Eagle vote 70% NO with 92% participation

ATN_Pilot said:
For some pilots, I'm sure that it is. Sadly, for others, it's a vote that they think management is bluffing.
Click to expand...

I strongly agree with you on 95% of topics but this one I'm in absolute disagreement. They are bluffing. There is no doubt about it.

Commutair Management went TO the pilot group and presented an LOA with unprecedented work rules like commuter hotels. Eagle Management has returned to the table couple times already after presenting a Final "This Time We're Serious" Contract Offer.

With massive retirements starting at the majors, SNB aircraft being added to Legacy fleets, additional manpower required by 117, and growth at JB, VA, Frontier and Spirit, it's highly doubtful any regional pilot will be left out in the cold.

There is leverage like never seen before.
 
Jesus Christ Almighty , i though this thread was about the Eagle pilots and their vote to take a stand on buying another crappy contract, Instead its another ATN hijacking telling every one how stupid they are for voting no how much smarter he is how they should bow down to save their jobs bla bla bla bla. Well pal it isnt your fight its Eagles, you gave your opinion we get it your the all knowing all seeing EYE. Whether this vote is good bad or indifferent i applaud all those at Eagle and XTJ and lets hope Republic that finally are taking a stand. Rant Over!!!!!!!!!
 
Trip7, you know I love ya, but you're out of your frickin' mind on this. You have zero leverage. The legacy carriers don't care about the pilot shortage, because they could easily reduce their regional feed by 50% without even feeling it. Don't overestimate your hand.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Paying more for something than it produces in revenue is not a cost of doing business. It's a waste. You are basically asking airlines to voluntarily reduce their profit margins in order to pay you more money when they have other more profitable options available to them instead. I'm sorry, but businesses are not a charity. If they can produce more profit without you, then that's exactly what they'll do (and should do).
Click to expand...

So what are the more profitable options? If these huge profit machines existed before why aren't they already in place? Even you in following posts elude to the fact that feed loses money yet essentially is a necessary evil.

Even you say ""Many of them (RJ) have always been loss leaders." Yet at the same time you say airlines have to cut unprofitability no matter what. The feed IS a cost inherent to attracting pax to more lucrative routes. TYS could be a loss leader for United, but should they pull out and cede all those pax to Delta? It's a cost of doing business.

I love how you say airlines can't stomach the inefficiencies of running RJs now...As if oil was anywhere near its 10 year peak...As if the airlines weren't making strong profits right now. They want out of 50 seaters because now they have the escape path. They have E175s and CRj900s, they've relaxed the scope sufficiently and they've buried the regional carriers (Mesa PNCL) in order to force their hand.

The aircraft orders are in...Somebody will fly the new big RJs and it's not mainline. Now you have 2 and soon to be 3 big pilot groups saying not for less than what they make now.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
No, it's not profitable, and it can't be made profitable with a simple fare increase like you claim. If Delta decided tomorrow to increase fares by $5 to cover an increased fee paid to the regionals, then United wouldn't match the increase and would instead launch a giant advertising campaign to point out how their fares are $5 cheaper than Delta's. The load factors on Delta would drop through the floor, and Delta would pull back their fare increase in a split second. Contrary to popular belief, pilots don't know how to run airlines better than experienced airline managers do. They know what they're doing with yield management, and you don't. Sorry.
Click to expand...
Yes. That is why we have to stick together for it to happen across the board or let the regionals shrink/die. So far the largest regionals for United and American have said no. Republic could very easily say no as well. Replacing 3 of the largest regionals in the industry is not exactly easy to do unless it comes in the form of increased mainline flying.

I know competition plays a roll, I'm not that stupid. If the legacies upped the price a bit across the board the regional industry could get bit more money to attract pilots with at a minimal cost to the customer.

I really don't ask for much. $40k starting is actually not that bad considering that pretty much starts at year 2 anyway. They can flatten the FO scale a little to help.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
. You are basically asking airlines to voluntarily reduce their profit margins in order to pay you more money when they have other more profitable options available to them instead. I'm sorry, but businesses are not a charity. If they can produce more profit without you, then that's exactly what they'll do (and should do).
Click to expand...

Wasn't it you that told me (quite some time ago) that Walmart should pay its associates "a living wage"?

If that wasn't you, then my apologies. If it WAS you, then how is this different?
 
ATN_Pilot said:
No, it's not profitable, and it can't be made profitable with a simple fare increase like you claim. If Delta decided tomorrow to increase fares by $5 to cover an increased fee paid to the regionals, then United wouldn't match the increase and would instead launch a giant advertising campaign to point out how their fares are $5 cheaper than Delta's. The load factors on Delta would drop through the floor, and Delta would pull back their fare increase in a split second. Contrary to popular belief, pilots don't know how to run airlines better than experienced airline managers do. They know what they're doing with yield management, and you don't. Sorry.
Click to expand...

You definitely love to play the Devil's advocate on this forum. One thing I have noticed from reading a 1,000's of your 14,000+ posts is you seem to have a very good grasp on the numbers game of business. However, here you distinctly bring psychology and marketing tactics into the mix. That is a whole can of worms you just delved into. If Delta were to increase rates by $5 they would already have their marketing plan in place knowing United would call them out. Delta would most likely start a huge slander campaign on United's lack of on-time departures/arrivals or how their business class services are way better (I'm not saying these are the exact things, but they would find something to use against United). So while United gains economy passengers who do not want to pay $5 extra, they lose higher profit seats to Delta. The ratio of how much money would be gained or lost by each side I obviously can't figure out in this general example.

Again, this may not exactly be how things play out but you have to admit the mind game is even more complex than the numbers game and almost impossible to fully understand, especially when the two are combined. The same goes for contract negotiations. The numbers are there but each side twists them how they need to be interpreted. Then, the mind games start. Fear, glamour, sleight of hand, and more are all used to get the desired result.
 
FlyDutchman said:
You definitely love to play the Devil's advocate on this forum. One thing I have noticed from reading a 1,000's of your 14,000+ posts is you seem to have a very good grasp on the numbers game of business. However, here you distinctly bring psychology and marketing tactics into the mix. That is a whole can of worms you just delved into. If Delta were to increase rates by $5 they would already have their marketing plan in place knowing United would call them out. Delta would most likely start a huge slander campaign on United's lack of on-time departures/arrivals or how their business class services are way better (I'm not saying these are the exact things, but they would find something to use against United). So while United gains economy passengers who do not want to pay $5 extra, they lose higher profit seats to Delta. The ratio of how much money would be gained or lost by each side I obviously can't figure out in this general example.

Again, this may not exactly be how things play out but you have to admit the mind game is even more complex than the numbers game and almost impossible to fully understand, especially when the two are combined. The same goes for contract negotiations. The numbers are there but each side twists them how they need to be interpreted. Then, the mind games start. Fear, glamour, sleight of hand, and more are all used to get the desired result.
Click to expand...
I'm not familiar with any airline marketing strategy like that mentioned above. The closest thing might be SWA bashing the other majors for charging for their first checked bag. The fact is that airline passengers are extremely price sensitive and don't care which airline they fly on. They just want the best price.
 
Baronman said:
So what are the more profitable options? If these huge profit machines existed before why aren't they already in place? Even you in following posts elude to the fact that feed loses money yet essentially is a necessary evil.

Even you say ""Many of them (RJ) have always been loss leaders." Yet at the same time you say airlines have to cut unprofitability no matter what. The feed IS a cost inherent to attracting pax to more lucrative routes. TYS could be a loss leader for United, but should they pull out and cede all those pax to Delta? It's a cost of doing business.

I love how you say airlines can't stomach the inefficiencies of running RJs now...As if oil was anywhere near its 10 year peak...As if the airlines weren't making strong profits right now. They want out of 50 seaters because now they have the escape path. They have E175s and CRj900s, they've relaxed the scope sufficiently and they've buried the regional carriers (Mesa PNCL) in order to force their hand.

The aircraft orders are in...Somebody will fly the new big RJs and it's not mainline. Now you have 2 and soon to be 3 big pilot groups saying not for less than what they make now.
Click to expand...
Check out this article from a management consultant firm discussing the 50 seat RJ.

http://www.oliverwyman.com/content/...hive/2010/OW_EN_AAD_PUBL_2010_50_Seat_Jet.pdf

It is a bit dated (2009ish I think) and it's main thrust is what the airlines should do about their 50 seat RJ problem. However, it gives a very good description of why the regionals and the 50 seat jet market grew so quickly and why they are too expensive now.
 
J Cole said:
I'm not familiar with any airline marketing strategy like that mentioned above. The closest thing might be SWA bashing the other majors for charging for their first checked bag. The fact is that airline passengers are extremely price sensitive and don't care which airline they fly on. They just want the best price.
Click to expand...

No, most airlines do not directly attack each other in campaigns like politicians do. In the example @ATN_Pilot gave he had a direct attack United would be doing against Delta, outing them for their more expensive rates. I simply kept with the general example as it's easy to understand.

Take a look at United's most recent, "Fly the Friendly Skies" campaign, complete with graphics of the route maps into smileys, smiling people on lay flat seats, WIFI advertisements, more room in economy plus, and comfort friendly etc... It's all geared towards higher priced seats, because people obviously do care about those things over price to a certain extent. While they aren't specifically targeting Delta in this, they are targeting Delta customers.

Delta on the other hand is running a "Thank You" campaign, first hitting the nostalgia response thanking Orville and Wilbur, and then jumping into "The Future" advertising space age leaps in technology and comfort on their airplanes.

I believe Delta made the first attack with it's campaign and United to no surprise came out with the same format of hitting the nostalgia, bringing back, "Fly the Friendly Skies" and then soaring into "The Future."

Right now, they utilize the price point strategies more and the mind games just to keep that side of play even, but when one or all can no longer compete with price, the psychological warfare will come to the forefront. It is already done with labor groups. Once they've had enough and start fighting back (and winning), it will get moved to the consumer side (in a different way of course. Definitely not threats).
 
Baronman said:
So what are the more profitable options?
Click to expand...

Bring some of it to mainline, outsource a smaller number of larger RJs, and possibly cease service to some of the really crappy markets.

Even you say ""Many of them (RJ) have always been loss leaders." Yet at the same time you say airlines have to cut unprofitability no matter what. The feed IS a cost inherent to attracting pax to more lucrative routes. TYS could be a loss leader for United, but should they pull out and cede all those pax to Delta? It's a cost of doing business.
Click to expand...

I don't think you have a good grasp on what a loss leader is. Let's simplify it to a retailer. Wal Mart has used the loss leader game for decades. They advertise a product at what they know is a 10% loss. Every single one of those widgets is going to lose money when they're sold. But when someone walks into the store to buy that loss leader that has a negative 10% margin, most of them will also buy other products while they're there. So they'll pick up widget B that has a 15% markup, and widget C that has a crazy 50% markup. The product that they advertised at a 10% loss just made them a significant margin because it got someone in the door who bought other products with big margins.

Airlines have always done the same thing. Sell a ticket from LAN to DTW at a loss, but it's ok because many of the passengers filling those seats are connecting to high yield transcon and international flights. The problem today is that the yields from the transcon and international flights are no longer making up the difference in the losses they're taking on those thinner routes. So it's no longer a loss leader, it's just a loser.

Feed doesn't do you any good if you're just feeding more losses into the system. Feed is only useful if it produces a net benefit to the bottom line. And with oil at $80/bbl or more, small RJs are no longer bringing enough revenue, even with the connecting passengers, to offset their high relative costs.

The aircraft orders are in...Somebody will fly the new big RJs and it's not mainline.
Click to expand...

You seem to have missed the fact that unlike in the past, those aircraft orders aren't coming from mainline anymore. In the old days, a mainline carrier would put in the aircraft order, then sublease the airplanes to their regional partners. Mainline carriers aren't doing that very much today. Instead, the mainline carriers are forcing the regional carriers to place their own aircraft orders. So people like Bedford have made huge gambles on buying these large RJs, some of which aren't even allowed by mainline scope clauses. They're gambling that they'll be able to get the business when the aircraft show up on property. It's starting to look like that wasn't such a good gamble. They may end up selling those delivery slots to foreign carriers at a loss.
 
ZapBrannigan said:
Wasn't it you that told me (quite some time ago) that Walmart should pay its associates "a living wage"?

If that wasn't you, then my apologies. If it WAS you, then how is this different?
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of a regional airline that doesn't pay a living wage. You can look at living wages for every state (and county) calculated by MIT on their living wage calculator web site. For example, Florida has an average living wage of $21,042. Georgia is $19,200. New York is $23,929. Etc. Every state is in the high teens or low twenties, which is what a first year FO is making at a regional.

To be clear, I'm not defending regional airline pay scales. They're atrocious. But they are a living wage.

And please don't call them "associates." They're employees. "Associate" is what you call someone when you're trying to trick him into believing that you respect him when you really don't.
 
FlyDutchman said:
If Delta were to increase rates by $5 they would already have their marketing plan in place knowing United would call them out.
Click to expand...

No, Delta simply wouldn't raise their rates by $5. Their yield managers (and yield management software) knows better than to raise fares just to give pilots some more money.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
No, Delta simply wouldn't raise their rates by $5. Their yield managers (and yield management software) knows better than to raise fares just to give pilots some more money.
Click to expand...
And to add to this: what people don't understand is that it is actually possible raise prices on a service or product and lose money. This is especially true when the market is very price sensitive. You can be sure that if Delta thought that they could make more money by raising the fare $5, they would have already done so.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Bring some of it to mainline, outsource a smaller number of larger RJs, and possibly cease service to some of the really crappy markets.



I don't think you have a good grasp on what a loss leader is. Let's simplify it to a retailer. Wal Mart has used the loss leader game for decades. They advertise a product at what they know is a 10% loss. Every single one of those widgets is going to lose money when they're sold. But when someone walks into the store to buy that loss leader that has a negative 10% margin, most of them will also buy other products while they're there. So they'll pick up widget B that has a 15% markup, and widget C that has a crazy 50% markup. The product that they advertised at a 10% loss just made them a significant margin because it got someone in the door who bought other products with big margins.

Airlines have always done the same thing. Sell a ticket from LAN to DTW at a loss, but it's ok because many of the passengers filling those seats are connecting to high yield transcon and international flights. The problem today is that the yields from the transcon and international flights are no longer making up the difference in the losses they're taking on those thinner routes. So it's no longer a loss leader, it's just a loser.

Feed doesn't do you any good if you're just feeding more losses into the system. Feed is only useful if it produces a net benefit to the bottom line. And with oil at $80/bbl or more, small RJs are no longer bringing enough revenue, even with the connecting passengers, to offset their high relative costs.



You seem to have missed the fact that unlike in the past, those aircraft orders aren't coming from mainline anymore. In the old days, a mainline carrier would put in the aircraft order, then sublease the airplanes to their regional partners. Mainline carriers aren't doing that very much today. Instead, the mainline carriers are forcing the regional carriers to place their own aircraft orders. So people like Bedford have made huge gambles on buying these large RJs, some of which aren't even allowed by mainline scope clauses. They're gambling that they'll be able to get the business when the aircraft show up on property. It's starting to look like that wasn't such a good gamble. They may end up selling those delivery slots to foreign carriers at a loss.
Click to expand...

Mainline can't have it both ways. If they own the planes, then they have more say in who flies them. If the regionals themselves own the planes, well the flying has to go to who has available planes, and pilots to fly them.

Bottom line is this...mainline needs the feed currently provided by regional carriers. If regional pilots continue to turn down concessionary contracts, the cost of that feed will rise. The regionals themselves have no way to raise revenue, so mainline will have to, or risk major disruptions in service. It's mainline's brand at stake, not Envoy, Republic or Skywest.

In the past, it seems promises of quick upgrades and flow through have been enough to get a yes vote. I think that day may have passed. That card has been played too many times and come up empty for too many people. I hope Republic votes similarly and these guys can actually be paid what they've earned.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
You seem to have missed the fact that unlike in the past, those aircraft orders aren't coming from mainline anymore. In the old days, a mainline carrier would put in the aircraft order, then sublease the airplanes to their regional partners. .
Click to expand...

So who bought these E175s that Eagle Management was gunning for you know, what this Eagle TA was revolving around?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top