pilot scope clause

[will fix for food]

The APA doesn't buy airplanes for AMR, nor do they decide which type to buy. That is a management's responsibility and they are solely culpable for it. No doubt, if there was NO scope, AMR would have bought even more future beercans than they have now. Eagle exists via a specific exception to scope, one that doesn't necessarily have to be renewed.

AMR bought those RJ's because they were the airplanes the scope clause allowed. I am sure they were gritting their teeth while they signed for those 135's. I am sure they made the most economic sense at that time though. Now, not so much.

Eagle exists because there is a market for the kind of flying they do. They do it for American because there is a specific exception to scope. Unless the APA can bring the feed inhouse and do it economically or opts to disregard the need for feed entirely, you will need Eagle, or Chatauqua, or Mesa, or Pinnacle, or Skywest, etc, to provide the service for you.

So what do you propose? Bring it inhouse? Eliminate the feed?

BTW, every airplane is a future beer can.....



http://www.airliners.net/photo/American-Airlines/McDonnell-Douglas-MD-82/0634765/M/

 

[appelbo]

AMR bought those RJ's because they were the airplanes the scope clause allowed. I am sure they were gritting their teeth while they signed for those 135's. I am sure they made the most economic sense at that time though. Now, not so much.

Eagle exists because there is a market for the kind of flying they do. They do it for American because there is a specific exception to scope. Unless the APA can bring the feed inhouse and do it economically or opts to disregard the need for feed entirely, you will need Eagle, or Chatauqua, or Mesa, or Pinnacle, or Skywest, etc, to provide the service for you.

So what do you propose? Bring it inhouse? Eliminate the feed?

BTW, every airplane is a future beer can.....



http://www.airliners.net/photo/American-Airlines/McDonnell-Douglas-MD-82/0634765/M/

Winglet's head must still be spinning as we are waiting for his suggestions.

 

[Winglet]

AA could have bought any kind of feeder airplane it wanted, but it had to be flown by AA pilots. Granted, the exception to scope that AA snookered the weak and compliant APA leadership at the time agreed to was a blunder.

ALL commuter exceptions to scope must be eliminated and that flying done by AA pilots. Period. AE needs to go away and when people buy a ticket on American Airlines, they need to know that they are flying on American Airlines.

The method of absorbing what will be left of the AE operation into AA is open to debate, but there's no fundamental reason why it could not be accomplished. Two things need to be done first, however. AE's fleet and staffing needs to be "right-sized" (to use a management term) with retention of the CRJs, and retirement of a large number of the 50 seat small jets, and some kind of replacement for that abortion of a fleet they call the ATRs.

At the same time the future needs to be addressed in the form of a 100 seat class airplane and perhaps a few more 76 seat aircraft and an reliable and efficient 70 seat class turboprop that I can stand at the gate in uniform with and not get assailed by angry customers about.

What's needed is strategic planning of an airline and not short range tactical expediency of cheap.

 

[Veritas]

ALL commuter exceptions to scope must be eliminated and that flying done by AA pilots. Period.

That will only work if APA pilots are willing to work for AE pay rates. Otherwise, such flights are not going to be economically competitive.

Militant pilot demands will only cause AA to drop to #4 behind WN.

 

[will fix for food]

That will only work if APA pilots are willing to work for AE pay rates. Otherwise, such flights are not going to be economically competitive.

Militant pilot demands will only cause AA to drop to #4 behind WN.

They wiil probably have to get paid less than Eagle pilots to make up for the mechanics, rampers, and FA's unless you can get them to sign on for a pay and benefits cut also.

Didn't American offer before to bring the CRJ's over if it can be done on a cost neutral basis?

 

[will fix for food]

AA could have bought any kind of feeder airplane it wanted, but it had to be flown by AA pilots. Granted, the exception to scope that AA snookered the weak and compliant APA leadership at the time agreed to was a blunder.

ALL commuter exceptions to scope must be eliminated and that flying done by AA pilots. Period. AE needs to go away and when people buy a ticket on American Airlines, they need to know that they are flying on American Airlines.

The method of absorbing what will be left of the AE operation into AA is open to debate, but there's no fundamental reason why it could not be accomplished. Two things need to be done first, however. AE's fleet and staffing needs to be "right-sized" (to use a management term) with retention of the CRJs, and retirement of a large number of the 50 seat small jets, and some kind of replacement for that abortion of a fleet they call the ATRs.

At the same time the future needs to be addressed in the form of a 100 seat class airplane and perhaps a few more 76 seat aircraft and an reliable and efficient 70 seat class turboprop that I can stand at the gate in uniform with and not get assailed by angry customers about.

What's needed is strategic planning of an airline and not short range tactical expediency of cheap.

At the time of the Jetstreams, Shorts, Saabs and ATR's I can see how there wasn't much of a perceived threat. In fact I remember more of an attitude of "we are better than having to fly those POS planes". I can still see that attitude in your posts. Anyhow, the exception was granted and here we are.

It appears they have retired about all the planes they possibly could. Spares are short and utilisation is high. I hear rumors of ATR replacements every once in a while. They need to go. They are used up.

AMR does indeed need more 100 and 76 seaters. Where they will go I don't know. I don't think AMR even wants 100 seaters at Eagle as that wasn't in their proposal. I can see how a bunch of 100 seaters at A/A tied to a bunch of new 76 seaters at Eagle would work out. I still can't imagine American and Eagle merging though.

Customers don't like props. Period.

 

[eolesen]

They wiil probably have to get paid less than Eagle pilots to make up for the mechanics, rampers, and FA's unless you can get them to sign on for a pay and benefits cut also.

Didn't American offer before to bring the CRJ's over if it can be done on a cost neutral basis?

That's the crux of it right there. The APA hired guys like SH&E and Bob Mann to try and justify this years ago, but they could never come up with a cost competitive way to put AA pilots onto a 70 seater.

If the economics supported AA employees flying 100 seaters, the F100 fleet might still be around. IIRC, the unit costs on that aircraft with AA employee rates were abysmal compared to what the rest of the industry has today, and I doubt the equation has changed all that much.

Apparently, the only economics which matter to the APA are how much is going into their own pockets... You can't have a strong AA without strong feed from both smaller markets where big iron isn't cost competitive and from international carriers where AA couldn't operate profitably if they wanted to...

Fact remains that the only North American carriers operating RJ's with mainline pilots are Jetblue and Air Canada. Every other carrier* contracts out flying below 100 seats.

* = DL still flies DC9-30s inherited from NW, but that sub-fleet will eventually be put to rest

 

[The Goose]

One thing is a fact, E - the F100 was junk and a throwaway aircraft that was never intended to be used as AA was flying it.

Anytime one has to cut through secondary structure to get at literally "built-in" parts and pieces, something is bad wrong with the basic design. AL maingear wasn't exactly a plus. I never thought anything could be built more cheaply and Mickey Mouse than the DC-9 family of aircraft but I was obviously very mistaken.

In addition to this, as Fokker went bankrupt after selling AA these pieces of junk, AA had nobody to sue if there was a problem with the aircraft resulting from a design deficiency. Support was provided to some degree, but responsibility was non-existant.

AA trashed the best option they had, the 717, probably because Boeing wasn't very enamored with any Douglas designs even though it was literally redesigned after Boeing bought Douglas - they still didn't want to support it - can't say as I blame them.

Douglas had reasonably good military designs (the F-15 being the best) but junk for civilian use.

I did not include the F-4 Phantom as this was NOT a Douglas design, rather, a McDonnel design on the boards when Douglas bought them.

 

[Bob Owens]

Militant pilot demands will only cause AA to drop to #4 behind WN.

Who cares? Who out there wouldnt trade their seniority with someone at #3 Southwest? If they put maint in ISP I'd put in an application today,even with 25 years I'd walk away, even if they ranked #10 in size. Giving your employer bragging rights at the expense of pay is a fools folly.

 

[eolesen]

AA trashed the best option they had, the 717, probably because Boeing wasn't very enamored with any Douglas designs even though it was literally redesigned after Boeing bought Douglas - they still didn't want to support it - can't say as I blame them.

Agree on the Dutch ovens as an airframe, but again, it's AA's costs which don't mix with the 100 seater.

If AA were able to make money on a 100 seater in 2001, they might have kept the fleet and added to it. Boeing would have gladly taken an order for another 50 or 100, even if they had to build them in Renton.

But the costs don't work. They already suck with a 142 seater, and there's no way APA was going to accept a lower pay scale for the B717 than for the MD80. It's the same cockpit withnewer technology and 30% fewer seats to cover the costs........