Plane Business says Eagle needs to Vote YES

Skyvector

Well-Known Member
One of the latest articles from Plane Business:

http://www.planebusiness.com/

Excerpt taken from PlaneBusiness Banter by Holly Hegeman, Editor

Friday March 21, 2014, Volume 18, Issue 11



Speaking of the regional airline sector, the pilots at American Eagle continue to vote on the tentative agreement proposal the Air Line Pilots Association MEC put out for a vote. The voting period on the TA ends next week, so we will then have an answer as to whether American Airlines will be using American Eagle to fly those sixty new Embraer E-Jets, or whether the flying will be dispersed amongst the list of regionals that bid for the work. As we mentioned previously, that RFP which breaks the flying up into three sets of 20 aircraft each has already gone out for bids.



I want to take a few minutes and talk about this vote, as I think it is one of the most important union votes we've seen in the industry of late. First of all, I would like to say to the leaders of the ALPA MEC who refused to recommend to members of their union how they should vote on this agreement -- shame on you. Abstention is not an option. (Three members voted to recommend the agreement to members, while six members abstained.) The members of your union elected you to represent them. They don't have the same level of access to management discussions and negotiations that you have. They don't have access to the same information on a national ALPA scale as you have. You were elected to represent them in situations just like this.



For a member of the Eagle MEC to stand on the sidelines, pull the political card, and not provide more guidance to members on such an important vote is, well, shameful.



Hope you guys can sleep at night.



Having said that, I want to say a few things about this proposed contract because there is a lot of bad information out there concerning it. I think American Eagle pilots need to vote yes, not no.



1) The number one misperception about this agreement that I have heard over and over again is that Eagle management will come back to ALPA if the union votes down the deal because no other regional will be able to hire pilots to staf the new flying.



If you are an American Eagle pilot and this is why you are going to vote no, you are in for a rude awakening. Is not going to happen. RFPs are out. There are hungry stand-alone regional airlines out there ready to pounce.



They will find the pilots.



2) On the reverse side of the argument, another misperception is that Eagle won't be able to hire anyone. I decided to ask around and see just how the hiring pool looks at American Eagle. Since we've heard mixed messages from other regional airlines of late, (including some mild hysteria) and since it would stand to reason that a job at Eagle, with a flow-through, would be better than a job at a standalone regional, guess what we found out?



According to more than one source (and they both coincide so I am going to go with the numbers) between the time that the first agreement was reached until the time the MEC voted not to send it out, weekly pilot applications went from 8 per week to 66 per week. Applications then dropped to only about 3 or 4 per week after the MEC voted not to send the deal out. Makes sense.



What does this tell you? It tells me that American Eagle with a pilot contract is looked upon as a desirable place for pilots to work.



How are applications looking now? I was told that after the "new" TA was reached, there was yet another spike in applications. Weekly applications are now back in the 50 to 55 per week range. And I am told the overwhelming majority of those applicants are qualified to fly the airplanes that need to be flown.



3) The flow-through agreement. What is the dif erence between what is in place now and what will be in place in the future if the TA passes?



Today, Eagle provides 50% of the monthly new hire class to American. If the class is 40, Eagle supplies 20. Under the new deal, 100% of the first 30 pilots American hires in a month will come from Eagle. That is a significant improvement, especially if American is hiring smaller classes, like 20 per month. Previously, only 10 would have flowed through to American; under the terms of the new contract, it would be all 20.



So if the class is 30, it is all Eagle. If it is 40, 30 are Eagle. Granted, if the new class is 60, only 30 will be Eagle. But that would still be 50% -- the same as the current agreement.



4) As best I can tell, not one pilot takes a paycut as part of this deal.



First Officers below 8 years and Captains below 12 years will still get step increases, Captains in years 15 to 17 will keep getting annual increases, First Officers who are promoted to Captains will get huge pay increases, and Captains who flow through to American will obviously hit the jackpot.



5) This deal guarantees 170 aircraft. The contract between Delta and Endeavor only guarantees 81.



Oh, and another thing I learned this week. While Endeavor pilots do have flow-through rights -- they only have 12 a month. In addition, they have to interview at Delta. Sources tell me that less than half of them are receiving job offers. All of Eagle's flow-through pilots will get an offer because there is no interview.



So why are pilots telling me they are going to vote no? Two main reasons.



1) "The only way to attract pilots is to raise pay and benefits." (See above. Apparently American is not having trouble getting applications.) I'm sure a lot of people would like to see the entire regional/mainline system gutted and changed -- I know I would. But this contract is not going to do that. Nor will this happen if the contract is not approved. But not approving this contract could make the lives of American Eagle pilots much worse. Sorry. Wish I could say otherwise. So if you want to vote no and "stand for the cause" it's not going to end well. As I said, those RFPs are already out there.





2) "Mainline carriers are making record profits. We want more."



Unfortunately, that is not how the broken regional airline model in the U.S. works. Or doesn't work. How it works right now is this: there are regional airlines out there that will bid on these RFPs at rates lower than the costs contained in this TA. That's a fact. A sad fact. It is the model that is broken. Given the constraints of that broken model, I say a "yes" to this contract beats the alternative.



We'll all find out which way the vote goes next week.
 
Plus, during our contract votes during bankruptcy, I always hated both sides of the issue.

The pilots that would preach to me, on the jumpseat, about what I should do drove me as nuts as the people on the management's perspective preaching to me about what we must do.

What evv's.
 
I don't see her being too far off in her analysis other than the fact that capping pay at 8 and 12 years is really bad and is a step backwards. I agree that it was absolutely shameful that 6 MEC members didn't vote. With any sort of flow in place Eagle (Envoy) will continue to fill classes. I honestly don't think management will come back to the table with a better deal (and keep in mind I've sat across the table from these guy's worker drones before). 100% of the first 30 pilots per month is an insanely good deal (although I wonder what happens in months when they hire less than 30 because PSA gets 4 slots a month also). And finally I said the same thing a week ago about the fact that just because a mainline partner (or even holding company in this case) is making bank, a regional doesn't have any expectation to any of that money beyond what they can get through an RFP or (in the case of a wholly owned) the figure they come up with on the cost sheet.

Yes, it's written from a management perspective but I didn't see it as FUD at all. I still would probably vote no if I was on property there because of the pay scale capping but I'd be doing it knowing full well that the company probably would be wound down in the future because of it.
 
From another site:
Holly wrote the same thing for the AA vote.
She also worked for AA:
"She was a receptionist or a speech writer for Bob Crandall. She left AMR in 1997."
 
100% of the first 30 pilots per month is an insanely good deal (although I wonder what happens in months when they hire less than 30 because PSA gets 4 slots a month also).

They will just do what they are doing now. The deal with PSA says they will hire 4 PSA pilots a month it doesn't say anything about 4 starting class a month. So they are hiring 4 guys and not putting them in class.
 
Everybody can dislike what she says all they want, but the only real question is whether it's factual or not. I don't think you can argue with her reasoning.

I can remember that regional pilots railed against the Boyd Group for years because Boyd's been saying since around 2003 that the 50-seat RJ can't be profitable long-term. Everyone mocked him and dismissed him as a lunatic while the RJs were added by the hundreds to fleets and pilots were hired by the many more hundreds to fill those seats. But here we are, and as he usually is, he's been proven right.

You may not like the message, but that doesn't mean that it isn't true.
 
The female swelblog.

She had relevance a few years ago, but her analysis hasn't quite been hitting it over the past year.
 
Everybody can dislike what she says all they want, but the only real question is whether it's factual or not. I don't think you can argue with her reasoning.

I can remember that regional pilots railed against the Boyd Group for years because Boyd's been saying since around 2003 that the 50-seat RJ can't be profitable long-term. Everyone mocked him and dismissed him as a lunatic while the RJs were added by the hundreds to fleets and pilots were hired by the many more hundreds to fill those seats. But here we are, and as he usually is, he's been proven right.

You may not like the message, but that doesn't mean that it isn't true.

I can argue with someone who makes a sappy, "shame on you for not voting no" followed by a restatement of the company's talking points on why to vote yes. The fact that she is a pay-for-play blogger kinda matters too. Boyd might be partially "right" after 12 years, due to reasons very different from his original reasons about 50 seat aircraft.
 
I can argue with someone who makes a sappy, "shame on you for not voting no" followed by a restatement of the company's talking points on why to vote yes.

I believe the "shame on you" was about the abstentions. And rightfully so.

Boyd might be partially "right" after 12 years, due to reasons very different from his original reasons about 50 seat aircraft.

Actually, it is exactly because of the reasons he cited over a decade ago: operating economics.
 
I believe the "shame on you" was about the abstentions. And rightfully so.



Actually, it is exactly because of the reasons he cited over a decade ago: operating economics.

Your opinion, but you don't know the facts of why they abstained, and it's too late to explain, big day tomorrow. "Operating economics"? LOL. Why not really go general and classify Boyd's reasoning as "economic stuff" or "operating thingys". That way, you can pretty much be right no matter what.
 
Back
Top