CRJ-900 at Delta (Connection)?
- Thread starter Ralgha
- Start date
jdflight
Well-Known Member
It's not the pilots. It's management wanting bk court to throw out scope clauses and outright saying they want 79 seat aircraft. This is yet another reason we need to emphatically vote down our latest joke of a pay proposal.
btw, it is extremely hard to type with just my left hand.
btw, it is extremely hard to type with just my left hand.
Bog
New Member
Just say no! Don't let it happen! I will forego a day or two off to come picket in ATL and/or SLC with you folks! Leave the frigging flying at MAINLINE. Damnit it's not Walmart!!!!
That nice "big" shiny CR9 is a great thing to fly when you start into this industry. Then you realize that (a) you've taken someone else's CAREER by flying it and (b) you're doing it for 15% to 50% of their pay ... and it'll NEVER get better.
That nice "big" shiny CR9 is a great thing to fly when you start into this industry. Then you realize that (a) you've taken someone else's CAREER by flying it and (b) you're doing it for 15% to 50% of their pay ... and it'll NEVER get better.
mrivc211
Well-Known Member
Doug- I hope you guys stick to your guns. I was flying with our SAPA rep today and he said Skywest already has intentions to fly CRJ-900's for Delta. Beleive me when I say we don't want this flying at our regional, unless we were paid accordingly. Since we won't be paid sqwuat for it, we dont want'em here.
From what I understand the 900 is just as under powered as the 200 because it has the same engines as the 700.
From what I understand the 900 is just as under powered as the 200 because it has the same engines as the 700.
Cheechako
Well-Known Member
Are we really setting a precedence by flying a larger aircraft for the same rate? Our CRJ700's only have 16 more seats than the CRJ200's. The rumors I hear are that the CRJ900's that are coming are going to be configured with only 75 seats. I can think of several airlines that fly variants of the same type for the same pay. United flies the A320 and 319 for the same pay. US Air flies the A320 and 321 for the same pay. Delta and United both fly the 757 and 767 for the same pay. Alaska flies all their 737's, from the small 700 to the big 900 for the same pay. They're all airplanes with the same type rating but different weights and passenger loads.
I am tired of hearing our pilots complain about these things. Wah, we're only offered a 1.2% pay RAISE. Both our major partners in Chap. 11, pensions are going away, thousands of pilots are displaced or on furlough, gas prices are through the roof meanwhile ticket prices are rock bottom. It's a dog-eat-dog world in the regional market with the routes going to the lowest bidders, and we have the gall to ask for an increase in our operating costs? Sure, I'll vote in an industry-leading pay package, but only when I'm assured that it won't shrink the airline or alter its financial position.
Too many of us think we are not a part of the industry as a whole. Yes, the company is profitable, but only at the expense and whims of our major partners. We are not immune from what's happening all over the place.
I'm going to get some raised eyebrows for this, but this is how I see my little piece of the industry. Life here is pretty darn good, but it could all go away in the blink of an eye. I don't want to do anything that could upset that.
I am tired of hearing our pilots complain about these things. Wah, we're only offered a 1.2% pay RAISE. Both our major partners in Chap. 11, pensions are going away, thousands of pilots are displaced or on furlough, gas prices are through the roof meanwhile ticket prices are rock bottom. It's a dog-eat-dog world in the regional market with the routes going to the lowest bidders, and we have the gall to ask for an increase in our operating costs? Sure, I'll vote in an industry-leading pay package, but only when I'm assured that it won't shrink the airline or alter its financial position.
Too many of us think we are not a part of the industry as a whole. Yes, the company is profitable, but only at the expense and whims of our major partners. We are not immune from what's happening all over the place.
I'm going to get some raised eyebrows for this, but this is how I see my little piece of the industry. Life here is pretty darn good, but it could all go away in the blink of an eye. I don't want to do anything that could upset that.
Maximilian_Jenius
Super User
Don't want to rock the boat eh...
I'm not in the "industry" just yet. I am only a PPL rated pilot and going to school to finish up my degree before enrolling in ATP.
So resist the urge to berate me too strongly!
But I do believe that 70-90 seat jets should be flown by mainline pilots.
And if not that then they should be flown pilots at airline regional afflitates.
Who are well compensated,respected in the industry and treated fairly by managment.
Same type rating be damned.
If they have more seats the pilots at that level should be compensated as such.
-Matthew
I'm not in the "industry" just yet. I am only a PPL rated pilot and going to school to finish up my degree before enrolling in ATP.
So resist the urge to berate me too strongly!
But I do believe that 70-90 seat jets should be flown by mainline pilots.
And if not that then they should be flown pilots at airline regional afflitates.
Who are well compensated,respected in the industry and treated fairly by managment.
Same type rating be damned.
If they have more seats the pilots at that level should be compensated as such.
-Matthew
Maximilian_Jenius
Super User
I was thinking more about Chris's arguement.
He said airlines typically have the same pay rate for 757/767,A320,319,321's & 737's.
I began thinking most of airlines have more then one type/fleet of aircraft. So the airline can justify having one pay scale across the board for one type.
Most regionals only operate one type of plane. All of course with the same type-rating.
Therefore one payscale for the same type at a regional I believe is ludicris.
And is just another invite to airline management to take advantage of pilots on the regional level.
Am I wrong if so corect me!
-Matthew
He said airlines typically have the same pay rate for 757/767,A320,319,321's & 737's.
I began thinking most of airlines have more then one type/fleet of aircraft. So the airline can justify having one pay scale across the board for one type.
Most regionals only operate one type of plane. All of course with the same type-rating.
Therefore one payscale for the same type at a regional I believe is ludicris.
And is just another invite to airline management to take advantage of pilots on the regional level.
Am I wrong if so corect me!
-Matthew
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
Couple things...
Mike, have you ever sat in a -700? There isn't any leg room to begin with so stretching the plane and adding a few seats doesn't do a whole lot. Also, I think it will be a 2 or 3 class set up so those back in steerage (err... coach) will have about the same space.
SWChris.... Yes, you are right that many airlines fly similar types for same pay, but the difference is that at mainline you have a mainline seniority number which will allow you to move up to bigger and higher paying things. You are right, there really isn't much difference between the 7 and the 9 as far as flying it goes, and hence pay isn't much different. However, what certificate it is operating on makes a big difference.
Aloft, I don't think all jet aircraft should go to mainline. It has nothing to do with what is powering the plane. It has to do with the number of seats mostly, and the routes it flies a little bit. There really aren't that many prop planes out there that are still being updated and manufactured. The new SAABs and I think there are some new Dashes being produced. But other then that, the industry has gotten out of the prop market. It comes down to seats. Sure, in the past mainline flew 60 and 70 seat jets. I don't think that many people have a problem with the 50 regional ops. It's when you start adding more seats that it gets questionable. My airline flies 70 seat models... do I have a problem with that? No, because the nearest thing that mainline has is 35 seats more. That's a jump. However, if we were to go with the -900 and be with in 15 of a mainline aircraft, I would start to worry that mainline could be flying the aircraft and more people at the top end of my seniority list be moving up to fill the slots (furloughs aside).
Just my thoughts on an agrument that I don't see going away any time soon.
Mike, have you ever sat in a -700? There isn't any leg room to begin with so stretching the plane and adding a few seats doesn't do a whole lot. Also, I think it will be a 2 or 3 class set up so those back in steerage (err... coach) will have about the same space.
SWChris.... Yes, you are right that many airlines fly similar types for same pay, but the difference is that at mainline you have a mainline seniority number which will allow you to move up to bigger and higher paying things. You are right, there really isn't much difference between the 7 and the 9 as far as flying it goes, and hence pay isn't much different. However, what certificate it is operating on makes a big difference.
Aloft, I don't think all jet aircraft should go to mainline. It has nothing to do with what is powering the plane. It has to do with the number of seats mostly, and the routes it flies a little bit. There really aren't that many prop planes out there that are still being updated and manufactured. The new SAABs and I think there are some new Dashes being produced. But other then that, the industry has gotten out of the prop market. It comes down to seats. Sure, in the past mainline flew 60 and 70 seat jets. I don't think that many people have a problem with the 50 regional ops. It's when you start adding more seats that it gets questionable. My airline flies 70 seat models... do I have a problem with that? No, because the nearest thing that mainline has is 35 seats more. That's a jump. However, if we were to go with the -900 and be with in 15 of a mainline aircraft, I would start to worry that mainline could be flying the aircraft and more people at the top end of my seniority list be moving up to fill the slots (furloughs aside).
Just my thoughts on an agrument that I don't see going away any time soon.
FlyChicaga
Vintage Restoration
I think Chris's argument holds weight; however, I will say that at the regional level, our pay has been set to such ridiculously low, insulting levels that any advantage we have that can help push the pay the other direction--ie. upwards--should be capitalized on. Yes, I want to see my company survive. But I'm not going to go into poverty just so I can have a job. That's losing sight of the big picture. I work to live, not the other way around!
Aircraft of 100-seats have been flown at mainline for decent wages. Now they are being flown at regionals for insulting wages. See the problem here? We need to take a stand.
Aircraft of 100-seats have been flown at mainline for decent wages. Now they are being flown at regionals for insulting wages. See the problem here? We need to take a stand.
Bog
New Member
FlyChicaga said:
Amen! We at MAG have been spat upon by the industry because our rates are not spectacular. We were in a bad spot at a bad time, and unfortunately we sacrificed the pay in order to get SCOPE. Now, all eyes will be on MAG in 2007 to see if the payrates can be raised accordingly. There is a small, but growing, voice around here that rates should increase dramatically. If not? Well, the America West pilots said it best: Shut The F#$%&% Down!
We, the pilots at the regionals, are indeed a part of the industry. Everything we do has an effect on the rest. It's a mess, and it's just going to get worse. We can only hope that the New U and the revised DAL can keep that 90+ seat flying in-house. All of us, regional drivers down to CFIs, hold the dream of a mainline job with mainline pay and mainline benefits. This is why I, and many others, want these aircraft to stay mainline: so we can see that dream become a reality some day. If not, then every 5 or 7 years another "new" regional will arrive, underbid the rest, and the flying will shift. Our carrer ... our life ... is based upon seniority, and the management teams running our companies love that first-year pay. Our checkbooks, mortgages, car payments, and college funds, do not.
As for the 75-seat CRJ-900, that's the CRJ-705. Configured for 75 seats, it should be pretty nice inside ... except for the small overheads. Those new Embraers really are the winner in the cabin game.
mrivc211
Well-Known Member
Quote by Bog: "Amen! We at MAG have been spat upon by the industry because our rates are not spectacular."
Don't worry man, once our company brings in these CRJ-900's we will be the lowest paid in the industry flying them around for 50 seat rates. We'll shammingly be taking that trophy from you guys. And with reference to the B737's and B757/767 common type-
those pay rates you see are indeed for all those types to be flown under one rate, however that rate is a BLENDED rate. It's not on the low end, nor on the high. On top of that, its at a livable wage.
In other words instead of taking 120/hr to fly a 737-500 and 130/hr to fly a 737-800, they have blended the rate to 125/hr for all type.
If that were the case with the CRJ200/700/705/900 it would be acceptable.
Don't worry man, once our company brings in these CRJ-900's we will be the lowest paid in the industry flying them around for 50 seat rates. We'll shammingly be taking that trophy from you guys. And with reference to the B737's and B757/767 common type-
those pay rates you see are indeed for all those types to be flown under one rate, however that rate is a BLENDED rate. It's not on the low end, nor on the high. On top of that, its at a livable wage.
In other words instead of taking 120/hr to fly a 737-500 and 130/hr to fly a 737-800, they have blended the rate to 125/hr for all type.
If that were the case with the CRJ200/700/705/900 it would be acceptable.