Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AA Pilots Suggest Scope Changes  
User currently offlineAsuflyer05 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2373 posts, RR: 3
Posted (7 years 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3823 times:



Quote:
December 6, 2007
Today, the APA negotiating committee presented the Company with a one sentence scope proposal which read: "All flying performed by or on behalf of the Company or an Affiliate shall be performed by pilots on the American Airlines Seniority List in accordance with the terms and conditions of this agreement." AA negotiators raised serious concerns about the impact of such a proposal and believe our efforts should be focused on helping American be competitive in all areas of its business.

http://www.aanegotiations.com/apaUpdates.asp

Basically pilots flying anything from an ERJ135 to a 777 would be on the same seniority list though the RJ drivers would be paid a lower hourly rate of course.

21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11983 posts, RR: 62
Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3803 times:

If the pilots are really serious about this, it could be - potentially, if executed properly (and that's of course a big if) - a major win-win for both companies.

The pilots would obviously benefit tremendously from getting to control all flying done on behalf of AMR, whether mainline or regional, and keeping those union jobs in their union rather than sending them out to ALPA. In addition, the APA would score a major coup by - for the first time in decades - depriving AMR management of the ability to pit one (APA) work group against the other (ALPA) work group. That could pay major dividends in future negotiations for the pilots.

On the flip side, there is also enormous upside for the company if such a deal like this could be worked out. If AMR was able to secure some type of deal that would allow completely (or almost completely) unrestricted flying of jets - of any size - by in-house APA-represented pilots, it would represent - in my view - a watershed moment for the mainline-regional dynamics in the U.S. aviation industry today. AA would be - to my knowledge - the first and only airline to have combined their two seniority lists and completely merged mainline and regional. This blurring of the line between mainline and regional could be seen as dangerous by AMR, but it could also be a massive opportunity: by no longer being limited by SCOPE clauses and capacity restrictions and purchase agreements, etc., AMR would be totally and completely free to fly any aircraft, of any size, that it wants, at any time - from a 37-seat ERJ to a 300-seat 777 and up. That would represent an enormous operational flexibility the likes of which AMR has not had since the inception of Eagle.

This is all, of course, contingent, though, on the specifics. As the saying goes, "the devil is in the details." If the APA is rational (which doesn't seem to be their strength lately), they won't ask for some ridiculous pay rates for their pilots to do this small jet flying. I think they could reasonably ask for, say, 4-6% above the going market rate for pilots flying those aircraft types, and probably get away with it. But if they come in and say they want APA pilots flying 70-seaters, but then demand that those pilots get paid 30% more than what a 70-seater pilot at Comair, SkyWest or Mesa is getting, this will never happen.

The sad reality is that - like so many other things with AMR - this could be an immensely successful and profitable partnership for everybody, if people don't act stupid. But if either side starts making outrageous demands or rash decisions, this whole thing will go up in smoke, relegated to the ash heap of AMR history's "could have beens."

Let's hope the two sides could work out a deal on this.


User currently offlineNorthstarBoy From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1876 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3731 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

would this be contingent upon AMR not selling Eagle? If both AA and Eagle are owned by AMR, i can see this making sense, but if Eagle is sold off or spun off, becoming it's own entity, not associated with AMR, except on a contractual basis, how can AA enforce this? likewise, if the sell off of Eagle allows AA to invite in other airlines to take over some or all of Eagle's flying, again, how can this scope clause be enforced?

If this comes to pass this could be interesting. If AA agrees to this, and if the pilots don't start throwing absurd new demands into the pot, i can see AA placing a large order for E190s/CRJ900s, allowing them to retire some of their oldest MD-80s, and maybe also allowing them to rightsize some markets which require something larger than an E145, but don't require something as large as an MD-80.

Interesting times ahead



Why are people so against low yields?! If lower yields means more people can travel abroad, i'm all for it
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11983 posts, RR: 62
Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3716 times:



Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 2):
would this be contingent upon AMR not selling Eagle?

Possibly, but I doubt it.

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 2):
If both AA and Eagle are owned by AMR, i can see this making sense, but if Eagle is sold off or spun off, becoming it's own entity, not associated with AMR, except on a contractual basis, how can AA enforce this?

From this short blurb on the APA website - and from what history tells us about the "antagonistic" (that's putting it nicely) relationship between the APA and Eagle ALPA, I don't think it is at all mutually exclusive that APA pilots fly RJs, and Eagle is retained within AMR. There are about 3,000 pilots pushing Eagle metal around these days. If AMR were to go through with spinning Eagle off, AMR could then easily just turn around and bring back from furlough all the still-laid off mainline pilots (those that are left that would even be willing to come back). That would probably be at least 800-1000 right there. Then, AMR could go out and start hiring pilots from scratch to fill the remaining open spots left by the departure of Eagle and its pilots. Many of the new hires would no doubt be Eagle pilots.

It just might work, too: I think many regional pilots around the U.S. might well jump at the chance to get in on a deal like this for several reasons:

1) While it would mean giving up their seniority at the airline they came from, the prospect of working at a company like AA - which is large, not limited just to 50- or 70-seat RJs, etc., would hold far more career opportunity in the future and make their new AA seniority mean much more 10, 20 or 30 years down the line. In other words: even if some guy has 10 years of seniority at Mesa, he can be pretty sure that 10 years from now, he'll still be flying RJs. At AA, under a scheme like this, that same guy could be flying 767s in 10 years from now.

2) Higher pay would naturally result from this deal. APA would never let this flying happen with APA pilots if they weren't getting at least some little premium over the regional guys. If for nothing else, I suppose it's an ego thing. The higher pay would definitely attract people - especially the higher-hour regional guys.

3) Stability would probably be - for some - the biggest attraction to jumping ship at their regional carrier and coming to work at AA under this scenario. AA is - shocking as it may seem - far more stable than the regionals these days. Most all the legacies are. The legacies are big, and can be unwieldy, and we all know what they say about "the bigger they are...," but that being said, it doesn't get much more risky and unstable than regionals in today's environment. With fuel prices the way they are, and the rapidly deteriorating economics of RJs, not to mention the enormous glut of regional jets in America today and the excessive capacity among the regional operators leading to cutthroat competition in the sector, regional airlines are definitely not "safe" 20-30 year careers.

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 2):
likewise, if the sell off of Eagle allows AA to invite in other airlines to take over some or all of Eagle's flying, again, how can this scope clause be enforced?

Well, first - this wouldn't be a SCOPE clause. SCOPE is a tool used by mainline pilots to limit flying by regional pilots. This would go beyond scope, which is why I said that it would be watershed moment for the U.S. airline industry: it would basically jump right over SCOPE and render the entire concept of SCOPE meaningless, as all pilots flying for the airline (American, in this case) would be covered by the same union contract, regardless of the aircraft they're flying - regional or mainline.

As such, AMR wouldn't have to "enforce" this agreement vis a vis contract regional flying from Eagle or another contract regional operator - there wouldn't be one. If this were to happen, AMR would have its own pilots flying the planes, not Eagle or any other contractor/vendor (Chautauqua, Mesa, etc.).

I could conceivably see AA - if they were even amiable to this sort of a proposal, which they should be - doing something like what US did back in 2003 or 2004 with Mid Atlantic Airways, only conceived and executed far better. AA could set up a separate subsidiary from mainline that would only fly regional aircraft, and that subsidiary would consist of mainline (or at least APA) pilots, but being paid at regional plus a few percentage points rates, plus flight attendants, ground crew, etc., also being paid at regional (i.e., Eagle) rates. Then, they could keep the flying "in-house" (at least from a pilot's union perspective) but still benefit from the cheaper operating economics and slave wages that other regionals enjoy.

Of course, in a hypothetical situation like that - it begs the question: why not just change Eagle to fit that mold? In other words, why not just make Eagle that airline that is like Mid Atlantic, operates with just-above-regional wages for mainline pilots and slave wages for everyone else, etc. After all, Eagle has more collective experience with the AMR operating environment than any new company would. But, of course, Eagle brings with it lots of problems that would have to be dealt with: first and foremost of which is, obviously, it's existing employees/unions, all of whom (as especially the ALPA-covered pilots) would probably not be too happy to be displaced by mainline.

Makes "flow through" seem simple, doesn't it?  Smile

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 2):
If AA agrees to this, and if the pilots don't start throwing absurd new demands into the pot, i can see AA placing a large order for E190s/CRJ900s, allowing them to retire some of their oldest MD-80s, and maybe also allowing them to rightsize some markets which require something larger than an E145, but don't require something as large as an MD-80.

Personally, I think it would more probably be for ERJ170s or ERJ175s. Either way, though, yes - I agree that the Embraer EJet family is largely a foregone conclusion. Anything can change, but I just don't see Eagle really committing to what most agree is an inferior airframe (the up-gauged CRJ family) when they could have state-of-the-art customer comfort and technology with the EJet family.


User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33289 posts, RR: 71
Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3624 times:



Quoting Commavia (Reply 1):
AA would be - to my knowledge - the first and only airline to have combined their two seniority lists and completely merged mainline and regional.

While I'm not sure how the seniority works, Air Canada mainline used to operate CRJs, although it's now all Jazz.



a.
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11983 posts, RR: 62
Reply 5, posted (7 years 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3616 times:



Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 4):
While I'm not sure how the seniority works, Air Canada mainline used to operate CRJs, although it's now all Jazz.

Indeed, AC for years (though no longer, if I'm not mistaken) operated a fleet of CRJs in-house, operated as mainline AC and flown by mainline AC crews. This flying was shifted over to Jazz, I believe, a few years back.

I meant that AA would be the first airline in the United States to have done such a thing.


User currently offlineHiflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2177 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3556 times:

I have discussed this with folks inside AMR and a side effect is that if APA pilots fly it then AA flt att's must be used to fly it and the feeling is that regular AA employees must do the ground work it/maintenance/dispatch. If that is the case....and that all other AA contracts are opening now....I would think this could be a pandora's box.

User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11983 posts, RR: 62
Reply 7, posted (7 years 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3543 times:



Quoting Hiflyer (Reply 6):
I have discussed this with folks inside AMR and a side effect is that if APA pilots fly it then AA flt att's must be used to fly it and the feeling is that regular AA employees must do the ground work it/maintenance/dispatch.

I could very well be wrong, but I don't believe there is any contractual stipulation that if one AMR union operates given flights, all other unions must also get to work that flying. The reason I said that is that this issue of APA (mainline) pilots merging lists with Eagle has come up numerous times going back at least a decade - and has been seriously discussed and contemplated on several occasions around contract negotiation time. To my knowledge, however, even with these numerous discussion about this concept going back to the late 1990s - there has never been any serious talk of, for example, merging the Eagle flight attendants (represented by AFA) into the APFA list.

What AA could do to get around this is - like I said earlier - set up a separate wholly-owned subsidiary that would operate as a standalone company with its own AOC and aircraft (presumably EJets, and presumably leased from AMR/AA). That company would use AA mainline pilots, represented by the APA, but would use non-AA/mainline for crews everything for else.

I agree, though: if what you say is true, the deal is dead on arrival. No way will AA let mainline crews do everything for these planes - they're just way to expensive to ever be even close to competitive with other 70-seat operators out there.


User currently offlineADXMatt From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 954 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3502 times:



Quoting Commavia (Reply 7):
I agree, though: if what you say is true, the deal is dead on arrival. No way will AA let mainline crews do everything for these planes - they're just way to expensive to ever be even close to competitive with other 70-seat operators out there.

Why would mainline pilots be too expensive? You write the CBA to show that a capt on an ERJ makes $xx and a B737 maks $xx.

Quoting Hiflyer (Reply 6):
I have discussed this with folks inside AMR and a side effect is that if APA pilots fly it then AA flt att's must be used to fly it and the feeling is that regular AA employees must do the ground work it/maintenance/dispatch. If that is the case....and that all other AA contracts are opening now....I would think this could be a pandora's box.

i don't know AA's contract but there are alot of "me too" clauses in other union work groups that would need to be negotiated.


User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11983 posts, RR: 62
Reply 9, posted (7 years 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3493 times:



Quoting ADXMatt (Reply 8):
Why would mainline pilots be too expensive? You write the CBA to show that a capt on an ERJ makes $xx and a B737 maks $xx.

Yeah, it all sounds so easy.

The trick is getting the APA to agree to $xx for the ERJ captain, so that he doesn't make double what an ERJ captain at Mesa is making.

It remains to be seen how rational the APA is willing to be with this - like I said, the union hasn't been displaying a lot of that lately. Now, that being said, yeah - if the APA agrees to give the company a reasonably good deal on letting their pilots flying these flights, it would be worth their while big time in the long-run to set the precedent of getting this flying into the APA fold.

We'll see.


User currently offlineTinPusher007 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 983 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (7 years 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3375 times:



Quoting Commavia (Reply 9):
The trick is getting the APA to agree to $xx for the ERJ captain, so that he doesn't make double what an ERJ captain at Mesa is making.

For the love of God, let's not use Mesa as a benchmark for what an ERJ captain should make if this deal goes down. 2X what Mesa pays is what an ERJ captain should be making now!



"Flying isn't inherently dangerous...but very unforgiving of carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3498 posts, RR: 46
Reply 11, posted (7 years 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3065 times:

The more things change, the more they stay the same. As I wrote Commavia privately, APA used to have the majority of American Eagle pilots as APA members. And I openly and actively advocated ONE CONTRACT for APA pilots with AMR (not just AA). It would no longer matter what the name on the side of the plane was (AA, AE, or whatever), the pilots would be APA pilots on the AA seniority list earning whatever the contract specified... and no pilot-to-pilot union conflicts. Of course, APA "leadership" didn't want to hear that in 1989/90 so...... here we are 17 years later trying to "fix" something that was an easy "fix" so long ago.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 3):
Well, first - this wouldn't be a SCOPE clause. SCOPE is a tool used by mainline pilots to limit flying by regional pilots.

SCOPE is nothing more than the contractual language that defines the boundries of the contract... the SCOPE of the work being covered. 20 years ago when I was hired, AA/APA SCOPE was a three paragraph page in the contract. One opening paragraph (nice things written), one closing paragraph (nice things written) and the middle paragraph contained two sentences: "All flying performed by or on behalf of American Airlines, its parent company, its subsidiary companies...." What APA is asking for, it already had (in 1987) and GAVE AWAY in 1990 and later "negotiations."

Quoting Hiflyer (Reply 6):
I have discussed this with folks inside AMR and a side effect is that if APA pilots fly it then AA flt att's must be used to fly it and the feeling is that regular AA employees must do the ground work it/maintenance/dispatch.

No such contactual connections exist between AA union contracts. Whatever work APA pilots perform has no bearing on other work group contracts. All other contracts are covered by their own SCOPE clauses --none of which mention anything about what work APA pilots perform. OTOH, there is nothing to limit other unions from seeking similar/same SCOPE boundries. The key is to get "market rates" for the work to be performed (keep the company competitive while eliminating a source of friction between employees).



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineFlyby519 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 1235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2815 times:



Quoting AAR90 (Reply 11):
SCOPE is nothing more than the contractual language that defines the boundries of the contract... the SCOPE of the work being covered. 20 years ago when I was hired, AA/APA SCOPE was a three paragraph page in the contract. One opening paragraph (nice things written), one closing paragraph (nice things written) and the middle paragraph contained two sentences: "All flying performed by or on behalf of American Airlines, its parent company, its subsidiary companies...." What APA is asking for, it already had (in 1987) and GAVE AWAY in 1990 and later "negotiations."

What if APA bought Eagle, since they are for sale. APA would regain control of almost all of the AMR flying. Anyone have an idea the market price for Eagle?



These postings or comments are not a company-sponsored source of communication.
User currently offlineHPAEAA From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1026 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (7 years 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2753 times:



Quoting Flyby519 (Reply 12):
Anyone have an idea the market price for Eagle?

no one knows yet... AA still has some time to move debt to/from the subsidiary which could drasticly affect the price.. also, the duration of the contract for flying post sale will have significant impact...



Why do I fly???
User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3498 posts, RR: 46
Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2523 times:



Quoting Flyby519 (Reply 12):
What if APA bought Eagle, since they are for sale.

In all honesty, I don't think AE is actually for sale. The press release (signficantly lacking in ANY details) was probably more for the short-term "investors" (FL Group especially) who have been badgering AMR management to "increase" shareholder "value." Any sale of AE would carry with it significant "guaranteed" AMR capacity which significantly decreases potential sale price(s)... note: same problem with selling the AAdvantage program (the other "idea" put forth by those same "investors"). Who would want to own such a company? And what price would they be willing to pay? It is the last question I think AMR management was trying to get across to FL Group (and others).



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineIncitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4070 posts, RR: 13
Reply 15, posted (7 years 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2470 times:



Quoting AAR90 (Reply 14):
Who would want to own such a company?

An investor who wants to "own" an airline without any operations. All operations would be outsourced to the lowest bidder and the company would focus on marketing travel and a rewards program.



Stop pop up ads
User currently offlineCkfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5312 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (7 years 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2353 times:

First, FL Group sold off most of its AMR holdings, saying that management didn't appear to be interested in selling anything beyond Eagle, and the key to unlocking shareholder value, in FL's opinion, was to also sell maintenance and AAdvantage. The interesting thing is the FL took a healthy loss, although it sold most of the block after the Eagle divestiture announcement.

So, it appears that AMR has gotten rid of its most vocal shareholder critic and isn't going to rush the divestiture of Eagle.

Second, a friend of mine, who is an AA pilot, has told me that the stumbling block to putting all AA and AE pilots on one seniority list is the pay scale. The pay scale is based on aircraft weight. The problem is that a CRJ pilot might be paid less than a 777 F/O, depending on seniority, and an Embrear captain not only would be paid less than a 777 F/O, but might be paid less than an A300 F/O or a 767/757 F/O. I don't know how the Saabs and ATRs fit in, but presumably, their captains, on AA's scale, would also be lower paid than F/Os flying AA widebodies.

Management has been cool to the idea of some captains making less than some F/Os, although the reality is that some F/Os move up to captain at the first possible moment. So it's likely that a MD-80 F/O would get a raise by moving to the left-hand seat on the Embrear or the Saab. Other F/Os wait until they have enough seniority to move to captain on larger aircraft. So a 767/757 or A300 F/O would move to captain on the MD-80 or 737.

Third, while I can't figure out the logic of APA's negotiation positions, one has to assume that APA is not putting out its last and final offer and is open to counter offers from management, including the Scope Clause.

That said, besides the eventual replacement of the MD-80s (most likely with 737NGs and the next Boeing narrowbody) and A300s (Boeing 787), as well as 787s to increase international flying, AA needs airplanes to fit between the CRJ and the MD-80/737-800. From what my pilot friend has told me, management has been "kicking the tires" on the Embrear 170s and 190s.

APA has felt, and many airline analysts agree, that it would be best for AA to operate the larger Embrears, because they will, in all liklihood, have first-class cabins. Eagle has never has first-class service, and the belief is that having AA and AE both offer first-class service could be confusing to passengers.

In other words, APA wants to have the large Embrears on AA's seniority list, rather than on Eagle's. So, by suggesting that all AMR flying, from the 777 to the Embrear 135 and the turboprops, one could assume that APA is trying to get management to counter that the Scope Clause limits Eagle to CRJs and smaller, while AA gets Embrear 170/190 and larger.

Whether management bites remains to be seen. It depends on whether managment is prepared to buy large Embrears and whether the APA might budge on compensation, in exchange for getting the large Embrears under the AA banner and getting furloughed pilots back to work.


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2334 times:



Quoting Ckfred (Reply 16):
The pay scale is based on aircraft weight

That may have been true years ago, but with the advent of the current generation of aircraft, the pay scales are based on a somewhat different basis. The trend is now to look at "productivity" that is the ability for the airframe to generate revenue. At NWA this came about when the 320 entered service. The company wanted to "split the baby" and pay higher than the 9 but pay lower than the 727 when, in fact, the 320 even though it weighed less than the 727 was more productive.

Granted some airlines use a narrow body average pay and a wide body average pay, so I am not sure what AA is currently using, but weight no longer is the driving factor in the determination of pay.


User currently offlineCkfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5312 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (7 years 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2301 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 17):
Granted some airlines use a narrow body average pay and a wide body average pay, so I am not sure what AA is currently using, but weight no longer is the driving factor in the determination of pay.

According to my friend, it's pretty much weight on AA's pay scale. When the 777 and 737-800 joined the fleet, there was virtually no negotiation, because the aircraft weights were plugged into the pay scale formula.


User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3498 posts, RR: 46
Reply 19, posted (7 years 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2217 times:



Quoting Ckfred (Reply 16):
Second, a friend of mine, who is an AA pilot, has told me that the stumbling block to putting all AA and AE pilots on one seniority list is the pay scale.



Quoting Ckfred (Reply 16):
Management has been cool to the idea of some captains making less than some F/Os,

Your "friend" is wrong. APA's "leadership" (after they took control of the union in 1990) instituted a "policy" that no APA Captain would have an earning potential less than any APA FO. It is an APA issue, not an AA management issue.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 17):
so I am not sure what AA is currently using, but weight no longer is the driving factor in the determination of pay

Weight is the primary pay rate determinate at AA. Again, those in control of APA have steadfastly refused to even look at alternative options (many have been offered by PILOTS) --especially concerning pay rates.



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineCkfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5312 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (7 years 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2106 times:



Quoting AAR90 (Reply 19):
. APA's "leadership" (after they took control of the union in 1990) instituted a "policy" that no APA Captain would have an earning potential less than any APA FO. It is an APA issue, not an AA management issue.

So, how does the pay scale get adjusted, so that an Embrear or Saab captain makes more than a 777 international F/O, if management were to accept the APA proposal?


User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3498 posts, RR: 46
Reply 21, posted (7 years 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1937 times:



Quoting Ckfred (Reply 20):
So, how does the pay scale get adjusted, so that an Embrear or Saab captain makes more than a 777 international F/O, if management were to accept the APA proposal?

Depends upon what the pay rates that are negotiated for each equipment/seat are. When APA represented AE pilots at Flagship/Executive Airlines, the APA "leadership" promised the AE pilots "mainline rates" based upon gross weight ($ per pound scaled down to the AE equipment). I don't recall the exact numbers, but that would have had the most junior AE Captains (high monthly hours) earning significantly more than any AA co-pilot who was getting monthly minimum guarantee (low time due to not being scheduled by AA).

Were AA and APA to agree to the Scope language change (it would significantly decreases contract language complexity), it would only happen at pay rates that; (a) provide total RJ pilot compensation at (or nearly at) the current "market rate" for pilots flying at competitors flying that type equipment [meets management's needs] while (b) keeps with APA policy that no RJ pilot earns more than any "mainline" pilot AND APA policy that no Captain earns less than any First Officer. Of course APA could adjust its policies to better match the real world conditions, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that.

And FWIW: APA "leadership" used the described pay rate scenario as one of their "justifications" for NOT having APA represent AE pilots --including an official APA recommendation that AE pilots be represented by ALPA... which eventually is what happened. Any and ALL concerns about different unions representing different pilot groups within AMR is SOLELY the responsibility of the Allied Pilots Association.



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Thank You AA Pilots For Saving AA 1400 In STL.... posted Wed Oct 10 2007 07:30:31 by AA777ER
AA Pilots Ask For 30.5% Pay Hike posted Fri May 4 2007 01:41:27 by Akizidy214
AA Pilots To Fly Hatless. posted Tue Apr 17 2007 21:12:25 by FXramper
AA Pilots Not Backing Beijing Flight posted Mon Nov 13 2006 19:08:02 by AA787823
AA Pilots Unsafe: Use Too Much Rudder! (Quote) posted Fri Apr 15 2005 22:53:47 by Birdwatching
Bomber Jackets For AA Pilots posted Tue Feb 17 2004 16:14:54 by Sleekjet
What Did The AA Pilots Agree To? posted Wed Apr 2 2003 00:42:02 by Coronado
AA Pilots: "Ground The Airbus NOW." posted Thu Mar 28 2002 10:34:54 by AA@DFW
BOS Interfaith Service/ Strong AA Pilots&FA posted Fri Sep 14 2001 14:50:10 by Tappan
AA/TW: Tons Of Changes; Bye STL-CDG (for Now) posted Tue Sep 11 2001 02:41:02 by Mah4546