"American seeks to boost its use of regional jets"

From a pilot's perspective, it doesn't really matter whether the codeshare relationship involves an "express" paint job or not. It's still lost jobs. I can assure you, I'm not really thrilled with the idea that I'm looking at a nearly 20-year upgrade while some guy at Volaris flies WN code on flights to Mexico that we could be flying.
 
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.

Exactly my thoughts. Well said! If 47 700s are a "horde" what word do you use for Delta's CR7/9 and EMB170/175 fleet?
 
From a pilot's perspective, it doesn't really matter whether the codeshare relationship involves an "express" paint job or not. It's still lost jobs. I can assure you, I'm not really thrilled with the idea that I'm looking at a nearly 20-year upgrade while some guy at Volaris flies WN code on flights to Mexico that we could be flying.

I hear ya.

The SWAPA codeshare stuff is pretty strict as far as how much can be done though, right?

Hopefully that can of worms stays only open that little bit.

At least it isn't 350-400 jets outsourced.
 
The SWAPA codeshare stuff is pretty strict as far as how much can be done though, right?

Not really. Up to 4% of total system block hours can be outsourced for near international flying. It would be pretty unusual to have more than that much flying to Canada and Mexico, anyway. Essentially, if the company wanted to, they would never have to operate a SWA flight to Canada or Mexico. It could all be done with code share. Thankfully, SWA management doesn't really work like that, and they like to keep it internal. It will probably all be shifted back to us over the next few years as AirTran is integrated and we take delivery of the 738s. I would definitely feel better if that loophole was closed in the next CBA, though.
 
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.

Like ATN said, different business model. JetBlue pay is not higher than Delta pay
 
I didn't realize it was "only" 47 70 seaters... I see them all the time in ATL so I figured there were more. Probably more will be in allowed in bankruptcy in that case.

I stand by my original assertion that it is ridiculous to state that anything below 100 seats is uneconomical to operate without it being outsourced.

Oh, and jetBlue has a higher pay for the 190 than DL does for the 190 (if we had them on property). WN DOES do hub/spoke operations- try buying a non-stop ticket on them most places.
 
The biggest thing to look at with JetBlue is that their overall costs aren't really comparable to the legacy carriers. You can't just look at pay rates. No one is unionized, no one has a real retirement plan, the health insurance benefits are terrible, etc. When you look at everything, JetBlue has a significant cost advantage over everyone else.
 
Is it about cost cutting or division of labor?

The Comair strike sent a shockwave throughout the industry.
That is a really good point. So far though, AA has not said they are looking at multiple regional carriers, right? I suppose it is just a matter of time before something like that is announced.
 
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.

Will likely? That's a good one. UniCal management will be able to take advantage of most of the cost savings and synergies from the merger even without a merged pilot group. The MECs even acknowledged this. So until the MECs one, stop fighting each other, and two, come back to reality on scope, management will sit back and run the flight ops US Air style
 
That is a really good point. So far though, AA has not said they are looking at multiple regional carriers, right? I suppose it is just a matter of time before something like that is announced.
If I recall correctly (from my short time at Eagle), AA was looking to spin off Eagle just so they could bid out regional flying to multiple carriers--and Eagle's ALPA MEC was trying to get a new ASA so they could "guarantee" Eagle's AA feed for longer, even if it meant a new ("concessionary") contract.
 
I didn't realize it was "only" 47 70 seaters... I see them all the time in ATL so I figured there were more. Probably more will be in allowed in bankruptcy in that case.

ATL has the 3rd most CRJ flights (14) behind only ORD and LGA. It has more CRJ flights then the hubs of MIA (0), DFW (2) and LAX (13).


FYI: Delta has more +70 seat jets then Eagle has total jets.
 
Truth. $/lb of fuel and lb/nm are pretty much inflexible, required maintenance is also inflexible. That leaves the 30%-40% of the pie-of-costs that's comprised of wages.

Admittedly that oversimplifies things. All work groups (not just pilots) fit into that category and it includes more than just salary: benefits, retirement, work-rules, etc.

It is also unfair to point fingers. It isn't as if pilots will simply say "I'm not going to work here anymore because I don't get compensated on par with 100 seat pilots at brand X". That too is unrealistic.

What IS important is that you realize that there is nothing inherently efficient about operating a 35, 50, 70 seat jet. If anything, it is inefficient. The more passengers you carry, the lower the cost per seat mile. The most efficient aircraft are heavies flying full between mid-range city pairs. (provided the folks at yield management are doing their jobs)

If management thought they could get away with painting "RJ" on the tail of a 767 and have them flown by Chautauqua, they would do it in a heartbeat.

That's where your scope clauses come in. And they're not something that is ONLY negotiated at mainline. EVERY contract defines scope. That is the statement that defines who does what work.

Giving up ANY scope was, in my opinion, the WORST mistake that ALPA (or any other association) has made in their history. I don't care if it's a Cessna 150... it should be flown by Brand X with pilots from the Brand X system seniority list. Scope is jobs... and selling them for a pay-raise is short sightedness and greed at its very worst.
 
ATL has the 3rd most CRJ flights (14) behind only ORD and LGA. It has more CRJ flights then the hubs of MIA (0), DFW (2) and LAX (13).


FYI: Delta has more +70 seat jets then Eagle has total jets.

Delta vs American CRJ700 or larger face off:

DAL-255
AMR-47

Seems like a level playing field to me!:D

scope4.png
 
What I would really like to see is the Q400 flown by mainline pilots. I wonder if APA has considered making a pay scale for it. Plus with experienced mainline aircraft mechanics maybe they can actually get the mx bugs worked out.
 
What I would really like to see is the Q400 flown by mainline pilots. I wonder if APA has considered making a pay scale for it. Plus with experienced mainline aircraft mechanics maybe they can actually get the mx bugs worked out.
Maybe they can buy ours during our bankruptcy.

Seriously though, how can you expect an American pilot to face his squad buddies at the next reserve weekend and tell them he flies a Canadian made turboprop?

Good discussion. Just let me know when the airbuses are coming down to the "regional" level. What? 5years?
 
Admittedly that oversimplifies things. All work groups (not just pilots) fit into that category and it includes more than just salary: benefits, retirement, work-rules, etc.

It is also unfair to point fingers. It isn't as if pilots will simply say "I'm not going to work here anymore because I don't get compensated on par with 100 seat pilots at brand X". That too is unrealistic.

What IS important is that you realize that there is nothing inherently efficient about operating a 35, 50, 70 seat jet. If anything, it is inefficient. The more passengers you carry, the lower the cost per seat mile. The most efficient aircraft are heavies flying full between mid-range city pairs. (provided the folks at yield management are doing their jobs)

If management thought they could get away with painting "RJ" on the tail of a 767 and have them flown by Chautauqua, they would do it in a heartbeat.

That's where your scope clauses come in. And they're not something that is ONLY negotiated at mainline. EVERY contract defines scope. That is the statement that defines who does what work.

Giving up ANY scope was, in my opinion, the WORST mistake that ALPA (or any other association) has made in their history. I don't care if it's a Cessna 150... it should be flown by Brand X with pilots from the Brand X system seniority list. Scope is jobs... and selling them for a pay-raise is short sightedness and greed at its very worst.

Starting from the bottom, every airline/union in the world gave up on scope in some way or fashion. In Canada, all across Europe and Asia most regional aircraft are flown by a contract carriers. It became the status quo worldwide. I believe all the US legacy unions in bankruptcy had guns to their head (as APA does now) and that's what unleashed the 700/900s and 170s into the sky.

There is plenty efficient about 70 seat aircraft. And there was plenty efficient about operating 35 and 50 seat aircraft until fuel prices went through the roof. It begins with the hub and spoke network. Market demand is market demand. If a market in the hub and spoke network calls for 35, 50 or 70 seat aircraft why would any logical business man want to put a 737 or MD80 on the route? If you're running a computer sales shop and selling 500 computers every 6 months are you going to order 2000 computers for your inventory? Now I know someone will interject with "just reduce frequency". Remember, this is a hub and spoke network that primarily targets high yielding business travelers that desire frequency. Also, increased frequency from a market increases connection possibilities at the hub and reduces layover time. More frequency=more efficient hub, in the hub and spoke model.

LCC carriers that operate just a couple or single type target lower yield customers and need a higher volume of passengers per plane for the business model to work. They fly much more of a point to point network between two cities whose market demand meet that aircraft size at a frequency is efficient and profitable.

The question in the regional industry is where do we go from here? We can sit here, ignore reality, and denounce and plans of AMR management while together with mainline pilots from much larger and profitable airlines with 250+ 51 seat or greater regional aircraft pat AMR pilots on the back and tell them to "hold the line" on scope. To me, that is illogical and out of touch with reality.

Where do we go from here? Well, the regional industry is near implosion. Mainline carriers have whipsawed the carriers into money bleeding contracts that were bid for just to live another day. Turns out for several regional carriers the last days are upon them and their is no other contracts available to extend life support any longer. If one of the bigger regionals collapses financially and shuts doors, it will have an impact much worse than the Comair strike. Mainline must pay the regionals more money to at least give them some sort of a healthy profit margin or they risk disaster.

Mainline pilots, just get the final key aircraft gauge(90 seat or greater) on property at economical rates and worry about pay-rates later. Negotiate shorter term contracts(seems like Fedex is getting a new contract and payraise every year) and include profit sharing. The best chance to get lucrative contracts is when the airline is running highly profitable and efficient. UPS, Fedex and SWA all got highly paid, industry leading contracts coming off highly profitable years. The future is bright in the airline industry, and I believe we have the right union leaders in place (especially at ALPA national) to make sure the future of the pilot profession is also bright.
 
Seriously though, how can you expect an American pilot to face his squad buddies at the next reserve weekend and tell them he flies a Canadian made turboprop?

That's the same attitude that got the industry into the mess it is in. The idea that a pilot is too good to fly a particular type of aircraft. I personally don't care what airplane I fly as long as I am compensated properly and have a decent QOL.

Its not like the mainline guys would even be flying it anyways because they would actually have to bring new people onto the seniority list. They wouldn't have enough pilots to take over the regional feeds. The way mainline guys should look at it is more of a buffer in the event of furlough. The only problem is than they might not be able to find any RJ pilots willing to fly a turbo-prop.
 
......

Mainline pilots, just get the final key aircraft gauge(90 seat or greater) on property at economical rates and worry about pay-rates later. Negotiate shorter term contracts(seems like Fedex is getting a new contract and payraise every year) and include profit sharing. The best chance to get lucrative contracts is when the airline is running highly profitable and efficient. UPS, Fedex and SWA all got highly paid, industry leading contracts coming off highly profitable years. The future is bright in the airline industry, and I believe we have the right union leaders in place (especially at ALPA national) to make sure the future of the pilot profession is also bright.
If you want the future to be bright I suggest you cue up that first paragraph of your long reply and focus in on what the Canadian regionals did, one list one contract. The pilots, not the union, need to get together realize they are blue collar workers, shuck their pride, and work together. Hold the scope at 90 seats for mainline? What happens when someone sells out that 90 seat clause anyway and "the cat is out of the bag" again? 5 years later when a kid your age is flying that 90 seater telling us to please just hold the scope to 110, what do you tell him?

There is no unity in the pilot "profession", thus there is no future. On the bright side, if you want to get ahead there will always be plenty of shortcuts if your mommy and daddy can give you an allowance. There are just enough pilots that are trying to slow the circling of the drain you can probably get away with the shortcutting and it'll never bite you in the butt.
 
If you want the future to be bright I suggest you cue up that first paragraph of your long reply and focus in on what the Canadian regionals did, one list one contract. The pilots, not the union, need to get together realize they are blue collar workers, shuck their pride, and work together. Hold the scope at 90 seats for mainline? What happens when someone sells out that 90 seat clause anyway and "the cat is out of the bag" again? 5 years later when a kid your age is flying that 90 seater telling us to please just hold the scope to 110, what do you tell him?

Very well said.
 
Back
Top