Red Herrings
May 18, 2009
Jeff Brundage discusses APA leadership criticism of the company's Joint Business Agreement
A herring is a small, oily fish which, when smoked and preserved, turns dark red and quite smelly. The term "red herring" made it into popular expression after, as legend has it, fugitives used to drag the stinky fish across trails to confuse the hounds unleashed to find them. In other words, a "red herring" is something used to divert attention from the issue at hand.
I think about this because it pretty aptly describes what's going on with the arguments the pilot union leaders are making about our proposed Joint Business Agreement with British Airways and Iberia.
Smart folks can disagree, and some may, about the relative benefits of this alliance. That's why we're working so hard to encourage AA employees to look closely at the deal so that they see all the possible upside – for the airline and its workers.
The leaders at the Allied Pilots Association are, unfortunately, taking a different approach in opposing our application with the Department of Transportation. That approach involves the use of more than one red herring and a clear effort to confuse the facts.
Consider, for example, the union's none-too-subtle suggestion that the alliance would threaten national security. In a letter to Congress, the union claims that international alliances compromise US readiness by reducing the number of U.S. planes available for special military missions.
"There are clearly Department of Defense implications, as the federal government depends upon U.S. airlines to carry troops and supplies in wartime as our nation's Civil Reserve Air Fleet," the union leaders wrote. "Are we comfortable having foreign carriers ferry our troops in wartime?"
Nothing better illustrates this attempt to lead readers down a false trail.
The Joint Business Agreement is a revenue sharing agreement that spells out how the revenue would be shared after the airlines receive antitrust immunity – nothing more and nothing less. And certainly nothing that would damage national security.
Keep in mind that the two other global alliances already have this immunity, with zero impact on the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) or national defense. In fact, federal officials require as part of the approval process a commitment that participation in an alliance will have no negative impact on an airline's obligations under CRAF.
There have been other specious arguments in the union's JBA opposition, including the charge that provisions in the pilot contract could block this deal. Let me be perfectly clear. There is nothing in the labor agreement that would in any way limit American Airlines' ability to enter into this agreement.
But I raise that to explain why I'm posting this here, on our negotiations news and information site, rather than our site for supporters of the JBA. I do so because, by all appearances, the APA leadership wants to make this application an issue in contract negotiations – perhaps as something the union can threaten in an attempt to gain leverage at the bargaining table.
If that's the case, it is both wrong-headed and unfortunate, because it works against what the union purports to seek in these negotiations: more opportunity and job security for AA pilots.
Our ability to succeed as an airline and be a stronger competitor in the global skies depends on this agreement and our other work with employees to improve our service, raise new revenues and offer a better product.
That's what we're seeking with our JBA and in our contract talks with the unions. On this issue in particular, we'd all be better served if we were working together against our competitors rather than fishing for red herring.
