Is AAG bluffing?

J Cole

J Cole

Well-Known Member
I know that this may post may merely add fuel to an already polarized fire, but having spoken with a number of pilots and seen many posts online, I believe the question of whether AAG is bluffing in contract negotiations with Eagle is an important one. It seems to me, if I can shamelessly generalize a little, that there are two types of pilots that plan to vote "no" on the upcoming vote.

The first type does not believe that AAG is bluffing. They believe that AAG will carry out its threat to place new aircraft elsewhere and to shrink Eagle in a way which would include stagnation and lack of upward movement, but feel compelled to vote against the TA despite this because of a perceived moral obligation to themselves and to others to not lower the standard of living in the industry.

The second type of no voters can be summed up with two basic (and interconnected) assumptions.
1. That AAG is bluffing, attempting to secure concessions from their pilot group before placing aircraft that they intended to place at Eagle all along.
2. That Eagle pilots are irreplaceable. This assumption hinges on the current pilot shortage and ties into the first assumption, because it is why AAG must be bluffing.
Along with this, pilots on this second group tend to minimize all benefits of the TA, especially anything related to flow through by claiming that the flow through agreement will not be honored by the company, if it suites them. From this point of view, the only difference in outcomes between a yes and no vote is that a yes vote will result in concessions. This is why these pilots will insist that there is nothing good about the TA at all.

Given this, is there any strong evidence that AAG is bluffing? This would have to be evidence beyond normal conjecture. Is there any precedence for this level of bluff? That is, has any major, national, or regional airline in the past demanded concessions in trade for some benefit with the threat of a shut down that, when turned down, not only did not shut down the airline but also provided said benefit anyway?

My sincere apologies if you feel I have misrepresented you somehow in the posts above. I have tried to be fair. My primary interest with this post is others views on the bluffing issue.
 
I'm a no voter but I don't believe they are bluffing. They've made it clear in the past, both recent and more distant, that they want out of the wholly-owned regional airline business. The way Eagle was treated in the bankruptcy process made that perfectly clear. If we vote yes, they get a package deal so cheap it benefits them to not get out of the wholly-owned regional airline business because no contractor can do it for less. If we vote no, they wind the place down jet by jet as other operators have the ability to pick up the flying. What the angry types trumpet (they can't replace 280 jets and 2800 pilots) is TRUE, it's true only in the SHORT TERM. What's also TRUE is that, while no other operator can hire enough pilots to fly 150 new jets tomorrow, they can hire them at 10 or 20 a month, which would coincide nicely with Embraer's ability to deliver aircraft. Mesa/PSA/Compass/whoever gets one, Eagle parks one.

People are making this way harder than it is.
 
I think they have to be bluffing unless they don't anticipate the delays cancellations that would result from understaffed regionals trying to do that much flying. AAG management seems disconnected with their comments on Xjet and Mesa having no problems getting new hires when Xjet has publicly stated they cannot find enough pilots for their current flying. SkyWest only requires fifty muti-engine now, I don't think they have dropped from the one hundred multi previously in company history, so that says a lot about pilot supply for regionals.

A really slow wind down would probably be their plan but even then I think the operation delays from unhappy employees and no new hires to replace people leaving would be more expensive than just paying the eagle pilots they have now.
 
slough said:
A really slow wind down would probably be their plan but even then I think the operation delays from unhappy employees and no new hires to replace people leaving would be more expensive than just paying the eagle pilots they have now.
Click to expand...

You would assume that they care. They don't. If Eagle starts running slow due to low morale, they'll just use it as an excuse to find other carriers who can do the job. It matters not if said other carrier can actually DO the work - AAG will deal with that later.

These people are ruthless.
 
roundout said:
You would assume that they care. They don't. If Eagle starts running slow due to low morale, they'll just use it as an excuse to find other carriers who can do the job. It matters not if said other carrier can actually DO the work - AAG will deal with that later.

These people are ruthless.
Click to expand...

Shack.

Airline managers aren't in the business of making money with airplanes, they're in the business of making money. If they can do it without airplanes, they'll do it without airplanes.

Don't ever forget this.
 
jtrain609 said:
Airline managers aren't in the business of making money with airplanes, they're in the business of making money. If they can do it without airplanes, they'll do it without airplanes.

Don't ever forget this.
Click to expand...

This isn't unique to airlines. The 15 or so years that I have spent working for "Big Corporations" or "The Man," the one constant has been that management really had very little idea of what we did. Often times, zero idea. Nor did they really seem to care much, so long as we worked through vacations and holidays as much as possible.
 
Generalizations are dangerous. This TA has benefits for some pilots, and it severely hurts others....It was strategically designed to pander to different seniority groups. I am not so naïve that I believe they are bluffing with regards to a shutdown...but I am not so stupid as to believe they are telling the full truth either. They are in the business of making money and satisfying their shareholders...truth-telling and money-making rarely go hand-in-hand. Bluffing (and lying) is simply a negotiating strategy that every business man, poker player, or spoiled toddler uses to come out on top.

I am a no voter, not necessarily because I feel a moral obligation to vote no, and not because I am delusional about their ability to replace me, but because that is what is best for me. Additionally, I am a no voter because I believe that when someone shows you who they are, you should believe them the first time.
 
Last edited:
@J Cole There is absolutely no way to know until they make an action that either confirms or denies their words. Until then their threat is just a statement that can have many interpretations.

Unfortunately management is allowed to lie to labor (@ATN_Pilot confirm?). Pinnacle likely couldn't have bought 2 airlines during negotiations otherwise.
 
Are they bluffing? I don't think so. At least, they don't think so. I think AAG still thinks that they can find a regional who can staff enough flying that they can liquidate Eagle.


I think they are wrong, but that doesn't mean they're bluffing. A person who is bluffing has to be aware that they're bluffing. AAG is just misguided, or over-estimating the ability of regional airlines to hire.
 
Maurus said:
@J Cole There is absolutely no way to know until they make an action that either confirms or denies their words. Until then their threat is just a statement that can have many interpretations.

Unfortunately management is allowed to lie to labor (@ATN_Pilot confirm?). Pinnacle likely couldn't have bought 2 airlines during negotiations otherwise.
Click to expand...

Yes, management is certainly allowed to lie to labor. Although the attorney types usually like to refer to it as "hard bargaining." :)

That said, management lies a whole lot less than pilots think they do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top