News Comment on Mainline to fly so RJ flights

C

ComplexHiAv8r

Well-Known Member
I know I shouldnt be listening to the news, but I have been listening to the news.

They have been talking about the regionals, the low time pilots, maintenance issues, as well as a few other things. Not sure which channel it was, but someone made a comment of why arent the mainline's flying some of these regionals flights due to frequency and aircraft size.

Do you think that the mainline might finally pull some of the flights and start flying, say, the 70+ seater flights themselves? Could this thought process be the beginning to a better tomorrow?

Let me go, I think Nancy Grace is about to come one! :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
 
The line has more or less already been drawn at the 76 seat line. They'd have to re-negtiate labor contracts and ASAs to get mainline to fly a/c with seats below that. I'd, personally, LOVE to see 70 seaters at mainline. More room to move up in the world that way. As it is, I'm surprised DC-9s haven't trickled down to the regionals. After all, they don't seat much more than a CRJ-900.....
 
The fact that the CRJ has the letters "RJ" in it. That's about it.

I'm going to step on some toes again...

The problem with this whole mess starts with mainline unions not wanted to have their pilots fly "little" jets. Scope was rock solid until the RJs showed up and then the mainline pilots said "oh, we don't want to fly the little plane, let the commuters do it". So they did. And the barn door was open and the camel got his nose under it. Now you've got mainline unions (ironicly represented by the same group representing the regionals, but that is another thread) wanting to "recapture" the flying they gave up by being "too good" to fly the little planes. I think the origional thought was that the little planes would go fly little plane routes and the mainline guys would never see the effect of it. Well, the the RPSMs were so low on the RJs that it became cheaper to throw them on the big boy routes and start parking planes. At some point early on I think the mainline unions could still have gotten back in the little jets but they chose not to for what ever reason. The funny thing is it took a plane with engines under the wing (the 190) before they were willing to draw a line.

Anyhow, that's my soap box. I just get tired of flying with furloughed guys that complain about how I stole their flying.
</rant>
 
I think a lot of that is actually urban legend. I don't know of a single pilot group whose management went to them and said, "we want to fly these jets" of which the pilot group thumbed their noses.

I mean if there is, I'll stand corrected. Individual pilots may have said, "Naw, I don't wanna fly that!" but I haven't actually seen any material where people officially rejected the idea.

US carriers have been jealously watching how some of the European carriers handle their domestic flying. You've got British Airways flying large jets internationally, but smaller "affiliates" flying short haul/stateside like say Lufthansa.

In my personal opinion, the 50-seat was their 'in' to create a word of whipsawing and "portfolios" of competing carriers.
 
America West used to have Dash 8 pilots on their seniority list. You could go way back and you'd find Convairs and F27's at the major level.
 
The problem with this whole mess starts with mainline unions not wanted to have their pilots fly "little" jets.
Click to expand...

Actually that predates the "little" jets. If it had been CRJs sitting on the ramp when mainline had to make their choice, it might have been different.

I think a lot of that is actually urban legend. I don't know of a single pilot group whose management went to them and said, "we want to fly these jets" of which the pilot group thumbed their noses.
Click to expand...

Again, the "jets" part kind of hides the truth of the situation. After deregulation the feeder flying was taken up by newly formed companies, like ASA, flying things like Twotters and "Weedeaters" (Metro-liners). At least one company that I was intimately familiar with had their union approached by management about how to handle this new flying. Believe me, the union guys made no attempt to hide their contempt for the flying that was being offered. So Scope came in with not so much as a whimper from the mainline unions. I lived it, talked to both management and union leaders. Neither of them remotely envisioned what was coming. By the time both realized what was happening, the horse was long out of the barn.

You don't "know" about it Doug because back then management and the union had open communication lines that were outside any formal process. Management asked, the union let them know how the pilots felt (not me, but most of the others), and drawing up and signing the Scope language was quick and uncontroversial. I can't imagine any union leader admitting today that Scope was handed to management so easily. But again, if it had been put to a vote pilots would have over-whelmingly approved it. They most definitely did not want to fly those "little POS airplanes" or have anything to do with the sub-standard pilots flying them.
 
So is there some type of memo that I could refer to because Mickley pretty much indexes everything (it's a little scary, but a good reference). You should have seen the looks on the reps when ROFIBC came into the lounge.

Not that I'm doubting you but I'm all about the cold hard fact to seperate folklore from reality! :)
 
Doug Taylor said:
So is there some type of memo that I could refer to because Mickley pretty much indexes everything (it's a little scary, but a good reference). You should have seen the looks on the reps when ROFIBC came into the lounge.

Not that I'm doubting you but I'm all about the cold hard fact to seperate folklore from reality! :)
Click to expand...

No, I can't help you there. I am what you would call the exact opposite of ROFIBC when it comes to hanging on to documentation. Read it (sometimes) and toss it. But the regional flying was kind of a hot topic for me. When I heard that we might get the flying I was ready to get off the panel and fly anything. I was shaken up by the response I got from the reps I talked to. Needless to say, they didn't miss the opportunity to explain to me just how "bottom of the barrel" this type of flying was.

Later, a management pilot (I won't say who, but it was "high" in management) asked my opinion about the regional flying. His background was SAC (OK, there you go) and he knew I was a civilian. He said management was still interested in having Delta pilots do the flying because they were concerned about the safety of one partner in particular. They felt they could run a safer operation in house. But he said ALPA was not interested. The end of the conversation was something along the lines of, "we'll just have to keep and eye on it and see what develops." They later dropped that particular operator from the Delta schedule.

I can't prove it anymore than I can prove that Ron Allen asked Bob Shelton for paycuts, which Shelton later denied. I think that happened too and poisoned management/pilot relations from then on. But so much was done via the open door policy back then that there isn't much of a paper trail.

I would just point to the fact that Scope was not something ALPA fought initially and most mainline pilot groups were not at all interested in flying even the RJs until the furloughs started.
 
My experience even as of late...is similar to flyover's. I went to all the road shows and spoke to every member of the MEC and LEC and asked them why we couldn't get everything above 50 seats on the mainline.

The MEC made the decision that they did not want the little jets on the mainline and would not accept Delta pilots being paid so little. They said their polling indicated that furloughees would rather start another career than come back to fly for such low pay rates on the small jets.

So that philosophy still dominates the union's objectives.

I'm not sure I agree that it's the objective of the majority of the pilot group...but the ship has sailed and it's gone forever.

I do believe we're going to find gross negligence in the CMR outcome (am I allowed to say that???). There's been the Pinnacle accident, CMR, and Corporate Exp(??) accidents that were the result of inexperience/negligence. If we see much more of this trend it could cause a loss of confidence in the commuter partners that could change things. But right now I don't see that dramatic of a change taking place.
 
B767Driver said:
I do believe we're going to find gross negligence in the CMR outcome (am I allowed to say that???). There's been the Pinnacle accident, CMR, and Corporate Exp(??) accidents that were the result of inexperience/negligence. If we see much more of this trend it could cause a loss of confidence in the commuter partners that could change things. But right now I don't see that dramatic of a change taking place.
Click to expand...

Doesnt that just mean the Regional flight costs will go down? :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
 
BobDDuck said:
Yeah, I guess I was just speaking hearsay there. Thanks for the education on it Flyover.
Click to expand...

lol, I love it.

I like your fight BobDDuck. You need an agent? :nana2:

B767Driver said:
I do believe we're going to find gross negligence in the CMR outcome (am I allowed to say that???). There's been the Pinnacle accident, CMR, and Corporate Exp(??) accidents that were the result of inexperience/negligence. If we see much more of this trend it could cause a loss of confidence in the commuter partners that could change things. But right now I don't see that dramatic of a change taking place.
Click to expand...

This latest incident, was the first since the AAL A300 out of JFK.

Where is the steaming pile of poo called negligence at? A lapse of concentration in the latest incident, so sure, negligence. But what else, and more importantly, where else?

The showboating PCL RJ troopers are in their own category.
 
I agree with you. When I started in this biz the mainline jet group was produciing about one fatal accident a year. And that was with less flying than the regionals are doing now. So it's going to be hard to make this safety case unless things drastically change, which I obviously hope they don't. As far as the LEX accident I would not want to say I couldn't ever make that simple mistake because my experience level is so high. Some very good aviators have died from simple damned mistakes.
 
and Corporate Exp(??) accidents that were the result of inexperience/negligence.
Click to expand...

NTSB ruled this pilot error and even called their behavior "unprofessional" but they also listed Fatigue as a Factor in the crash - something the NTSB rearely does.

As far as regional pilots being "inferior"to major airline pilots that's a bit of a hard pill to swallow. Not because I'm a regional pilot but because of all the flying the regionals do there's been only three major crashes since 9/11 involving regional carriers (with passenger fatalities). All three don't even come close to the fatalities involved in the one, single Airbus crash shortly after 9/11.

Are regional pilots less experienced than the major airline pilots? By straight logbook hours yes. But let's try to refrain from going across the board and flat out saying regional piltos are "beneath" everyone.
 
I've been both...commuter and mainline. While the majority of commuter guys are just plain awesome...there is a contigent that still acts like high school drama class. I just don't see this type of behavior at the majors. There is a definite difference in behavior.

The commuter captain is 25 years old, single, wide eyed, with a new frontier to travel the world. The major captain is 52 with 2 kids in college, a seat on the local community college board and an established footprint in his community. There's something to be said for the maturation process and its impact on leadership and behavior. It may or may not be easily measurable...but it is definitely observable.

I'm not saying that the 25 year old commuter captain isn't good...he more than likely is outstanding. My point, and my opinion, is that the "newness" factor for the old guy is gone...and it leads to a broader perspective in the course of leadership. It also mitigates the "follow the cool crowd" attitude, as he doesn't care about leaving an impression...as much as he cares about unwittingly getting the job done in an understated, yet profesional manner.

There's an interesting dynamic...and a maturation process...for commuters guys going to the majors. Most were captains at their commuters. When they signed on with the major...they signed on for a long internship as a first officer. At this point they may not learn a whole lot more about flying...but will more than likely learn a whole lot about leadership and how to run a cockpit and manage a crew and 150 people.
 
pilot602 said:
....there's been only three major crashes since 9/11 involving regional carriers (with passenger fatalities). All three don't even come close to the fatalities involved in the one, single Airbus crash shortly after 9/11.
Click to expand...

The logic is flawed. The planes weren't anywhere the same size as the airbus. You can't compare apples to horses. You would have to look at the number of regional flights operated in those 5 years and the number of mainline flights operated then and take the percentages to see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top