"American seeks to boost its use of regional jets"
- Thread starter Zidac
- Start date
Gonzo
Well-Known Member
I think the market is changing since the last ten years. Regional's are consolidating to shrink competition. They are having a hard time making money. They are saturated with 50 seat jets that are arguably near impossible to make money with for regional airlines. The costs are going up not down for mainlines in the long term. We shall see but I think its a changing environment. Also mainline airlines besides AA are making money, some big money, and if anything those pilots are going to push back. Not only that but the trend long term seems to be 120+ seat jets as fuel goes up. The trends are changing but what the heck do I know, guess I can quote this in 5 years if I was right.... A ton depends too on what AA ends up with.
I am still amazed the govt has not come in and required more transparency to passengers in this process, and make it a ton harder to paint your company and info on something that is not yours. If they did the wholly owned's would become the lucky children. But I am biased on that, and it still no solution. Its not like DIET COKE is made by a company that has no ties at all to COKE. You can't buy a car called a Ford Lite that is made by an unknown Korean company (well maybe the parts), but you can still sue ford if the wheels fall off when you pull out of the new car lot. I just don't get it. You cant goto a tacobell express and find out that it has nothing to do with Taco bell at all, except only the hot sauce comes from them.
I am still amazed the govt has not come in and required more transparency to passengers in this process, and make it a ton harder to paint your company and info on something that is not yours. If they did the wholly owned's would become the lucky children. But I am biased on that, and it still no solution. Its not like DIET COKE is made by a company that has no ties at all to COKE. You can't buy a car called a Ford Lite that is made by an unknown Korean company (well maybe the parts), but you can still sue ford if the wheels fall off when you pull out of the new car lot. I just don't get it. You cant goto a tacobell express and find out that it has nothing to do with Taco bell at all, except only the hot sauce comes from them.
PeanuckleCRJ
Poodle Wrangler
Dude... what the heck is wrong with you? Do you have any concept of actual economics as well as what is at stake here? Great googly moogly I don't even have any words for this....
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Eh, go easy on Trip7. He actually does have a valid point buried down in there somewhere. 
It's true that you can't expect just AMR to operate RJs at mainline while everyone else outsources them. That puts AMR at a tremendous competitive disadvantage. There are really only two ways to solve the problem:
1. Recapture scope at all of the mainline carriers so the competitive cost pressure isn't there; or
2. The APA gives the scope relief to allow AMR to compete on a level playing field.
In order for option 1 to work, everyone has to band together and agree to work towards the same goal, even if means that "full restoration" isn't possible in other areas of the CBA. In other words, yes, give up some money to recapture scope. If pilots aren't willing to make that sacrifice, then recapturing scope is not a realistic option. Sorry, but that's just reality.
It's true that you can't expect just AMR to operate RJs at mainline while everyone else outsources them. That puts AMR at a tremendous competitive disadvantage. There are really only two ways to solve the problem:1. Recapture scope at all of the mainline carriers so the competitive cost pressure isn't there; or
2. The APA gives the scope relief to allow AMR to compete on a level playing field.
In order for option 1 to work, everyone has to band together and agree to work towards the same goal, even if means that "full restoration" isn't possible in other areas of the CBA. In other words, yes, give up some money to recapture scope. If pilots aren't willing to make that sacrifice, then recapturing scope is not a realistic option. Sorry, but that's just reality.
PeanuckleCRJ
Poodle Wrangler
That's not what he was saying at all. He was stating that it is not viable for a less than 100 seat aircraft to be operated at mainline at any carrier due to their economics. Which is a 100% invalid statement. Heck, USair is operating E190s at mainline right now. That sure seems to be economically viable there.Eh, go easy on Trip7. He actually does have a valid point buried down in there somewhere.
1. Recapture scope at all of the mainline carriers so the competitive cost pressure isn't there; or
2. The APA gives the scope relief to allow AMR to compete on a level playing field.
In order for option 1 to work, everyone has to band together and agree to work towards the same goal, even if means that "full restoration" isn't possible in other areas of the CBA. In other words, yes, give up some money to recapture scope. If pilots aren't willing to make that sacrifice, then recapturing scope is not a realistic option. Sorry, but that's just reality.
I don't expect a scope recapture at AMR through this bankruptcy- I do expect them to hold the line on scope.
Trip7
Well-Known Member
My views on scope will always seem radical and taken out of context, so I'll save everyone the headache of arguing and just say this. In this very cut throat industry of RAZOR thin margins (2 to 3% profit margin in a GOOD year), I think it's best for legacy pilots to focus on on Dubai and not Amarillo. For people on here to at jumping on a bleeding AMR for wanting to match other airlines scope clauses is silly. Sure you can argue the theory of pilot scope all day but that dead horse has been to death. All the unions banding together to recapture scope at the same time is a near impossibility
It could be worse. Lufthansa has a worse scope clause(e190s at Cityline) and they are still trying to figure out how to make the domestic network profitable. AMR is not just competing against other legacies, they are competing against the world in this new global aviation environment.
It could be worse. Lufthansa has a worse scope clause(e190s at Cityline) and they are still trying to figure out how to make the domestic network profitable. AMR is not just competing against other legacies, they are competing against the world in this new global aviation environment.
Nick
Well-Known Member
You do realize that a business trip itinerary could be Amarillo to Dubai though, right?
Why would a legacy pilot want to ignore the origin or destination of a potential customer?
I guess I just don't understand what you mean by "focus on Dubai and not Amarillo." Can you word it another way?
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Honestly, I'm not really sure what he's saying. If he's saying that a 100-seater can't be operated at mainline even if the competitive issues are resolved, then I would agree, that's bunk. If he's talking about the competitive pressures, then he has a point. I'm not sure which he's saying, though.
Unfortunately, I think you'll be disappointed. Some level of scope relief while in bankruptcy is probably inevitable for them. I see some relief on 78-seaters to probably be a best-case scenario.
Trip7
Well-Known Member
I said the F100(not 100 seat airplanes) was uneconomical, and that mainline payrates were PART of the reason they were removed. US Airways does operate 100 seaters but nowhere near what the AMR F100 pay was
What do you mean by you expect them to hold the line on scope? Because there is an almost zero percent chance the current AMR scope contract caps (whether it be the 70 seat limit or the 47 70 seat aircraft limit) will be held.
PeanuckleCRJ
Poodle Wrangler
You're taking basic logical observations and moving from there into the absurd.
Trip7
Well-Known Member
Because the cat is already out of the bag. It would be a big logistical nightmare for any legacy to recapture scope right now. Not to mention the immense cost disadvantage if no one else is doing it at the same time.
Trip7
Well-Known Member
Yup, any airplane can be operated at the mainline level as long as competitive pressures are relaxed. Peanuckle made a very valid point that Airways operates 100 seaters economically, and I agree. US Airways relieved competitive pressure by operating the 190s at the mainline level by establishing payrates consistent with regional pay.
PeanuckleCRJ
Poodle Wrangler
ahem.... jetblue as well. With much higher payrates.
Like I said earlier about your observations and conclusions...
PeanuckleCRJ
Poodle Wrangler
Unical will likely complete their next contract allowing the current 70 seaters to be operated but no ASA renewals allowed. If the planes want to continue flying, they can be flown by United pilots.
AMR can certainly hold the line on scope- they allow a horde of 70 seaters already and are at a minimal cost disadvantage to other carriers. This is simply a management ploy and both of you are biting into it the line of the day.
When you give a mouse a cookie....
Nick
Well-Known Member
As Peanuckle as mentioned, there are entire airlines that exist and do their own flying.
US Airways has 99 seats on the Embraer 190.
Southwest has 122 seats on the 737-500.
A difference of 23 seats is not much.
Southwest has ZERO flight crew outsourcing, and their 122 seat pay is nowhere NEAR regional pay.
jetBlue also has ZERO flight crew outsourcing. Their pay is significantly higher than all vendor carriers.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
A horde? Not really. Only 47 of them. That's minuscule compared to what other companies can do. We may not like it, but AMR really is at a competitive disadvantage on this.
Whether you believe it's a management ploy or not, it ultimately doesn't matter. What matters is what the bankruptcy judge believes. His responsibilities are clear, and he's going to give management a hell of a lot of leeway to protect the creditors. If management says that they need scope relief for competitive reasons, and they can show him that they are the only international network carrier without the allowance for a ton of 70-seaters, then there probably isn't a bankruptcy judge around who wouldn't award what they ask for.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Just a slight correction: SWA can't outsource domestic RJ lift, but the SWAPA contract does allow for the outsourcing of near-international (Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean) on any sized aircraft. Currently there is a codeshare with Volaris Airlines, operating connections to Mexico on 737s.
RJ outsourcing wouldn't really work for SWA's business model, anyway. RJ lift only makes sense with a true hub-and-spoke structure. Point-to-point doesn't work well with high-CASM outsourcing on RJs.
Nick
Well-Known Member
I actually edited my post to add the words "flight crew" before outsourcing thinking of just what you wrote here. As in, zero "connection" airplanes flying in their own colors.
Which is the same with jetBlue -- some codeshare but no blatant "jetBlue Express" that is actually an entirely different company.
Similar threads
