Disgusting

[jtrain609]

Just for the record..

I personally have a major problem with regionals flying 90 seat aircraft.

Me too. There's a reason I'm doing the commute from hell right now over driving to work. You know how nice it would be to go to Skywest, bid long call reserve for the rest of the winter and ski 100 days? I think I finally hit 1,000 hours too...

But that has a lot less to do the 90 seaters and more to do with the union. I prefer lawyers and litigation over nice guys and management that cares.

 

[surreal1221]

Now John. . .don't you mean "Management that YOU think cares."

 

[meritflyer]

I mean, the guys who say, well my airline is scoped at 50, yet accept flights from IAD-IAH, ya think thats a regional flight? or main line? Same principal.

I dont think so.

 

[inside0ut]

I dont think so.

Really? So wanting mainline pay for flying mainline size aircraft at a RJ or flying mainline routes at an RJ while wanting mainline pay arent pretty equal?

 

[meritflyer]

Its not the RJ that's going to kill us, its the Ejet. 100-110 seats. It IS a DC-9. And people like jetBlue are paying $72 an hour for Captains.

Why don't you guys get it?

Guess what? The CRJ900 carries 86. The CRJ1000 will carry 100. So, it is the RJ.

Your take is either off or very selective.

You criticize jetBlue but dont realize their pay is better than some ALPA carriers flying similar sized jets.

You condem JBLU, ALGT, Skybus, and Virgin but dont hold any regional flying 100 pax aircraft on your list or if you do, I've really never read it.

I wish guys wouldn't go to non-union carriers like the above. ALGT pays their MD captains $85-90/hr and tops them out at $113. But the other killer is regional airlines flying mainline sized jets which ultimately puts management in a position to low ball the snot out of mainliners on NB jets.

Imagine AlaskaExpress with CRJ1000. Job security? Sure is. But for who is the real question.

Here is a quote from Bombardier's COO with respect to the CRJ1000 -

The 110- to 130-seat CSeries, for which Bombardier is targeting a 2013 service entry, addresses a "very different" market, says Bombardier Aerospace president and chief operating officer Pierre Beaudoin.

The CSeries "is for us to get into mainline" to replace the large ageing fleet of Boeing MD-80s and McDonnell Douglas DC-9s, whereas the CRJ1000 "is an extension for our regional carriers" driven by customer demand for an economical 100-seat aircraft that "delivers great operating costs".

 

[meritflyer]

Really? So wanting mainline pay for flying mainline size aircraft at a RJ or flying mainline routes at an RJ while wanting mainline pay arent pretty equal?

You'll never ever get mainline pay at a regional so its a moot point.

Regionals shouldn't be flying, as you put it, "mainline sized aircraft". CEO's aren't idiots. They see they can get a $31 second year FO to fly their 175 at a 50% discount as a mainline pilot. Sounds good if you want to be a regional pilot for the rest of your life right?

 

[GaTechKid]

Just so I'm not getting the wrong impression here, but you're not advocating taking lower pay rates so we can simply stay employed are you? By we I don't mean Express, I mean pilots in general. Because it's that attitude that screws us all in the end.

No, I'm not advocating that you take paycuts in order to stay in your l33t CRJ2000. As you said later on, it's the shuffling of flying that each legacy/major makes that places tremendous downward pressure on regional labor costs. Air Wisconsin has a great BaE 146 payrate on paper, but it's worthless because United redistributed the flying to SkyWest, TSA, Mesa, GoJets. ACA and Comair are two other regionals that come to mind that had good contracts and were forced to take paycuts or simply went out of business as a direct result of "whipsawing." In my opinion, regionals in ALPA don't have the leverage or clout needed to stop it. The only people who can make an impact are the ones who negotiate directly with legacy managment, aka. DALPA, CALPA, etc... Will they spend negotiating capital to help increase QOL at the regional level? Doubt it, but who knows. One thing is for sure though, and that's that they need to hold onto whatever scope they still have and not let it go. I really don't want to be flying around a SkyWest A319 as United Express.

 

[jtrain609]

Good points, that's for sure.

CAL ALPA is holding onto the scope right now, and I think will in the next contract. There are so many Express/other 50 seat RJ drivers there now that they know the impact that the RJ has had on this industry and they're not interesting in screwing themselves over 10 years from now when ExpressJet is, as you said, flying A319's as CoEx.

 

[meritflyer]

I really don't want to be flying around a SkyWest A319 as United Express.

Sadly, your CRJ900's are only 38 people away from being an A319.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Will they spend negotiating capital to help increase QOL at the regional level? Doubt it, but who knows.

Why would they? What are you willing to provide them in return for their use of their negotiating capital to benefit your job security and QOL? The mainline pilots can't be the only ones to give. If you want them to use their negotiating capital to achieve improvements for you, then you need to give them something in return. My carrier doesn't currently use RJ feed, but if we did, then I would happy to use my negotiating capital to benefit a feeder partner....as long as they provided me something in return for my investment. Perhaps some sort of furlough protection (super-seniority flow-back, for example). Without something like that, mainline pilots have no incentive to use precious negotiating capital to improve the situation at the regionals.

 

[meritflyer]

My carrier doesn't currently use RJ feed, but if we did, then I would happy to use my negotiating capital to benefit a feeder partner....as long as they provided me something in return for my investment.

I believe you work for AAI. If you dont, please forgive me.

Wasn't it in early '02 when you had JetConnect by AWAC? Yup. After an economic study was done with the CRJ200 and B717, it was determined the 717 could cover the route more cost effectively. How would you feel if a 900 covered these routes now as the argument of economic efficiency of a 900 makes more sense v. a 200? I'd imagine your pilot group would be hell bent regardless of what "benefit" the regional feeder could offer.

 

[secretapproach]

To the customers, the airplanes should be in the same livery. Passenger X bought a ticket on Northwest and not some regional. As far as pay goes, everyone gets paid what the market thinks they're worth. My salary in aircraft marketing is based on the value I bring to the company and how difficult it would be to replace me. As pilots become more scarce, salaries will go up. Companies will hold out as long as possible before raising anyone's salary, though. We're already seeing better CFI pay and if the pilot shortage lasts as long as many think it will, salaries will go up in order to attract new people. As long as they can get enough pilots at the current salaries, they will keep paying the same. The way to change it is to refuse job offers with low salaries. But if you're 22 years old and have never made more than $15,000 working part-time at the local grocery store you'll jump at the chance to fly a Beech 1900 for $18,000, won't you?

I work in aviation and often fantasize about flying for a living. The only thing that has kept me at my desk job is the fact that I make about 3.5 times now what I would make as an F/O at a regional and I have excellent health insurance, etc.

To change things, a large number of young pilots would have to refuse job offers in the $20,000 neighborhood and at least hold out for more. But it's not going to happen. That's obvious by the fact that CFIs leave their teaching jobs to fly at the regionals as soon as they have the minimums. So the salaries airlines are paying pilots represent the pilots' current market value.

The stretched CRJs or the E-Jets (disclaimer: I work for Embraer) are not what are killing pilot salaries. Pilots signing on the dotted line for 20 Grand a year are what are killing pilot salaries. But that won't change because flying remains a very emotional career choice and most emotional career choices don't pay very well. If you want to fly, take a job you want that meets your personal lifestyle and salary requirements and you'll be getting paid your market value as a pilot just as I'm getting paid my market value as an aircraft marketing analyst and your auto mechanic is getting paid his market value to fix your car.

Ok, I've put on my chainmail, am holding my shield, and am ready for any responses.

Look pretty similiar eh?

Makes me want to puke.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I believe you work for AAI. If you dont, please forgive me.

You're correct.

Wasn't it in early '02 when you had JetConnect by AWAC? Yup.

I think it was '03, but I wasn't working here back then.

After an economic study was done with the CRJ200 and B717, it was determined the 717 could cover the route more cost effectively. How would you feel if a 900 covered these routes now as the argument of economic efficiency of a 900 makes more sense v. a 200? I'd imagine your pilot group would be hell bent regardless of what "benefit" the regional feeder could offer.

Our current scope doesn't allow for -900s, and we've recently voted down a TA that would have allowed them. Our pilot group is intent on holding on to our scope language. We're ok with allowing 50-seaters (because management has already admitted that they're unprofitable anyway), and we might allow a limited number of 76-seaters (although I personally would vote NO on it), but 90-seaters are out of the question.

I'm confused on how this applies to my original reply to the other poster who was talking about the mainline pilots using their own negotiating capital to achieve improvements for the feeder carriers, however.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

secretapproach, your situation is different from that of pilots, because pilots have the benefit of collective bargaining to negotiate their pay, QOL, benefits, and job security. It isn't strictly dictated by market forces. The airplanes that your employer makes aren't the problem. The problem is how management is using them. They are using those airplanes as a tool for breaking mainline labor. Whereas mainline pilots originally gave up scope language under the assumption that RJs would be used for limited markets in small cities, they've been screwed because management abused the scope relief and started using those airplanes to outsource their jobs on mainline routes. This has created downward pressure on wages that collective bargaining has failed to counteract because it's impossible for us to undo the scope mistake. It has nothing to do with free markets. The situation could be rectified with certain "family scope" provisions, but so far, regional and mainline MECs have been unable to reach agreement on how to make that happen. If we can get over that hurdle, then we can fix the problem regardless of what the free market would normall dictate for wages.

 

[GaTechKid]

Sadly, your CRJ900's are only 38 people away from being an A319.

It's a small point but Mesa CR9s are the only ones configured with 86 seats.

 

[tonyw]

To the customers, the airplanes should be in the same livery. Passenger X bought a ticket on Northwest and not some regional.

I don't think your typical customer cares as long as he's saving $10 on his ticket. If you asked your typical passenger what kind of airplane he flew on, he'd be like, uh, I dunna?

Aircraft marketing, huh? Embraer, huh? Florida, eh?

Do you want to tell me why the hell Betsy decided to go back to Delta?

 

[meritflyer]

Our current scope doesn't allow for -900s, and we've recently voted down a TA that would have allowed them. Our pilot group is intent on holding on to our scope language. We're ok with allowing 50-seaters (because management has already admitted that they're unprofitable anyway), and we might allow a limited number of 76-seaters (although I personally would vote NO on it), but 90-seaters are out of the question.

Props to you for upholding the clause although the 76 seater thing to me is just as dangerous as anything over 50.

I'm confused on how this applies to my original reply to the other poster who was talking about the mainline pilots using their own negotiating capital to achieve improvements for the feeder carriers, however.

Just a random thought I guess.

 

[meritflyer]

It's a small point but Mesa CR9s are the only ones configured with 86 seats.

Gotcha. Nevertheless, first it was 200's, then 700's, then 900's, now 1000's. What the hell is next? You said it spot in with the A319 comment.

Makes guys who want a career out of this cringe.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Props to you for upholding the clause although the 76 seater thing to me is just as dangerous as anything over 50.

Agree 100%, which is exactly why I would personally vote NO on any scope concessions whatsoever. Unfortunately, I think a slim majority might vote to approve them if we got enough pay and work rules in return, since so many other majors have already given up 76-seaters. It's basically just us and CAL holding the line on this now. Everyone else has given them up. Makes it hard to stand your ground when everyone around you has already caved.

 

[secretapproach]

...
The situation could be rectified with certain "family scope" provisions, but so far, regional and mainline MECs have been unable to reach agreement on how to make that happen. If we can get over that hurdle, then we can fix the problem regardless of what the free market would normall dictate for wages.

Thanks for your comments, PCL. What is family scope?