American Eagle is allowed to purchase 22 more CRJs

kellwolf said:
I'm taking an "I'll believe it when I see it" stance. Bigger RJs, to me, mean fewer mainline jobs. Then again, I've seen so many routes that used to be DC-9s going to -900s and 175s that I'm uber-jaded now. IND-TPA, MEM-PHX, MEM-SLC, etc. All are RJs. You'll forgive me if I'm not turning back flips as more RJs come down the pipe. If it's replacing 135s, that's fine since it'll be a net gain of zero. However, it may or may NOT be the case.
Click to expand...

Question, if the IND-TPA route only supports 100 PAX a day (using made up numbers for my point, there are many city pairs like this). As an airline planner would you rather send 1 MD 80 once a day or 2 RJs twice a day? Some routes that used to be flown by mainline may not support such use and thus an RJ is put on it. If there was no RJ....the route could be dropped. There are many smaller cities/markets that can only support an RJ. Even big cities like Pittsburgh might get an RJ between it and ORD because for the particular airline flying that route...that's all that is needed for that time/day/month. As previously stated the DFW-PIT route for AMR (not AA) is performing better than expected and will now have 2 CRJs (from Eagle) and 2 MD-80s (from AA).

Before getting on a soap box and stating "RJs are taking over mainline route"....do some research. Is the route performing well? Is the yield high enough to support mainline? To help you get started on this research here is a great site that shows passenger traffic from just about every airport in the United States. Dig into the details and then post up what you researched...and not what you heard/saw on a message board.
 
RJs, especially large RJs in the vein of -700 and -900s, do cut mainline jobs. Thats why they're called replacement jets. I'm happy for Eagle guys but at the same time wish APA would recapture this scope.
 
Heck, I wish ALL legacies would recapture scope.

I wish Alaska didn't hire pilots. Horizon should do the hiring and Alaska openings should be filled by the Horizon guys who bid for them based on seniority.

Of course I wish I could win the lottery too.

Then I could by a Cessna Citation and bitch about user fees.

But, as they say, wish in one hand and in the other and see which gets fulfilled first.
 
[pipe dream]If only AMR would combine Eagle and American then so many of these problems would go away.[/pipe dream]
 
stillageek said:
Question, if the IND-TPA route only supports 100 PAX a day (using made up numbers for my point, there are many city pairs like this). As an airline planner would you rather send 1 MD 80 once a day or 2 RJs twice a day? Some routes that used to be flown by mainline may not support such use and thus an RJ is put on it. If there was no RJ....the route could be dropped. There are many smaller cities/markets that can only support an RJ. Even big cities like Pittsburgh might get an RJ between it and ORD because for the particular airline flying that route...that's all that is needed for that time/day/month. As previously stated the DFW-PIT route for AMR (not AA) is performing better than expected and will now have 2 CRJs (from Eagle) and 2 MD-80s (from AA).
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying, but you also have to keep in mind that RJs need a higher load factor in order to make money. IND-TPA isn't feeding a large hub, so you don't have a second flight to another destination on a larger aircraft to recoup the cost. So, you COULD fly the CRJ-900 on that route, but you'd need a higher load factor on BOTH airplanes for it to be profitable.

Part of the reason the airlines are in the mess they are is b/c they got wrapped around the axle on "frequency" hoping that "if you fly it, they will come."
 
turbomax97 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but that's my point exactly. Eagle won't be flying those super 80's - mainline does.:confused:
Click to expand...
You're not wrong. I think we're crossing points.

Up until now, it was not feasible for American to fly the gas-guzzling Super80 on that route becuase it wasn't always full. The CRJ did just fine.

Now that almost every flight on the CRJ is full, so it makes sense to use the bigger planes.

From what I'm reading here is that a lot of folks think that Eagle's acquisition of the additional CRJ-700's means that Eagle is going to grow. That's not the case at all.

The additional CRJ's will relieve the routes where the 50 -seaters are full. The 50-seaters will relieve the routes where the 135's are full...and the 135's will eventually go away.

American is just not going to put Super 80's on most of the routes that Eagle flies. It wouldn't be financially responsible. RJ's make sense.
kellwolf]I'm taking an "I'll believe it when I see it" stance. Bigger RJs said:
http://www.apanegotiations.com/Scope/tabid/102/Default.aspx


scopeeeeeeee
Click to expand...
From the link above:

Scope​


All flying performed by or on behalf of the Company or an Affiliate shall be performed by pilots on the American Seniority List in accordance with the terms and conditions of this agreement. ​


We have no problem with that. Had American brought us onto the seniority list back in 2007, this wouldn't be an issue.

As it stands, 65% of American Airlines passengers either originate or terminate their trip on American Eagle.

Get rid of Eagle - you get rid of 65% of your paying customers. Who is going to fly these folks? Not American.

The cities/routes from which the majority of these folks originate/terminate don't make financial sense for American to fly a Super80 or 737 on.

Bring all of Eagle onto the American seniority list. Be the biggest, strongest airline in the country again.
 
I see some hemming and hawing about 'scope' and all that crap.

Remember... there's no real future in mainline flying for those of us at a Regional feed today.

The best we can hope for those at mainline is to hold the line as best we can for them until they retire and their present carrier shrinks to the 'longhaul domestic and international only' scenario.

What we OUGHT to be working for (and hemming and hawing about) at the so-called 'Regional Feed' level is that we're doing MAINLINE STYLE FLYING FOR REGIONAL WAGES.

We've lost the battle on the division between company lines between feeders and legacies. Now we need to get the government, our employers, and our fellow aviators to realize that we need to stop stepping on each other's necks to get out of the 'Regional' airline we work for to move 'upward' and make where we work NOW compensate us fairly for the work we do NOW.

Remember this? I do. Live it, love it, learn it.

http://forums.jetcareers.com/airlin...-airline-pilots-welcome-rest-your-career.html

True growth in the airline business will occur at the 'Regional' level. We've lost the "we're taking it back" fight.

Instead of charging the lines of our opponents HEAD on.. we need to be smarter and OUTFLANK THEM.

My Dad used to say this about Company/Union relations:
"We'll just keep hitting them in the knee with our balls until they give us what we want."

Maybe we should stop doing that, eh?
 
ready2fly said:
Actually, no....and it is a good thing.
Click to expand...

No, it's really not. The more replacement jets that are being flown by the "regionals," the worse off we all are.

What folks are failing to see is the big picture: Eagle is designed to be the FEEDER for American Airlines. Not to take their routes/jobs.
Click to expand...

Isn't that cute? You actually believe management's BS. Eagle (and all "regionals") are designed to eliminate as many mainline jobs as possible while outsourcing the flying to cheaper feeders that can be whipsawed against each other to further reduce costs.

stillageek said:
Question, if the IND-TPA route only supports 100 PAX a day (using made up numbers for my point, there are many city pairs like this). As an airline planner would you rather send 1 MD 80 once a day or 2 RJs twice a day? Some routes that used to be flown by mainline may not support such use and thus an RJ is put on it. If there was no RJ....the route could be dropped. There are many smaller cities/markets that can only support an RJ. Even big cities like Pittsburgh might get an RJ between it and ORD because for the particular airline flying that route...that's all that is needed for that time/day/month. As previously stated the DFW-PIT route for AMR (not AA) is performing better than expected and will now have 2 CRJs (from Eagle) and 2 MD-80s (from AA).
Click to expand...

You're missing the point: all flying should be flown by mainline. Period. There should be no "feeder" carriers. If management wants a 100-seat airplane, then they should have to pay mainline pilots to fly it. If they want a 50-seat airplane, they should have to pay mainline pilots to fly it. There should be no exceptions. I have no problem with management using whatever airframe they want.......as long as mainline pilots fly them.

ready2fly said:
All flying performed by or on behalf of the Company or an Affiliate shall be performed by pilots on the American Seniority List in accordance with the terms and conditions of this agreement. ​


We have no problem with that. Had American brought us onto the seniority list back in 2007, this wouldn't be an issue.
Click to expand...

You might want to read that again, because nowhere does it say that they want to merge the seniority lists. This is one of the problems with independent unions like the APA: they have no duty of fair representation to the Eagle pilots at all, so they have nothing to fear by "taking" back their flying from the feeders. They don't need to merge you. They can easily negotiate a system that slowly downsizes Eagle while transferring all of the planes to mainline and hiring their own newhires to fly them. Meanwhile, Eagle would shrink and furlough. A likely scenario? Depends on just how pro-labor the new NMB becomes. It's a far-reaching proposal by the APA, but they seem to be sticking to it so far. I have no idea whether they plan to make it a strike issue or not.
 
PCL_128 said:
You're missing the point: all flying should be flown by mainline. Period. There should be no "feeder" carriers. If management wants a 100-seat airplane, then they should have to pay mainline pilots to fly it. If they want a 50-seat airplane, they should have to pay mainline pilots to fly it. There should be no exceptions. I have no problem with management using whatever airframe they want.......as long as mainline pilots fly them.
Click to expand...

Todd a lot of Eagle routes where NEVER mainline flying.


PCL_128 said:
You might want to read that again, because nowhere does it say that they want to merge the seniority lists. This is one of the problems with independent unions like the APA: they have no duty of fair representation to the Eagle pilots at all, so they have nothing to fear by "taking" back their flying from the feeders. They don't need to merge you. They can easily negotiate a system that slowly downsizes Eagle while transferring all of the planes to mainline and hiring their own newhires to fly them. Meanwhile, Eagle would shrink and furlough. A likely scenario? Depends on just how pro-labor the new NMB becomes. It's a far-reaching proposal by the APA, but they seem to be sticking to it so far. I have no idea whether they plan to make it a strike issue or not.
Click to expand...

Todd, stop talking out of your ass. I had a long talk with one of the APA negotiators. They do what to merge the lists. One company, one list and one certificate with fences in their proposal would not add any cost to AMR.
 
Gonzo said:
Todd a lot of Eagle routes where NEVER mainline flying.
Click to expand...

That doesn't change the fact that those routes should be mainline flying if AMR wants to operate them.

Todd, stop talking out of your ass. I had a long talk with one of the APA negotiators. They do what to merge the lists. One company, one list and one certificate with fences in their proposal would not add any cost to AMR.
Click to expand...

Never trust the APA. The TWA pilots learned that the hard way.
 
So you are stating there should never be regional pilots? What about the small cities that get EAS support? Should the 19 seat Beech 1900 pilots be mainline pilots also? There have been regional pilots of one form or another for as long as there have been planes. Whatever kool aid you are drinking I will pass on it.
 
Is there any large precedence of a mainline flying regional-type aircraft? I can only think of one: When America West flew their own Dash-8s with mainline pilots prior to code sharing with Mesa.
 
PCL_128 said:
That doesn't change the fact that those routes should be mainline flying if AMR wants to operate them.
Click to expand...

A few years ago, I went through a divorce while trying to deal with day-to-day life in a combat zone. I talked with a counselor a bit to ease the transition.

He clued me in to something called Rational Emotive Therapy, or RET.

RET specializes in understanding how one's thinking creates negative feelings. Specifically, it says that you "feel how you think".

It strongly recommended avoiding inner monologue statements with wordings including "should" and "must".

In other words, what SHOULD happen in the world according to professional pilots will only lead to bad feelings and a sense of frustration.

What we would LIKE to happen would be nice, but most likely won't happen, as we don't call all the shots.

What we would be happier seeing is a growth in the job expectations for those on their way out and those on their way up at the same time.

Holding tight to those "SHOULD" statements about how things "MUST BE" or "SHOULD ALWAYS BE" only lead to heartache and disappointment.

We've lost the "taking it back" campaign. In this colossal tug-o-war, we're going to get dragged into the mud pit every time. It's time to just change tactics and let go of the rope, then take the other team's wallets while they're heaped in a big pile when they all fall down.

Feel better? :D
 
Firebird2XC said:
We've lost the "taking it back" campaign.
Click to expand...

Horrible attitude. In fact, the campaign has only just begun. We're beginning a new pattern bargaining cycle right now, and SWA and Alaska are about to bring us new contracts with enhanced compensation and scope protections. The carriers that follow will be able to build upon that new foundation. The problem is that your entire career so far has been contained within this concessionary bubble, so you're used to the massive outsourcing and destruction of our profession. Those of us that started our careers prior to 9/11 have a slightly different perspective. We can get back to the way things were, but only if you adjust your attitude and don't give up.
 
PCL_128 said:
Horrible attitude. In fact, the campaign has only just begun. We're beginning a new pattern bargaining cycle right now, and SWA and Alaska are about to bring us new contracts with enhanced compensation and scope protections. The carriers that follow will be able to build upon that new foundation. The problem is that your entire career so far has been contained within this concessionary bubble, so you're used to the massive outsourcing and destruction of our profession. Those of us that started our careers prior to 9/11 have a slightly different perspective. We can get back to the way things were, but only if you adjust your attitude and don't give up.
Click to expand...


I haven't given up. I just think the efforts of our primary plan of action are a little misdirected, and leave a few aspects of the situation unaddressed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top