Eagle vote 70% NO with 92% participation

ATN_Pilot said:
It's not happening because supply exceeds demand. There are too many regionals for too little flying. It is definitely a free market. It's just way out of balance because the legacies loaded up on too many regional feeders during the 2000s.
Click to expand...

There's been a lot of consolidation too though... RAH is like 5 regionals and 2 majors. Just sayin'
 
ATN_Pilot said:
It's not happening because supply exceeds demand. There are too many regionals for too little flying. It is definitely a free market. It's just way out of balance because the legacies loaded up on too many regional feeders during the 2000s.
Click to expand...

There are, however, not too many regional pilots for regional flying. The upflow from flight schools and such is extremely low. Mainlines are all hiring and siphoning pilots off of the regionals, and as such, all are hiring and (except for compass) are having a tough time filling classes.

If that isn't some form of leverage, what is?
 
Last edited:
ATN_Pilot said:
I read it. Pure ignorance.
Click to expand...


That's it.... make a statement like that and you get:

Wat.jpg
 
HVYMETALDRVR said:
Could be a lose lose situation either way, PNCL got a decent TA (without striking), voted yes, then a year later the BK hawks started circling and now they're back where they started.

If its not one thing is another... Here at RAH we got a bunch of flying over the years 'cause we're cheaper than everyone else. Not that I like that or anything but now were so cheap we're seen as unstable. Our CEO said Mesa got that United 170 flying instead of us because we're in contract negotiations and we're a strike risk. If we vote yes to the current TA (which is doubtful) its still a pay raise so we'll be stable and better staffed, but now more expensive. Clear as mud right?

One positive though is that we fly college sports charters, casino charters, and for 3 mainline carriers. We're at least a little diversified...
Click to expand...
Mesa should be in negotiations now too, or just about.
 
I figure ultimately it's what the pilots at Eagle want, and, well, in the long term it will improve the profession no matter what happens.

The natives are restless and it's good that both "national" and A4A are starting to realize that.
 
My question is, if there is zero leverage, did Commutair management decide to give the pilots pay raises and game changing gains in commuter QOL work rules out of the goodness in their hearts? They are giving out free hotel rooms!

As far as regional 1st year pay, Commuter workrules, and heck, even Uniform Allowance, Commutair has set the bar.

Leverage my friends, use it or lose it.
 
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...

Loss leader vs regional feed is a poor analogy. Majors are not offering sale prices on fares into the hub to tempt someone to continue on from there. They are bundling the product and making a profit on the bundle. The profit may come from one or both legs (or none). I highly doubt anyone is getting a good deal on flying from Podunk into the hub. The savings are only had when you connect or bundle.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
I don't think that this analysis is accurate.

If there were a glut of pilots, all carriers would be furloughing pilots now. They are not. Also, one of the primary reasons that majors like using regionals is the ability to quickly add and remove capacity. Capacity is not being removed in any meaningful sense. Load factors are pretty high, actually.

The real reason regional carriers saw tremendous growth in the 10-15 years prior was simply that it lowered compensation, both at the regional and mainline level.
Click to expand...

Sorry, man, but you're out of your element here. You're looking at it too simplistically.

The duck gave the correct answer on this. There is a huge oversupply of 50 seat airplanes. Several very large 50-seat contracts are about to come due for renewal, also. The supply of 70-78 airplanes is just about right. What the legacies really want and need is 90+ seat airplanes, and they aren't getting that scope relief outside of bankruptcy, so that flying has to be done in-house. That means that there are too many regional airplanes for the amount of feed desired and needed by the legacies. You miss the point by looking for furloughs, because as Duck points out, these contracts come up for renewal at set timeframes. Airways can't simply pull the food on a whim. They wait until the contracts on those airplanes come due, and then they either don't renew, or they RFP them to get someone to offer them a cheaper price that makes it worthwhile. If no one offers the cheaper price, then the planes get parked, and we start to see more and more 50-seaters stack up in the desert. There's already quite a few of them there.

What we see happening at PSA and now Eagle is an attempt by the legacies to get the regionals to offer the feed at a price that makes sense. If that efforts fails, then the feed gets cut back, and those jobs disappear. Some of those jobs are replaced by jobs at mainline, but not all.

Translation: no leverage.
 
Trip7 said:
My question is, if there is zero leverage, did Commutair management decide to give the pilots pay raises and game changing gains in commuter QOL work rules out of the goodness in their hearts?
Click to expand...

The question is, is Commutair going to be able to sustain those changes, or is it just management buying time? I've heard lots of Commutair pilots say that it's the latter.

Regardless, you're talking apples and oranges. Commutair is not an RJ operator.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Sorry, man, but you're out of your element here. You're looking at it too simplistically.

The duck gave the correct answer on this. There is a huge oversupply of 50 seat airplanes. Several very large 50-seat contracts are about to come due for renewal, also. The supply of 70-78 airplanes is just about right. What the legacies really want and need is 90+ seat airplanes, and they aren't getting that scope relief outside of bankruptcy, so that flying has to be done in-house. That means that there are too many regional airplanes for the amount of feed desired and needed by the legacies. You miss the point by looking for furloughs, because as Duck points out, these contracts come up for renewal at set timeframes. Airways can't simply pull the food on a whim. They wait until the contracts on those airplanes come due, and then they either don't renew, or they RFP them to get someone to offer them a cheaper price that makes it worthwhile. If no one offers the cheaper price, then the planes get parked, and we start to see more and more 50-seaters stack up in the desert. There's already quite a few of them there.

What we see happening at PSA and now Eagle is an attempt by the legacies to get the regionals to offer the feed at a price that makes sense. If that efforts fails, then the feed gets cut back, and those jobs disappear. Some of those jobs are replaced by jobs at mainline, but not all.

Translation: no leverage.
Click to expand...

You make this sound like a bad thing. Its not.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
From the perspective of a lifer, it's not, though.
Click to expand...

Whole lot of not my problem (I hope).

If you look at the XJT contract, most of the concessions really wouldn't have hurt any of the guys who are lifers and really high up on the seniority list. So they were basically looking for those of us in the mid to bottom to take a swift kick in the nuts because they were above putting in the minimal effort required to get a college degree? No thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top