Contract Negotiations and Pilot Shortages

  • Thread starter Thread starter Flying Saluki
  • Start date Start date
Blackhawk said:
The numbers obviously change based upon costs, but they are not necessarily going to replace 717s with RJs. Sometimes it is the other way around- Manchester, NH was initially started as an RJ route alternative to BOS. Eventually the loads became high enough to support MD's and they replaced the RJs. I can think of many cities I use to fly to in an ATR/CRJ that are now almost exclusively served by mainline (VPS/ECP come to mind). In some cases RJs did replace 717s/320s, but in many of those cases it is either the RJ or nothing as the route is too thin. Think Muscle Shoals, now exclusively served y Seaport, I think.
Click to expand...
"RJ"
map
 
BobDDuck said:
He's implying thst the 175 has most certainly replaced MD80s and Guppies on routes to places other than Cedar Rapids.
Click to expand...
Ahh.. I understand and don't disagree... when the loads support it. Heck, you see 50 seats on some well-traveled routes mixed in with main line metal. On some runs that may be all there is on a Saturday.
 
As far as I'm concerned CRJ-900 = DC-9, and I honestly expect to be paid as such.

I know that it's not going to happen at a subcontractor any time soon, but I want the payscale to start heading in that direction. If that means mainline starts flying E190s from SAT-LAX, even better.
 
USMCmech said:
As far as I'm concerned CRJ-900 = DC-9, and I honestly expect to be paid as such.

I know that it's not going to happen at a subcontractor any time soon, but I want the payscale to start heading in that direction. If that means mainline starts flying E190s from SAT-LAX, even better.
Click to expand...
Again, where the market supports it E190's may supplant CRJ-900s. In some cases, however, the smaller aircraft and associated jobs may just go away. While on the surface this may sound good (fewer "low paying" jobs), in essence it would lead to a demand for fewer pilots. A demand for fewer pilots means less bargaining power for pilots. Less bargaining power for pilots means lower pay/benefits. So this theme of "let's burn the RJs and everything will be great" may not pan out.
 
Blackhawk said:
Again, where the market supports it E190's may supplant CRJ-900s. In some cases, however, the smaller aircraft and associated jobs may just go away. While on the surface this may sound good (fewer "low paying" jobs), in essence it would lead to a demand for fewer pilots. A demand for fewer pilots means less bargaining power for pilots. Less bargaining power for pilots means lower pay/benefits. So this theme of "let's burn the RJs and everything will be great" may not pan out.
Click to expand...

BdLYj2l.jpg


JbldtBt.jpg


I don't think the demand for pilot jobs isn't going to go away any time soon.
 
USMCmech said:
View attachment 32794

View attachment 32795

I don't think the demand for pilot jobs isn't going to go away any time soon.
Click to expand...

Retirements will continue, but if "lower paying" RJ jobs are eliminated it will decrease demand for pilots. Airline ticket prices are not elastic. On domestic routes they compare with driving- or just not traveling. At one time the mantra at United was that they could lose money on domestic routes as they could charge what they wanted on overseas routes- especially Asia. In the mid-2000s they learned the same lesson that felled Pan Am. The Asian economy tanked, bird flu hit, and 747-400s were flying empty. Empty 747s are a poor business model:
So the point is that airlines just can't jack up ticket prices and assume the same number of people will purchase tickets. If they raise prices to cover the higher cost of paying for pilots there will be fewer people flying. Fewer people flying means a demand for fewer pilots.
 
The problem is that the regionals are no longer flying regional planes on regional routes. When Mesa was flying 1900s around the southwest and pilots were a dime a dozen 22/hr made sense. But today, we are flying the equivalent of DC-9s on mainline routes and recruiting is scraping the bottom of the barrel to fill classes.

I have a hard time seeing shrinkage overtaking attrition in the near future. There simply are not enough pilots willing to come to work for regional pay to keep up with demand.


To get this thread back to the OP's question.

At my airline, the lack of any real pay raise in the new TA has almost everyone I have spoken to voting no.
 
USMCmech said:
The problem is that the regionals are no longer flying regional planes on regional routes. When Mesa was flying 1900s around the southwest and pilots were a dime a dozen 22/hr made sense. But today, we are flying the equivalent of DC-9s on mainline routes and recruiting is scraping the bottom of the barrel to fill classes.

I have a hard time seeing shrinkage overtaking attrition in the near future. There simply are not enough pilots willing to come to work for regional pay to keep up with demand.


To get this thread back to the OP's question.

At my airline, the lack of any real pay raise in the new TA has almost everyone I have spoken to voting no.
Click to expand...

Ok, once again, how do you fix it for the no voters to vote yes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top