Pilots approve American Airlines contract on second try
- Thread starter limit
- Start date
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
Sounds like the lectures from Capt Wilson and the UCC lawyers (who told the pilots "you won't get the 13.5% claim if you don't ratify this TA") worked as intended.
I suspect there's some celebration In Brazil and Canada right now. Those workers are going to be even busier than they have been for a few more years. And as luck would have it, not long after AA gets the last of its 200+ 76-seater orders, the operating economics of large RJs will be declared to be in the toilet and Boyd will claim that he was first with that prediction (like he claims he was re: 50 seaters).
Sounds like the lectures from Capt Wilson and the UCC lawyers (who told the pilots "you won't get the 13.5% claim if you don't ratify this TA") worked as intended.
I suspect there's some celebration In Brazil and Canada right now. Those workers are going to be even busier than they have been for a few more years. And as luck would have it, not long after AA gets the last of its 200+ 76-seater orders, the operating economics of large RJs will be declared to be in the toilet and Boyd will claim that he was first with that prediction (like he claims he was re: 50 seaters).
I wish I could find that thread with Boyd's fleet predictions for AMR.
First question,
Does this mean that AA's soon to be fleet of E-jets/C-jets will be flown only by APA ?
and if so,
Would this speed up the end of A/E being owned by AMR ?
Does this mean that AA's soon to be fleet of E-jets/C-jets will be flown only by APA ?
and if so,
Would this speed up the end of A/E being owned by AMR ?
The scope clause in the new agreement permits AA to outsource (to Eagle or any other regional) something in the neighborhood of 250 to 300 or so planes seating up to 76 passengers, so APA won't be flying those. 77 or more seats belongs to APA. But realistically, AA ain't going to order 77 seaters or 90 seaters for mainline flying, not because the pilots are too expensive, but because, like Mach has posted before, everyone else (FAs, etc) are too expensive at their mainline rates.
Don't know what effect this has on a sale or spinoff of Eagle. Nobody's going to pay signifcant dollars to buy Eagle, so if anything, it will be handed to the new shareholders of AMR after CH 11 exit. Now that Eagle has obtained new concessionary agreements with all its employees (last group votes on its TA soon), maybe AMR keeps the new lower cost Eagle.
Don't know what effect this has on a sale or spinoff of Eagle. Nobody's going to pay signifcant dollars to buy Eagle, so if anything, it will be handed to the new shareholders of AMR after CH 11 exit. Now that Eagle has obtained new concessionary agreements with all its employees (last group votes on its TA soon), maybe AMR keeps the new lower cost Eagle.
I do not believe any "secondary" carriers will command serious offers from investors.
Virgin America, Frontier, Am Eagle, Comair(they didn't even try to sell), Colgan and a few others are simply left to flounder.
Alaska, JetBlue and Spirit will be niche for the foreseeable future unless the market tanks next spring from fiscal cliff.
We all need to cross our fingers.
Virgin America, Frontier, Am Eagle, Comair(they didn't even try to sell), Colgan and a few others are simply left to flounder.
Alaska, JetBlue and Spirit will be niche for the foreseeable future unless the market tanks next spring from fiscal cliff.
We all need to cross our fingers.
Why waste the slots on small planes? Not only that but the pilots and mechanics as well. I think the small plane, fly one every half hour fad is going to go by the wayside. But probably not until AA invests a fortune in small planes as their excuse for the next round of concessions. There are only so many slots, so many pilots and so many mechanics out there, and the numbers are getting smaller, not bigger. They will need bigger planes, not smaller ones because with bigger planes fewer workers can move a hell of a lot more people and cargo.
Despite all the layoff news you hear, at JFK they have more vacancies than people willing to bump in. Guys chose the street rather than come to NY. Most of the new hires they had in NY were from Eagle. They keep their company time, but a few of them have quit already.
I agree that AA shouldn't add lots and lots of small planes, but AA's plans are to replace many of the even smaller 37, 44 and 50 seaters with the expected 76 seaters. Just like UA, DL and US already have. And DL just announced an order for up to 70 new 76 seaters that will replace at least that many of its Canadian Torture Tubes (50 seat CRJ200)s. That's part of the deal DL struck with its pilots whereby it is permitted to buy more 76 seaters in exchange for adding the WN 717s (many of which will eventually replace the remaining DC-9s and perhaps some 76 seaters where those are just too small for the market).
UA, DL and US all have more than 100 (and in one case, I think more than 200) 2-class 76 seaters already in operation. This is about AA catching up to its competitors. Once again, AA isn't plowing any new ground here. DL managed to hoodwink Parker into giving it most of its LGA slots and DL has been busy adding lots of nonstop 2-class 76 seaters to places like IND where in the old days, you had to connect somewhere to get to NYC. Now, DL has six convenient 2-class flights a day. AA isn't going to fly 110-120 seat mainline planes between IND and NYC. Just ain't gonna happen. But perhaps some 76 seaters to compete.
DL had about a nine year lead on AA in the 50 seat RJ race more than 20 years ago, and DL's regional subs acquired the largest 50 seat fleet in the world. By time AA caught up with its huge fleet of tiny planes, they were already uneconomical and since then, fuel prices have made things even worse. This time, at least, DL, UA and US don't have quite as long a lead on AA. As I pointed out above, Murphy's Law will probably cause the same situation just as AA gets its 250th 76 seater into service. Is that suspicion enough reason to not acquire competitive planes (just because they might be uneconomical a few years from now)? I don't know the answer.
UA, DL and US all have more than 100 (and in one case, I think more than 200) 2-class 76 seaters already in operation. This is about AA catching up to its competitors. Once again, AA isn't plowing any new ground here. DL managed to hoodwink Parker into giving it most of its LGA slots and DL has been busy adding lots of nonstop 2-class 76 seaters to places like IND where in the old days, you had to connect somewhere to get to NYC. Now, DL has six convenient 2-class flights a day. AA isn't going to fly 110-120 seat mainline planes between IND and NYC. Just ain't gonna happen. But perhaps some 76 seaters to compete.
DL had about a nine year lead on AA in the 50 seat RJ race more than 20 years ago, and DL's regional subs acquired the largest 50 seat fleet in the world. By time AA caught up with its huge fleet of tiny planes, they were already uneconomical and since then, fuel prices have made things even worse. This time, at least, DL, UA and US don't have quite as long a lead on AA. As I pointed out above, Murphy's Law will probably cause the same situation just as AA gets its 250th 76 seater into service. Is that suspicion enough reason to not acquire competitive planes (just because they might be uneconomical a few years from now)? I don't know the answer.
Alright...so what was the actual percentage cut to the pilots in this deal?
Doesn't seem like it's anywhere near the 17% cut all other groups gave. Pay raise, $100,000 bonus each(13.5% on exit), no layoffs.
Doesn't seem like it's anywhere near the 17% cut all other groups gave. Pay raise, $100,000 bonus each(13.5% on exit), no layoffs.
AANOTOK
Veteran
- Oct 10, 2009
- 4,627
- 2,395
It doesn't matter, because you will be working under a contract Little Jimmy negotiated with Mr. Parker soon enough.
The ratified TA isn't substantially different from the rejected LBFO. The pay raises are the same, the 13.5% claim is the same, no layoffs is the same.
One change is that the permitted large RJs can't have as many seats, but that doesn't affect AA's costs - it may hinder its revenues. Overall, I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed if they're expecting a big "me-too" concession reduction. The pilots' negotiations leading to the failed LBFO brought everyone the reduction from 20% to 17%, and every workgroup has already captured that in their new contracts. This TA is slightly different but its cost savings are not materially different from the LBFO.
Similar threads
