It's a pretty good animation. I immediately got a sense of the character when seeing this (a friendly cool guy, a bit like "The Fonz" of Happy Days). That's the most important thing.
But the character could have been stated stronger and more boldly. I miss the bold statement in the walk and the standing posture at the end. In the walk, notice how his head moves. It rocks back and forth (as do his shoulders).
If you study "Singin in the Rain" and compare Gene Kelly to Donald O'Connor then it's clear that Kelly is the stronger of the two. But why? They make the same moves in "Moses supposes" and O'Connor is highly athletic (as can be seen in the "Make them laugh" routine, where he even walks up to walls and backflips). But Kelly keeps his head still. His head and torso form a unity which constantly leads the movement and is all about attitude. O'Connor, on the other hand, constantly jiggles his head in response to movements, his torso facilitates movement but doesn't keep up an attitude. He looks flimsy compared to Kelly.
So, head (and torso) movements shouldn't be a consequence of a walk when attitude is important but the walk should be a consequence of the attitude. And in an attitude there's always a body part that leads (or recedes, in the case of fear it's all about retracting the head). In actions it might be feet or hands that lead the action (a swinging fist, jumping feet, etc.). It all comes down to a single arc or line around which everything else of the body is build. This way you get purpose and unity. Your animation needs more of that : strongly stated attitude and posture.
AmigaMan has a good point with the landing. It could use some (over)extremes, just for a single frame. The same goes for when the eagle looks around.
There's a minor thing in the standing posture of the eagle at the end. You took his right hand, flipped it and used it as his left hand. That's like a spelling error. You can't do that in a 3/4 view and you even shouldn't do it in a full frontal view. It destroys depth and it's a sin against the "no twins" rule
As a technical thing : get rid of the shading (apart from that on his beak, which serves more as an indication of material than shape anyway). Shading is very tricky and you, basically, just follow an outline. This will not create depth, it will just make things fuzzy (and Disney didn't need shading). The same goes for the folds in his leather jacket. I can see that you want to bring across the idea of leather (big fat round folds and soft transition between light and dark by selecting a light and dark color which are close to each other) but if you bring in folds then they should follow the action (Burne Hogarth has a good book about this : "Dynamic Wrinkles and Drapery" but in animation it's best to rotoscope it). What you're left with are wrinkles that don't animate. Moreover : all this "leather action" creates new shapes which obfuscate the more important lines of action. Bringing in shading doesn't necessarily make things better. It can make things way more chaotic and draw attention away from the lines which indicate action.
It's far easier to create depth with T-Junctions, lines that overlap other lines. Like this :
Sorry for the lousy drawing (football is nearly on and I want to see Germany win so that we can beat them in the finals and erase the disgrace of 1974
) but it does show the idea of T-Junctions. With T-Junctions you get depth without getting into something as tricky as shading. And even if you get shading right then it can still destroy an animation because it introduces shapes that do not follow the basic shapes that you use to show action.
