WeAAsles
Veteran
- Oct 20, 2007
- 23,196
- 5,343
Go Pilots Go!!!
Maybe one day The TWU will borrow there playbook? (Hope is a good thing, maybe the best thing? Red to Andy in Shawshank Redemption )AA baffled
- Thread starter getreal
- Start date
Go Pilots Go!!!
Maybe one day The TWU will borrow there playbook? (Hope is a good thing, maybe the best thing? Red to Andy in Shawshank Redemption )
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Oct 20, 2007
- 23,196
- 5,343
This should be in all posts, JMO
http://blogs.wsj.com/middleseat/2008/09/19...t/?mod=yahoo_hs
Woo Hoo AA's gonna have to pony up to those darn unions.
http://blogs.wsj.com/middleseat/2008/09/19...t/?mod=yahoo_hs
Woo Hoo AA's gonna have to pony up to those darn unions.
I have yet to see any substantive allegation that AA is violating the current pilot contract with the BA deal. You all #### and moan about the amount of money AA spends on lawyers and consultants; are you trying to tell me this army of litigators missed a 777-sized contract clause? Care to try again?
As for pulling routes and letting others do the flying, let's look at a recent example in the marketplace: United and Lufthansa. United has hardly pulled out of the trans-atlantic market. Far from it, in fact. They have expanded their presence, and off the top of my head fly to LHR, AMS, ZRH, FRA, MUC, FCO. UA has flights into LH's primary hubs from SFO, LAX, ORD, IAD. So is LH doing the flying for them? How have the UA pilots suffered?
To use an AA example, AA codeshares with AS on flights SEA-ANC. Does that mean AA doesn't fly to ANC? Nope, they have summer nonstops DFW-ANC. If AA wanted it could route all traffic DFW-PDX/SEA-ANC and let AS do the flying. But they don't. They fly where there is demand.
Go get a reality check before you refer to me as "f'in clueless". I work in this industry just like you do (no, not in airline management), and know a lot more about its mechanics than you ever will.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,988
- 9,428
What you say is mostly true ---- the immunized alliances so far have resulted in no loss of flying to speak of, and have opened up a lot of secondary markets which might not otherwise be operated. Block hours & bid sheets didn't suffer at DAL, NWA, or UAL. Even US has benefitted.
tfc, you know not of what you speak.... WN is getting ready to launch a codeshare with Westjet. Why codeshare with the second largest carrier in Canada when you can do it yourselves? Oh, yeah.... Market presence. Serve a route like YWG-DEN and you'll wind up with crap for originating pax at both ends if it is WN metal. But in YWG, they know WS, and will fly them.
Same thing in Europe. AA's a cup of piss when it comes to trying to gain originating passengers in Western Europe, but the moment you slap the IB or BA code on those flights, they'll fill up with people who bank on miles in those programs. I'd be the first one to hop on BA out of PHX if AA were codesharing... and guess what? AA would get half the revenue without doing a damn thing, and that's all money going into your profit sharing fund.
But those are just fact, which I know don't help you push your agenda....
tfc, you know not of what you speak.... WN is getting ready to launch a codeshare with Westjet. Why codeshare with the second largest carrier in Canada when you can do it yourselves? Oh, yeah.... Market presence. Serve a route like YWG-DEN and you'll wind up with crap for originating pax at both ends if it is WN metal. But in YWG, they know WS, and will fly them.
Same thing in Europe. AA's a cup of piss when it comes to trying to gain originating passengers in Western Europe, but the moment you slap the IB or BA code on those flights, they'll fill up with people who bank on miles in those programs. I'd be the first one to hop on BA out of PHX if AA were codesharing... and guess what? AA would get half the revenue without doing a damn thing, and that's all money going into your profit sharing fund.
But those are just fact, which I know don't help you push your agenda....
Our agenda, Mr. E, is that we need to work to earn, and that AA gets paid for "not doing a damned thing" only bodes well for the executive trash, not the workers.
As your agenda and that of other pro-company people always seems to omit, when workers don't have anything to do, they go home - for good.
Sure, no prob. Here it is, straight out of our contract, since you need proof:
C. SCOPE
1. General.
All flying performed by or on behalf of the Company or an Affiliate shall be
performed by pilots on the American Airlines Pilots Seniority List in accordance
with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
What that means, FFCA, is that if the company performs flying that generates revenue for American Airlines, there must be an AA pilot doing that flying. There are certain exceptions allowing for code sharing and such, but there is absolutely NO defintions/allowances for JOINT BUSINESS VENTURES such as what the company is pursuing. As such, they need to discuss this with the APA BEFORE they engage in such deals, and they are therefore violating our contract by pursuing flying that is NOT being done by AA pilots but WILL generate revenue for the company. SCOPE VIOLATION! In other words, job outsourcing.
Maybe UAL gets it - THIS management does not. Remember Reno and the SJC hub? The Canadian deal? Enough said. AA has a history of pulling out of markets and letting their code sharing partners do the flying. How does that harm the employees? Duh. In AMR's view, demand doesn't necessarily have to be met with AA's planes - especially when they are trying to cut costs.
No, I still think you are f'in clueless about the pilots' side of it, and it's apparent from your post.
Management types always pretend to be clueless until they get their prey by the 'nads.
I understand why pilots don't tolerate scope violations.
What I'm not so sure about is whether BA and AA getting together to agree on prices for their flying and agreeing to share revenues (so it won't matter whether a passenger buys a ticket on BA or AA) constitutes "flying by or on behalf of AA." APA acts as though it's a foregone conclusion, and they might be right. Any precedent, be it arbitration or court decision on that one? Other than your conclusory sentences which I bolded?
Like I said, you and the APA might be correct. But so far, all I see are conclusions without any supporting analysis. Given that the APA wants to get passengers on their side (via the billboards), you'd think they would be willing to explain their reasoning as to why they believe the joint venture constitutes a scope violation.
FWAAA,
The APA has explained their reasoning ad nauseum, but no one listens. Here is the press release, available on the public part of the APA site as well as published in one of the DFW area newspapers. Bold type highlights our concerns:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT:
Captain Karl Schricker
817-302-2350/214-957-5275
Gregg Overman
817-302-2250/817-312-3901
ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION URGES POSTPONING DECISION ON AMERICAN AIRLINES’ ANTITRUST, JOINT VENTURE APPLICATIONS
Fort Worth, Texas (Sept. 17, 2008)—The Allied Pilots Association (APA), certified collective bargaining agent for the 12,000 pilots of American Airlines (NYSE: AMR), has asked the federal government to defer any ruling on American Airlines’ application for antitrust exemption to allow for a full examination of related national security, competitiveness and outsourcing issues.
American Airlines, British Airways, Iberia, Finnair and Royal Jordanian recently filed an application for worldwide antitrust immunity and are seeking rapid approval of their application. In a related development, American Airlines also announced it had reached a “joint business agreement†with British Airways and Iberia. Last week American Airlines, British Airways and Iberia indicated that they had “no objection†to combining their antitrust immunity and joint venture applications.
“Given the complexity of these proposed agreements, the many unknowns associated with them and other important considerations, we strongly recommend that any decision be deferred until a thorough analysis can be conducted,†said APA President Captain Lloyd Hill. “APA has major job-security concerns relative to what American Airlines is attempting to do, while other interested parties have voiced meaningful opposition to reduced competition among carriers. There simply isn’t time for the federal government to conduct an appropriately thorough investigation in a matter of weeks, as American Airlines management has advocated.â€
Hill also pointed out that the government depends upon U.S. airlines to carry troops and supplies in wartime as the nation’s Civil Reserve Air Fleet.
“APA questions the wisdom of permitting national strategic-interest companies such as airlines to engage in what amounts to a virtual merger with foreign counterparts,†he said. “I do not believe anyone fully understands the potential national-security ramifications of such a step.â€
Hill also expressed APA’s concerns over the potential outsourcing of more American jobs.
“As we have seen in the takeover of freight carrier Airborne Express by German company DHL with 8,000 Ohio workers now losing their jobs, international deals like this can have extremely adverse consequences for American workers,†he said.
In addition, Hill pointed out that APA’s current collective bargaining agreement precludes any joint business agreement between American Airlines and another carrier. The contract’s “Scope†clause explicitly states that “All flying performed by or on behalf of the Company or an Affiliate shall be performed by pilots on the American Airlines Pilots Seniority List.†The clause does contain a series of exceptions for code-sharing agreements, commuter affiliate operations and other situations, but does not include any exception for a joint business agreement.
“Thus far American Airlines management has not negotiated any agreement with APA that would permit the airline to enter into a joint venture with British Airways and Iberia, which we firmly believe is a prerequisite,†Hill said.
In a letter this week to the CEOs of British Airways and Iberia, Hill questioned the advisability of entering into a joint business agreement with American Airlines at this juncture. He emphasized to the executives that APA has been rebuffed in its efforts to work with American Airlines management to address the airline’s widely reported operational shortfalls. He also noted that management has permitted pilot staffing levels at American Airlines to fall below a specific contractual benchmark, triggering a provision that will soon enable APA to terminate the Scope exception that allows the company to utilize commuter air carriers in their system. In addition, Hill noted the absence of any contractual language permitting management to proceed with the joint business agreement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The APA is primarily concerned with two things: the possible ramifications of our jobs being outsourced to BA/IB on routes which AA may have previously flown, and the fact that they are trying put together a deal that is not contractually allowed for - right smack dab in the middle of Section 6 negotiations, i.e. a shot across our bow.
Thanks, but I've read APA's press release. I was hoping for some explanation as to how the joint venture constitutes "flying performed by or on behalf of AA." Could be that the proposed arrangement doesn't have anything to do with the scope clause and thus, no exception would be necessary.
Once again, the company has obviously concluded that the proposed arrangement isn't "flying performed by or on behalf of AA" and thus, no permission is necessary. AA can do whatever it wants without interference by the unions unless the union contracts prohibit AA's conduct.
I understand what the APA fears. What the APA has yet to explain is how the proposed arrangement violates the first paragraph of the scope clause. Some analysis of how NW pilots dealt with the KLM ATI 15 years ago would be illustrative. Or some analysis of how other airlines in ATI arrangements have covered this possibility would be helpful. Talking about a foreign takeover of a failing air freight hauler and the corresponding loss of jobs doesn't do much to illuminate how this arrangement violates the scope clause.
The proposed deal is a price-fixing and revenue sharing arrangement. If AA doesn't fly routes and "outsources" the flying to the partners, then AA won't have put any revenue into the pool to be shared. I don't see the partners giving much revenue back to AA if that happens. Accordingly, I don't see the motivation for AA to simply abandon lotsa flying to BA and IB. But I do see Capt Hill publicising monsters he sees in his closet.
Under the proposed arrangement, AA could suddenly decide that, due to staffing, cost of fuel, whatever, they will park or sell a couple of 767s that currently do the JFK-BCN route, and have IB fly that route while both IB and AA collect the profits even though IB does the flying. Anytime AA "contracts" with another carrier to share revenues, it is flying done on behalf of AA. This is a huge threat, and one they've carried out before.
The union contract specifically states that any exceptions to scope must be discussed with the APA first. This is most definitely an exception to our scope, since the term "joint business venture" is not in our contract.
NW pilots most likely didn't have an extensive scope agreement in their contract back then, and as such, that deal went through without many of the hurdles that exist today. Our issue is with AA, not other airlines. AA has consistently gone in a different direction than most other airlines when it comes to downsizing with a code share taking over the slack.
"Revenue sharing agreement" must be discussed with the APA first, as is mentioned in our contract. I am glad CA Hill is making sure AA honors our contract, especially during the crucial Section 6 negotiation process, in which adherence to the contract is even more essential.
Wrong again. FWAAA stated most of the salient points, but I'll stop to ask just what it is you think this deal will involve? You say there are: "certain exceptions allowing for code sharing and such". Do you not understand that BA will be applying AA's code on its flights and vice-versa? This agreement is fundamentally a codesharing deal. Nothing in the text you quoted says anything about the revenue side. Care to try again?
Your comments about UAL getting it and AA not are missing the point. I gave you a specific example with AA's only domestic codeshare partner.
But don't let facts and reason trip you up: flame away!
"codesharing" equals shared revenue from both airlines.
"joint business ventures" are not covered by the APA contract, and as such must be discussed by both parties before proceeding. if this was strictly a codesharing deal, don't you think they would've called it that from the get go and avoid all these problems?
regarding AA's domestic codesharing in the past... you are missing the point as well. In the past AA has used code sharing to totally dismantle their flights into markets to allow the code sharing partner to perform most of the flying. This happened with Reno before they bought them, as well as Canadian. Regarding Alaska... we used to fly MIA-SEA, then it went to AS. That's just one example.
Overall, code sharing and airline alliances may be good for the bottom line, but at AA it has always resulted in loss of flying.
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.
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.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,988
- 9,428
The concept of "sharing" and "pooling" is obviously be lost on pilots.
Trying to compare what happened to ABX is fearmongering on Hill's part. Truth be told (which rarely happens), they would have failed three or four years ago had it not been for the DHL contract. They lost the contract, they lost their jobs.
ATI isn't an outsourcing deal, no matter how much Hill and the other fearmongers on Trinity Blvd want to make it out to be that.
IB and BA are no more interested in doing more flying (thus taking on more risk) for AA than AA is to take on their risky flying. They want to be able to support the flying each is already doing, and be able to fill their cabins up.
That's how "sharing" works under ATI. Both sides having an equal risk, and sharing in the benefits.
In the past 15 years NW & KL have had ATI, and the past 10 years that LH and UA have had ATI, neither carrier has reduced their international flying as a result of the agreement.
THEY'VE INCREASED THEIR FLYING TO EACH OTHER'S HOME COUNTRIES.
That's the fact. NW and UA have increased flying to Europe as a result of ATI. Instead of having to fly between the major gateway cities, they've been able to exploit secondary markets with reasonably good success.
There's more opportunity for new markets if BA and AA don't have to keep slugging it out against each other in ORD, DFW, JFK, MIA, etc...
ATI could see MAN-MIA come back. BHX would likely reappear. Likewise for EDI, GLA, and perhaps DFW-MAD.
That's what this is about. Pilots just want to get their cut, which is admirable, but I suspect is beyond the scope of their agreement.
(and please, don't drag this into a pissing contest over 2003 concessions... save that for another thread, because this goes way beyond that one issue)
Trying to compare what happened to ABX is fearmongering on Hill's part. Truth be told (which rarely happens), they would have failed three or four years ago had it not been for the DHL contract. They lost the contract, they lost their jobs.
ATI isn't an outsourcing deal, no matter how much Hill and the other fearmongers on Trinity Blvd want to make it out to be that.
IB and BA are no more interested in doing more flying (thus taking on more risk) for AA than AA is to take on their risky flying. They want to be able to support the flying each is already doing, and be able to fill their cabins up.
That's how "sharing" works under ATI. Both sides having an equal risk, and sharing in the benefits.
In the past 15 years NW & KL have had ATI, and the past 10 years that LH and UA have had ATI, neither carrier has reduced their international flying as a result of the agreement.
THEY'VE INCREASED THEIR FLYING TO EACH OTHER'S HOME COUNTRIES.
That's the fact. NW and UA have increased flying to Europe as a result of ATI. Instead of having to fly between the major gateway cities, they've been able to exploit secondary markets with reasonably good success.
There's more opportunity for new markets if BA and AA don't have to keep slugging it out against each other in ORD, DFW, JFK, MIA, etc...
ATI could see MAN-MIA come back. BHX would likely reappear. Likewise for EDI, GLA, and perhaps DFW-MAD.
That's what this is about. Pilots just want to get their cut, which is admirable, but I suspect is beyond the scope of their agreement.
(and please, don't drag this into a pissing contest over 2003 concessions... save that for another thread, because this goes way beyond that one issue)
