job? What would you suggest be done in a "merger"?

Just curious,
DD


Posts: 31 | From: Wolfeboro, NH  |  IP: Logged
TWAF/A
Junior Poster
Member # 1791

Icon 1 posted      Profile for TWAF/A   Email TWAF/A   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In a true, straight-out merge, 100% seniority should be given to both sides.

In a buyout, I truly feel that a 3rd party should decide seniority.


Posts: 13 | From: STL  |  IP: Logged
10229
Post Captain
Member # 290

Icon 6 posted      Profile for 10229   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TWAF/A:

Sounds like something I could live with.

Dogdriver:
Alpo has let down many in the past and will let down many more to come ergo, "watch your backs AE."

Paul


Posts: 432 | From: New York  |  IP: Logged
dogdriver
Post Captain
Member # 1517

Icon 1 posted      Profile for dogdriver     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
10229,

I guess that what I am trying to ask is (I am assuming that you are an AE guy) would you feel let down if AE was stapled to the bottom of the APA list? And, do you feel that you should come over with date of hire seniority? If so, how do you justify taking a job from someone else at AA who was hired with the expectation of doing that job at AA and getting the pay that goes along with it? The AE guys took jobs at AE with the expectations of flying commuter type aircraft for commuter pay. I'm also sure that most, if not all, had expectations of building time and moving on to a "major". Even if you achieved your expectation of moving on you would still start at the bottom. Also, please don't tell me that a so called merge give you some kind of special rights. We all have rights and your right is to keep what you brought to the table, that is to maintain you realistic career expectations, and not take something that belongs to someone else.

DD


Posts: 31 | From: Wolfeboro, NH  |  IP: Logged
10229
Post Captain
Member # 290

Icon 6 posted      Profile for 10229   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DD;

I really enjoyed your above post and totally agree with what you have stated. That being said, TWA came with 136 aircraft and a large operation in STL that AA decided to keep in their fleet and along with that came Captain jobs that the native americans seem to desire. After 13 years of flying for a major, and being a captain on one of the 103 S8T's, Im glad you understand how I feel.
Amagine my amazement when a newbee calls us scabs............Don't bother, I have a good idea who you work for..........Later, Paul


Posts: 432 | From: New York  |  IP: Logged
dogdriver
Post Captain
Member # 1517

Icon 1 posted      Profile for dogdriver     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 10229:
DD;

Amagine my amazement when a newbee calls us scabs............Don't bother, I have a good idea who you work for..........Later, Paul


10229,

I'm not quite sure where you want to go with the above statement. Just to clear up a few things, I do work for AA, I'm not a newbee (been here 14 years) and I have never called you or anyone else from TWA a scab. I also do understand how you feel and believe you should keep what sustainable jobs you brought. I also feel that APA was a bit generous when they agreed to count the 717s. Many, including me, felt that they would not be around for very long. Need I say more. I also believe that you understand the concept of proportionality, which is what is driving the number of CA seats in STL down at this time. No one before 9/11 believed that we would shrink as much as we have/will and I'm sure that the proportionality protection clause was put into CC just to cover the bases in case the unthinkable happened. Unfortunately for all of us (and many others), it did. Also, you couldn't possibly believe (could you) that the number of CA seats reserved for TWA guys would be protected regardless of how much AMR decides to shrink the fleet. That would mean that if we shrunk to 136 planes, you (the TWA side) would be the only ones in the left seat. Please don't tell me that the planes that were removed from the fleet were from the AA side so we should lose the jobs, because all of our aircraft are AA aircraft. Besides, if you do believe the above, then you are in affect saying that you should be tied to tail numbers. I'm sure you wouldn't like that either.
In closing, I don't think that the vast majority of AA guys want to take you jobs. They only want to keep what they had prior to the "merger". They also understand that the seats they are losing are not the fault of TWA pilots, but of bad management decisions and terrorist actions. The near future may not be easy but the only way out of this is to work together.
See ya around,
DD


Posts: 31 | From: Wolfeboro, NH  |  IP: Logged
10229
Post Captain
Member # 290

Icon 6 posted      Profile for 10229   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks for the pleasant response. I don't totally agree with everything you stated but the feeling I got out of your post is that there is hope.
Posts: 432 | From: New York  |  IP: Logged
IA Farm Boy
Post Captain
Member # 2024

Icon 1 posted      Profile for IA Farm Boy     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ladies and Gents:

I think it should be known, and in fact obvious that the VAST majority of AE pilots do not expect DOH or anything else should a "merger" ever take place. If a vote was held tomorrow, 90% (my conservative estimate) would accept a staple, so long as they won't immediately get furloughed, to bring back those TWAA on furlough. Basically, a fence until everyone is back. And then, all newhires would start at the bottom, in the turboprops or RJs, whatever is at the bottom at that time.

I know there are a few at AE who would balk. I also know there are a few at TWAA who think that their kids/squadron buds/friends/whatever shouldn't start in anything smaller than a F-100. Obviously everything is a compromise.

Right now, it doesn't matter. There is no offer on the table (nor if Mr. Carty has his way, will there be). What Mr. Carty does want is to fly lots airplanes at lower wages with increased competition (between lots of AMR carriers). What that means for TWAA is AE. What that is now meaning for AE is TSA/CHQ/CO. The company is violating AE's Scope clause at will. The reason given at first was "not enough pilots/aircraft." Now its "we don't have the money."

So far, AA's Scope Clause has been abided by (at least as far as I know, but I admittedly don't know much). If they get away with violating our (AE) Scope Clause, what's next? A somewhat wise man said we can either fight together, or hang seperately. As for ALPA, there is always room for improvement. As of late, they have been commiting resourses to AE's cause. For that I'm grateful. They are what we've got, so I support them. There has been communication between our MEC and APA, which can only be good for all of us. Just like in the flight deck- CRM. We each have a resource, and things go much better when we use all the resources.

Sorry for the rambling. I know alot of great folks, who are real professionals at AA, TWA, and AE. I have also ran into a couple of jerks at all of them. Thank God they're not the majority. Good Luck- we'll all need it...


Posts: 30  |  IP: Logged
dragitin
Post Captain
Member # 631

Icon 1 posted      Profile for dragitin     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is a nice academic discussion. As long as AMR can violate scope at will with outsourcing AE pilots work to CHQ and TSA, they don't have much of an incentive considering the AE ALPA 16 year contract.

In the near term, the what happens in STL with the upcoming business plan change, and furlough rumors is of prime interest.


Posts: 77  |  IP: Logged


 
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Smilin' Jack's Aviation Directory



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0