British-AMR agree on joint venture
- Thread starter Barfbag
- Start date
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2003
- Messages
- 2,931
- Reaction score
- 3,341
T
The Goose
Guest
Many people speculated it was only a matter of making the announcement.
While most of us have no use for the twit in residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, his pro-business administration may well allow (after numerous failed attempts) the antitrust immunity this alliance would require and may be a very good thing for American as well as BA.
We shall see.
While most of us have no use for the twit in residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, his pro-business administration may well allow (after numerous failed attempts) the antitrust immunity this alliance would require and may be a very good thing for American as well as BA.
We shall see.
NewHampshire Black Bears
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 10,153
- Reaction score
- 681
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You know Goose, your Right.
In the Interest of Fair Play,................EL-CHIMPO will most likely do something RIGHT, that will benefit AAers, and If that happens,..(EVEN I) will congratulate the MORON.
But just know,..............IF/When it happens, he WON'T be doing it, with the well-being of the "little-guy" in mind(minus little guy AAers)
T
The Goose
Guest
I know - if anything BushCo. does benefits real people, it's an accident.
All considered though, I'll take it, even if the bastard didn't mean it.
WingNaPrayer
Veteran
British Airways will cut passenger capacity as it struggles to avoid losing money this year. Record oil prices and weakening economies have led two dozen airlines to stop flying or file for bankruptcy this year. Industry losses may surpass $6.1 billion, according to the International Air Transport Association. BA will trim winter capacity by 3 to 5 percent, though the airline is still determining which routes it will cut or decrease frequency.
T
The Goose
Guest
If that's the case, it may help us in two ways:
1) We (AA employees) will be able to learn from the pros (BA's union people) about how to handle a company with little regard for its people.
2) BA's workers' union will, without a doubt, clash with AA's company union, the TWU (and Little Jimmy). A certain amount of mixing is inevitable as is the ensuing fireworks. Sounds like some rather good entertainment to me.
Brittish unions have never recovered from the Thatcher years.
The only thing that they have over us is that to the average Brittish citizen Socialism isnt a four letter word. So the option to vote out the capitalist political hegemony in Brittain exists. Even Thatcher wasnt able to take away their Universal health care.
I believe that BA was pretty successful at busting up their unions though. At least by European standards.
T
The Goose
Guest
If you're right Bob, it doesn't sound like such a good thing after all.
One thing is for certain - the TWU will be right there negotiating more money for the International.
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
I wouldn't write it off as automatically being bad for employees.
If the current ATI plans are the same as they were in the past two attempts, it's probably going to be somewhat neutral to positive for AA employees in the US.
At airports in the US, BA and IB would co-locate with AA, and AA would most likely be doing all the ground handling. That's a positive in places like DFW & LAX, where one or both foreign carriers still maintain split operations.
Likewise in Europe for AA -- AA would co-locate to BA's facilities (BA and AA already operate out of IB facilities in Spain, and IB operates out of BA facilities in the UK).
Not quite as clear about what would happen at LHR or JFK, since AA and BA have such a sizeable operation. Perhaps that would be a carve-out for co-location, or AA and BA would have to come up with a deal that protects the workers without usurping the union contracts on both sides of the ocean. It could be as simple as relocating into the same terminal and allowing the foreign carrier to handle their own metal in the host's terminal (I don't believe either union's contract prohibits a carrier subleasing space from being able to self-handle).
Could ATI mean a few routes flown by AA go away and are flown by BA and vice versa?
Probably.
There's no need for three or four flights a day out of DFW, or almost hourly service between JFK and LHR. But to the extent B777's get freed up from LHR, they're just as likely to wind up operating in other markets, and it may wind up creating more block time, which is good for flight crews, right?
If the current ATI plans are the same as they were in the past two attempts, it's probably going to be somewhat neutral to positive for AA employees in the US.
At airports in the US, BA and IB would co-locate with AA, and AA would most likely be doing all the ground handling. That's a positive in places like DFW & LAX, where one or both foreign carriers still maintain split operations.
Likewise in Europe for AA -- AA would co-locate to BA's facilities (BA and AA already operate out of IB facilities in Spain, and IB operates out of BA facilities in the UK).
Not quite as clear about what would happen at LHR or JFK, since AA and BA have such a sizeable operation. Perhaps that would be a carve-out for co-location, or AA and BA would have to come up with a deal that protects the workers without usurping the union contracts on both sides of the ocean. It could be as simple as relocating into the same terminal and allowing the foreign carrier to handle their own metal in the host's terminal (I don't believe either union's contract prohibits a carrier subleasing space from being able to self-handle).
Could ATI mean a few routes flown by AA go away and are flown by BA and vice versa?
Probably.
There's no need for three or four flights a day out of DFW, or almost hourly service between JFK and LHR. But to the extent B777's get freed up from LHR, they're just as likely to wind up operating in other markets, and it may wind up creating more block time, which is good for flight crews, right?
This much is true, certainly AMR is not shopping for new Airbuses to fly into the Carib and South America, so if BA does pick up some flights to LHR, this would free aircraft into these more profitable areas.
Besides AMR F/C and Bus can no longer compare with the likes of Virgin, Singapore in the areas of amenities, and inflight service, so why invest Millions more in upgrades to LHR.
Bob,
One of my ealier International Meetings with their Unions was in DFW in the latter part of '99/early '00.
The Union Reps from BA conducted a presentation during which they stated that fully 85% of the Line Maintenance A&P work was within Chapter 25 of the ATA code; they further stated that they were first told to tolerate the outsourcing of that work by their Union Officials because "no one could create the capacity to handle their heavy."
Those same individuals then told us of their horror upon the destruction of their heavy hangars as the work was OSV'ed.
Then, as now, we lack the SCOPE language to perfrom the work as a condition of the contract.
Given the weakness of the dollar as opposed the EURO, we could likely perform the work at a HUGE savings for the combined carriers: but, we should only perform that work if we own the rights to that work through contractual language.
Oh, by the way, the Democrats have now held power in both the House and Senate for a sufficient period of time that Section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code should have been amended to allow for Labor Self-Help in the event of Company Abrogation: any idea when the Friends of the Working Man, the Democratic Party, will accomplish this feat?
When they have more than 49 members of the Senate and have the votes to prevail on procedural votes (it takes 60 votes to start or end debate).
Don't fool yourself. They may not have 50 "Democrat" members, but they have Bernie Sanders from Vermont , a "Democratic Socialist" and Joe Lieberman from CT.
You can' t get anymore left leaning than Sanders and Joe is still sympathetic to many Democratic party ideals. So why no change? Or could it be they all sleep in the same bed?
