Consultant Sees Scope Relaxation Coming for US Airlines

Trip7

Well-Known Member
http://www.centreforaviation.com/news/2010/06/24/pilots-consultant-sees-scope-relaxation-coming-for-us-airlines/


One hundred-plus seat aircraft will be welcomed in the rest of the world, but the success of the class in the US will largely rely on the relaxation of scope clauses, according to RW Mann & Company's, Bob Mann. While that may not be startling news, Mann said that pilots are coming to the negotiating table wanting compensation rates to return to 2002 levels. Meanwhile, management is coming to the table with a wish-list on work rules and scope.

“If you look at the history, it has been difficult to get management to move off compensation without substantial relaxation in other areas such as work rules and scope,” he said in a recent IAG podcast. “When pilots are talking about going to 2002 compensation rates, which are between 30% to 35% above where we are now, one has to expect there will be substantial relaxation in scope. By this fall we will see, with Continental and United, some sense of where this is going to settle out. One agreement tends to set the precedent for the rest with only a few minor variations.”

However, he was less clear on how much relaxation there would be and whether it would accommodate 100-plus seat aircraft. Mann, who said pilots certainly see 100-seaters as mainline aircraft, indicated that if scope were to peak at 99 seats, the upside would be for the Embraer 190/CRJ-900 level aircraft.

However, a 100-seat aircraft has never been profitable for mainline carriers in the US. “This goes back to the BAC-11 and the F-28,” he noted. “A 100-seat aircraft is very desirable for smaller markets but it has proven, from a management perspective, to be uneconomic, chiefly due to costs. Legacy costs, at 100 seats, just don’t work. While there is a lot of interest in this segment, the costs would have to be at the regional costs, which, as a group are substantially below the legacy group, not only for pilots but for cabin crew, maintenance and even management overheads. Their trip costs are lower even beyond the physics of lower fuel flows and weights but labour as well.

“The economics of these new aircraft will be degraded more and more without regional costs,” he continued. “For now, the largest permitted partner-flown aircraft is 76 to 78-seats which leaves a large gap in the middle under the 150-plus seats. There are lots of markets that would benefit from more capacity without flying more frequency but aren’t economic at mainline narrowbody levels. We’ve seen this manifest itself with more than half the departures flown by regional operators. I anticipate with any change in scope that mainline numbers will decrease further.”

He expects that, should scope go beyond the 99-seat level, an airline such as SkyWest would follow Republic Airways Holdings in ordering 100-plus seat aircraft. RJET has already ordered the CSeries for service introduction in 2016, ostensibly destined for Frontier.

Mann – who is employed on the seniority integration between Frontier, Midwest and Republic Holdings pilots working for Chautauqua, Republic and Shuttle America – noted Frontier pilots traded away any scope restrictions while they were in bankruptcy. “Republic pilots are flying E-190s on behalf of Frontier,” said Mann. “There is a lot of asset swapping in the Republic Holdings’ universe. They have a lot of flexibility, but you have to remember that two thirds of that hybrid is at-risk flying which Republic Holdings has no experience with. Right now there is a lot of subsidising going on by the fixed-fee flying.”

Mann looks to SkyWest as the bell-wether for how regional aircraft play out. “They have diversified their flying to both United and Delta and they are moving away from smaller aircraft towards the CRJ 700/900,” he said. “They have an interest in Trip, the Brazilian operator. They have two classes on their jets and they have the significant balance sheet capacity to engage in merger and acquisition activity and aircraft financing. If the ability to fly larger aircraft became available, SkyWest would jump on the bandwagon.”

Even so, SkyWest has been adamant about a continuing role for 50-seaters but that could be because they have a huge stable and very little tail risk since contracts do not expire for a number of years.

“If you divide the world into the US and the rest of the world, the rest of the world will be very supportive of 100-plus seat aircraft, like the Bombardier CSeries, over time,” he continued. “There are a lot of developing markets and a lot of point-to-point markets for right-sizing such as what JetBlue has done. And, if it performs as advertised, the CSeries will provide a lot of relief in that area. In the US, scope will define where the 100-seat aircraft go.”

Mann cited external factors, such as the growing shortage of pilots, since the industry is now on the cusp of the end of the change in the retirement rule from 60 to 65. “There are a whole slew of mainline pilots who are reaching retirement and it is unclear where these new pilots will come from,” he said. “The recalls from furloughs are at historic lows at 20% to 25%, with the rest having gone on to other things.”

The author seems to suggest that historically and presently, it is impossible to make a profit with 100 seaters due to Legacy cost structure, not just pilot pay. I don't know how much truth there is to this, but I believe this was the reasoning behind AA getting rid of the F100.

Whatever the case, management and labor need to get together and figure out a way to keep the 100+ seaters at mainline in a cost effective way.
 
Back to older compensation and not a penny less. If management can't figure out how to price things so the costs are covered then too bad. No more making it work on the backs of the pilot groups.
 
It's already gone, guys.

The sooner we realize this, the faster WE can get in front of management.

If we continue to put our heads in the sand over this issue, we'll lose.
 
"Whatever the case, management and labor need to get together and figure out a way to keep the 100+ seaters at mainline in a cost effective way."

Ted, Song, dance, etc....
 
If mainline pilots let scope slip even more I'm gonna be really pissed off.

The only thing pilots should be concerned with are job security, work rules, and getting paid what they are worth.

Everything else is management's job to figure out. I dunno, maybe do something like what other industries do and charge what it costs to produce their product, plus a little extra.

So people won't be able to fly from coast to coast for $75, big frigign deal. I'm not willing to help pay to take other people's kids to Disneyland by getting paid less.
 
http://www.centreforaviation.com/ne...sees-scope-relaxation-coming-for-us-airlines/

“When pilots are talking about going to 2002 compensation rates, which are between 30% to 35% above where we are now, one has to expect there will be substantial relaxation in scope.
Gee. All the way back to 2002 levels? :sarcasm:

I want to see 1982 levels. 200% more than now.

All these "experts" are trying to do is prepare the waters for later plans. They want to lower expectations so future demands will be limited by threats of bankruptcy/furloughs.

Senior pay in 1982 = $250,000
Adjusted for cost of living, current senior pay should be over $560,000

Current senior pay is ~ $200,000

What is wrong with this picture?

He also mentioned the "pilot cost" were too high for the 100 seat market. He didn't mention anything about the F100/28s being ineffiecient, high mx, and Fokker went out of business in 1996 making parts/repairs difficult.
 
It's already gone, guys.

The sooner we realize this, the faster WE can get in front of management.

Excellent idea. Give it away and then fight to get it back. :wtf?:

Scope language is jobs. Never, ever give it up.
 
Do people here seriously believe we should be making $500K+? Look, I want to see improvements in the airline industry, and pilots in general, but we can't get ridiculous.
 
Do people here seriously believe we should be making $500K+? Look, I want to see improvements in the airline industry, and pilots in general, but we can't get ridiculous.


Strictly a random thought but I think the point of it too would be that with inflation, the cost of air travel should have increased as well to compensate for those astronomical rates. I fully agree with you that with the current business model, those rates are next to impossible in terms of keeping any company open. But had things been different and the cost been passed to the pax as they should, it would be somewhat believable.
 
Do people here seriously believe we should be making $500K+? Look, I want to see improvements in the airline industry, and pilots in general, but we can't get ridiculous.

Perhaps not, but our purchasing power as professionals should not be less than what it was 20-30 years ago.
 
Perhaps not, but our purchasing power as professionals should not be less than what it was 20-30 years ago.


True, but the market forces have changed. 30 years ago we had government fixed prices. The Deregulation Act made air travel a public commodity.

The toothpaste is out of the tube. Simply hanging on to Scope like grim death isn't enough. We'd have to make drastic changes to corporate culture, government regulation, or both.

What our purchasing power actually 'is' now has nothing to do with our perception of our worth, past, present, or future. It has everything to do with how the system works in its present incarnation. Moral indignation will garner us nothing but high blood pressure.
 
I want to see 1982 levels. 200% more than now.

Senior pay in 1982 = $250,000
Adjusted for cost of living, current senior pay should be over $560,000

Current senior pay is ~ $200,000

What is wrong with this picture?

How many pilot jobs were there in 1982?
 
True, but the market forces have changed. 30 years ago we had government fixed prices. The Deregulation Act made air travel a public commodity.

The toothpaste is out of the tube. Simply hanging on to Scope like grim death isn't enough. We'd have to make drastic changes to corporate culture, government regulation, or both.

What our purchasing power actually 'is' now has nothing to do with our perception of our worth, past, present, or future. It has everything to do with how the system works in its present incarnation. Moral indignation will garner us nothing but high blood pressure.

This. Well said.

The industry has changed drastically from what it was 20 or 30 years ago. It will take a complete change in the way airlines do business to make contractual gains that some hope for. To hope for those massive gains in this current market state is unrealistic.
 
True, but the market forces have changed. 30 years ago we had government fixed prices. The Deregulation Act made air travel a public commodity.

The toothpaste is out of the tube. Simply hanging on to Scope like grim death isn't enough. We'd have to make drastic changes to corporate culture, government regulation, or both.

What our purchasing power actually 'is' now has nothing to do with our perception of our worth, past, present, or future. It has everything to do with how the system works in its present incarnation. Moral indignation will garner us nothing but high blood pressure.

My point is that we need to be seeking to achieve comparable purchasing power as our profession had 20-30 years ago, if that means 500K annual top out salaries than so be it, if it means 250-300k, so be it as well.

But it sure as hell means more than 150k a year top out pay.

We can all have a wonderful discussion on how to get to that point at a future point in a far better medium than an online web forum. :)
 
How many pilot jobs were there in 1982?

That's the question. Fewer passengers flying due to high fares means fewer pilots making in general, and fewer pilots making the big $$.

If the airlines get the fares up, fewer people will fly, and there will be fewer pilots making the big $$ again.

Essentially, making air travel for the mass consumer means airline pilots being a less well paid job. It also means no gourmet dinners in coach too. A lot has changed since the 60s and 70s, but the benefit of it all is that more of us can be aviation professionals, and more of the public can travel on an airliner.

Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is up for discussion, I suppose, but it ain't going back to the way it was.
 
Back
Top