Mesa loses AA contracts
- Thread starter DE727UPS
- Start date
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
Airbii instructor? Are newhires still getting it or is it all Bowing now?
Inverted
mmmmmm wine
Yep on the Bus. He was basically part of the last crop of new hires on it. We are all just doing transition and RLOFTs now.
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
I won't defend JO or the long history of Mesa's crappy behavior.
However while I was there I had no complaints other than the paycheck. Some trips were nice, some sucked. Some hotels were not the greatest, sometimes you had to fight with MX. The pay sucked, but it wasn't much worse than the other regionals. The CPs wouldn't hassle you unless you did something really stupid.
The training department in particular was great and would give guys extra time if they needed it. (Yes I know about how this got abused and resulted in a tragedy).
However while I was there I had no complaints other than the paycheck. Some trips were nice, some sucked. Some hotels were not the greatest, sometimes you had to fight with MX. The pay sucked, but it wasn't much worse than the other regionals. The CPs wouldn't hassle you unless you did something really stupid.
The training department in particular was great and would give guys extra time if they needed it. (Yes I know about how this got abused and resulted in a tragedy).
Inverted
mmmmmm wine
There is nothing wrong with extra time. The footprint we stick people in is a total construct that we make up. If people need extra sims to be ready for a type ride and they are progressing, I am all for it. My issue is the people that barely make it through, get pushed from FTD to sims by an instructor, and the same thing happens in sims. Before you know it, you have had 2 or 3 instructors, and two APDs look at a student and all of them maybe passed the buck to the next guy. They get on IOE and the check airman is like dude wtf... It happens, we are all short handed and if we see progression, they might get to the next step having not met the standard. But simply needing more time is not even remotely a red flag IMHO. Now if by sim 6 they can't get off the gate, that is a problem...
///AMG
Well-Known Member
Don't you just make all the illuminated lights go away in the Bus and then you are good? 
We have the same issue on the mil side, at least that there is a perpetual pressure to push kids through who probably shouldn't continue. Eventually the systems gets the ones without the aptitude, generally at least by the syllabus for their operational aircraft or (a little less commonly), during their first operational tour following initial training. It's tough because a many of them have a good attitude, are putting in the time, etc etc. And also, for every one of those, there are a couple others who struggle for just as long, but the lightbulb eventually turns on and they become contributing members of society. So it is a tough judgement call in many cases. Of course some are not very tough calls, yet they still get passed along for much longer than they should have. I've chaired plenty of human factors boards for aviators who are struggling in one phase or another of our syllabus here, and during my last active duty tour, I was the head of training and the guy the skipper would turn to and ask for a recommendation. None of that stuff is fun or easy.
I can't speak super intelligently on the norms of 121 training, but in my mil background, a "refly" was no big deal......sometimes nearly automatic for certain flights. That being said, true "check ride" (in the sense of our annual NATOPS and Instrument checks) failures were very rare for us, at least in my community. More than one would be a really significant red flag. Our tactical check rides I think are a bit more equivalent, and were quite commonly reflown once or twice until executed to proficiency. But that is almost completely irrelevant to this discussion.
We have the same issue on the mil side, at least that there is a perpetual pressure to push kids through who probably shouldn't continue. Eventually the systems gets the ones without the aptitude, generally at least by the syllabus for their operational aircraft or (a little less commonly), during their first operational tour following initial training. It's tough because a many of them have a good attitude, are putting in the time, etc etc. And also, for every one of those, there are a couple others who struggle for just as long, but the lightbulb eventually turns on and they become contributing members of society. So it is a tough judgement call in many cases. Of course some are not very tough calls, yet they still get passed along for much longer than they should have. I've chaired plenty of human factors boards for aviators who are struggling in one phase or another of our syllabus here, and during my last active duty tour, I was the head of training and the guy the skipper would turn to and ask for a recommendation. None of that stuff is fun or easy.
I can't speak super intelligently on the norms of 121 training, but in my mil background, a "refly" was no big deal......sometimes nearly automatic for certain flights. That being said, true "check ride" (in the sense of our annual NATOPS and Instrument checks) failures were very rare for us, at least in my community. More than one would be a really significant red flag. Our tactical check rides I think are a bit more equivalent, and were quite commonly reflown once or twice until executed to proficiency. But that is almost completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Last edited:
Truth.
Could go even broader than that, I suppose...
Could just go with "Airlines, 'nuff said." (that's overbroad, but like any proper stereotype, the core point stands)
American, in particular, is currently like many banks in 2005,6,7... they bet too hard and too long - hoping no one would notice. Which, of course, few did - until mass met matter in a splatter.
I guess the good news about being big but economically unviable (much of Ag, Aviation, etc) is that these days, that's the combo that gets you real paid. (And since we're talking money here, and since " @FlyingAccountant " called me out about "humanity" elsewhere - let me just add that the issue is not humanity; The issue is current humans and the BS they are wont to believe due to decades of improper education.)
Last edited:
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
Just staple Mesa to the bottom of UA's list. Problem solved.
Seriously, I've never understood why anyone sees any difference mainline and large RJ flying. In fact most of the routes I flew at Mesa in the -900s were mirrored by SWA 737s or Delta in 717s. The airplanes are not the problem, JB flys 195s and the CRJ100/Airbus220 are flying on mainline routes all over. Crew costs are pretty much a wash anymore with the new post covid pay scales. It's the stupid and long irrelevant regional vs "real" airline pilots divide that keeps everyone.
I know I said sarcasm earlier, but honestly I think that would be the best thing for everyone (which is why it will never happen).
they can't add them, they can sub them for 170s that they currently don't have crew for
not sure if they need to be removed from Mesas certificate or just parked in the desert to comply with scope
scooter just found him some extra RJ pilots and doesn't want to pay or wait months or years to train them on the 170
killbilly
Vocals, Lyrics, Triangle, Washboard, Kittens
This is what will happen. One of the possibilities there, too, is that they reconfigure them as 50-seaters (CRJ550s?) but I'm not sure if it's a seat-count thing or an airframe thing. I've followed some of the discussions on APC about it but I'm not clear on those details.
The interesting part is that Mesa doesn't own those parking 170s/175s....I don't think....so UA could place them elsewhere.
alaskadrifter
Landing gear operator
I believe max gross weight also count towards scope, but maybe the STC decreases the max gross weight?This is what will happen. One of the possibilities there, too, is that they reconfigure them as 50-seaters (CRJ550s?) but I'm not sure if it's a seat-count thing or an airframe thing. I've followed some of the discussions on APC about it but I'm not clear on those details.
The interesting part is that Mesa doesn't own those parking 170s/175s....I don't think....so UA could place them elsewhere.
NovemberEcho
Dergs favorite member
Lindbergh (GoJet I think?) does this. They’re suuuper slow inside the marker compared to everyone else but climb like rockets.
there is a MGTOW limit on 50 seaters of 65k, not sure what the BOW of an RJ9 is but maybe you can put 40 seats and a pickleball court in itThis is what will happen. One of the possibilities there, too, is that they reconfigure them as 50-seaters (CRJ550s?) but I'm not sure if it's a seat-count thing or an airframe thing. I've followed some of the discussions on APC about it but I'm not clear on those details.
The interesting part is that Mesa doesn't own those parking 170s/175s....I don't think....so UA could place them elsewhere.
they can't run the 170s in service elsewhere, that's why they'd have to pull an equivalent number of 170s offline to put the RJ9s on
someone recorded the meeting with SK and JO, something was said about their 170s were only getting like 4hr utilization per day because of lack of pilots.
killbilly
Vocals, Lyrics, Triangle, Washboard, Kittens
IMS, the CRJ900s could go to...like....85,000? Not sure.
I've got a friend at Mesa who is on IOE right now on the ERJ. He's super happy to be there an excited about two new bases they're opening, but I just don't see how this is a good thing, particularly since they (Mesa) also mentioned "needing liquidity."
mrivc211
Well-Known Member
You can’t kill La cocarachaOrnstein will get his revenge…
What are the two new bases?