iPilot

Shocking, I know. I just find it so hard to believe that sub-100 seat jets are completely unfeasible for mainline. So because the crew is more expensive (even 2-4x, for argument's sake) that's enough to not have them? How can AA and CAL justify leaving those markets on the table or using inadequate airplanes for the job? Flying E-145s 5 times a day somewhere or 737s twice a day half full is crazy when there are better options on the table. The E-Jets and soon the CSeries are great airplanes that I'd love to fly, just a shame they aren't at mainline.

wally24

Another thing: are regionals more economical? I really don’t think so. If you were to compare the pay scales of the pilots (not including other costs, FA’s and maintenance) there is a huge difference, but that cost saving is not being realized because now Delta has to pay a “fee for departure” and I would be willing to bet that that fee for departure more than makes up the difference in labor costs. Now I wish I had the numbers to back it, but I don’t. For an example, look at Republic. Republic’s branded operation is taking a pounding right now, even though they have some of the cheapest labor costs around. Another example would be Expressjet’s branded operation. It took a severe hit as well. If these regionals are so efficient, they are having an awful hard time operating by themselves.

The mainline operators have economies of scale on their side, they need to use this instead of just outsourcing it. Outsourcing was a thing of the 90’s, the latest in Harvard economics. Ask Boeing how that outsourcing thing went on their 787 program.

Mason32

Dude, they already are doign over 50% of the domestic flying... what rock have you been hiding under... they already ARE the dometic airlines.

The line should have been drawn long long ago.... but it is never too late to right a wrong.

Mason32

That's because even if a mainline carrier does take the risk to run the 70-100 seat jet on their certificate, the competition will use the regional company for the same service.

If you think the traveling public wouldn't notice a $2 difference in ticket prices your nuts... they priceline the best price and take it regardless of who is flying the plane.... The fact that we demand professional wages for professional services puts us at a cost disadvantage to the folks who are happier to fly ever larger planes, on what used to be mainline routes, for 1/2 our wages, and work rules we'd laugh at.

Why, because a 2/3rd full 145 is making money, and a 1/2 empty 73 isn't. They want their frequency, and their low price, and if the company doesn't give it to them, they go to the competition... and if the company's all decide to reduce frequency and raise prices, the Govt steps in and accuses them of price fixing or other anti competition related crap...

Rider850

53% according to Swelbar. do some research on that loon. I was answering poor pilots post. So, without that
and me not qualifying AA your taking my post out of context.i

Mason32

Anybody have any update on the 7300 floor?

boilerpilot

I view the fact that management is talking about scope as a sign that they recognize the coming issues regarding it. Think about it from management's perspective (don't spend too long though, you might succumb to their way of thinking).

Management realizes that, long term, the regional model just isn't cost efficient. Having multiple managements to do essentially the same thing that you're doing means you pay multiple overheads. While labor costs (not just pilots) are all in the <5 year range, that makes a little sense. However, when people start staying longer at the regionals because of the 14,000+ mainline pilot jobs that have disappeared, that cost advantage begins to disappear quickly. I can guarantee you that the idea of regional outsourcing was pitched to mainline execs as "keeping your bottom 5 years cheap by forcing people to go to a regional first". Then, of course, you're paying for all those training events. Why pay for a multitude of extra training events when the person is going to end up with you anyway? From a legal standpoint, a person with 1500 hours is just as safe (on paper, at least) as a person with 5000 hours. But by having them go through the whole regional process, you're paying them for at least an extra two $25,000 training events. You're essentially subsidizing their "training" to become a mainline pilot. And while flying a 76 seat jet for $100k a year is certainly less than paying a 150 seat captain $150k a year, when you realize that that regional captain costs more than the mainline captain for the same amount of capacity, that cost-benefit ratio starts going down hill really quickly. And that doesn't include fixed overhead costs of pilots like insurance, training, etc!

Secondly, as management, you see that all the mainline unions are screaming for blood with regards to scope. Are there greedy people at the top who will say "screw it" to the bottom people? Of course there are, but like somebody said earlier, they are not the majority, and their numbers are only going down, not increasing. The wool has been burned off our eyes. We won't be fooled again (hopefully) into accepting marginal pay increases in exchange for selling the farm. Especially since we've seen mainline management (and some regionals) take not a second's hesitation to bring those contracts to court to get the nullified or altered to basically wipe those gains out.

Third, while this PR nightmare surrounding Colgan is still out there and fresh, regional partners seem more and more like a liability (especially with the likes of Roger Cohen out there bumbling his way around an interview). Whether or not this mindset stays is up for debate, but, in the meantime, it certainly isn't helping. And that's not to say that the public is voting with their wallets for or against regional carriers, but that's a much much more difficult thing to measure.

So you have a combination of management beginning to want to reign in scope because of economics, pilots wanting to reign in scope, and the general public beginning to realize that, in the best case scenario, you at least don't get as good of in flight service with the regionals as you do on mainline. Now, management being management, they see this coming and want to see how much money they can get out of it. Classic negotiation tactics. A good negotiator will NEVER let the other party realize that, at least on this issue, they both want the same thing. Because the pilots want it and don't have it, management can play the part of not wanting to give in, and therefore gain a negotiating chip that they can use for something else (i.e. pay reductions, etc). You can see the Freudian chips already being laid amidst an onslaught of bluffing management drivel by the consultant quoted earlier in the thread:

At this point, he's laid out to management why it's a good idea for their interests to reign in scope. But it's not enough just to have good business practices, and management doesn't believe in a win-win solution. He has to make it a doublewin-neutral solution. Give all the benefits to management, while maintaining the status quo for the pilots. He has to give them a solution that will both let them have their cake and eat it too (he is, after all, a paid consultant):

Notice how both of those solutions benefit management. If you realize that "relax scope" in today's context means to completely surrender the domestic market to regionals, then that delays the real problem to a time when it won't be the current management teams problems. The issue here is LONG TERM economic feasibility of regionals. Right now, we are at the end of the current period of economic feasibility of the regionals, but that's based off of movement without stagnation. And of course, dangling the carrot of "new flying" in front of any pilot group will be sure to result in, at worst (for management) no new contractual gains. The dangling carrot of "reduce your rates or we'll lose flying", while still tantalizing, has nowhere near the same allure as "new flying". I don't think I need to mention the fact that the argument of "contractual rates, work rules, and benefits need to be lower for US domestic mainline flying" is nonsense, because look at the fact that the leading airlines out there in terms of profitability are among the highest paid. And of course, I don't need to remind everybody that the true cost of a pilot group is in the low single digit percentage range of total costs. Even a 10% raise of, say, 6% of total operating costs is negligible.

Again he brings up that current labor rates aren't sustainable. As we've seen, that's simply not true.

So with that, you can see the groundwork being laid. First he sells the idea to management. Then he turns to the pilot groups and tells them that management is willing to cave on this issue (wait, didn't you just say it was in management's interest?), but only for concessions, because current labor prices are unreasonable. A classic duplicitous argument. Don't be fooled, ladies and gentlemen, bringing back scope is in everybody's interest, including managements. Don't let them try to fool you into thinking that they're doing you some great favor by giving any scope back. It's a real shame that our management teams can't seem to be happy with even a win-win situation. They always have to come out on top. Unfortunately, with their attitudes fixed in this way, I don't see a huge improvement in management-labor relations coming anytime soon.

acl65pilot

Like I have said. When the alliances become a shell airline and the mainlines now contract with said alliance airline their section ones will no longer hold that flying in. It will no longer be the mainlines flying but the alliances flying. At that time the regionals will contract directly with the alliance airline, going around DAL, AMR's, CAL's, and UAUA's scope sections. This needs to be included as a no no in this round of talks. We need to bound not just airlines and holding companies but the alliances as well.

AAflyer

SCOPE is paramount. 100 seat jets at a regional affiliate and my career is effectively over. Thousands of pilots in my shoes at "ALL" passenger airlines are in the same boat. I would love to get back the cash back from the company I loaned them in 2003, however the line in the sand needs to be drawn.

There is truly no way to get the 50 seaters back. For us at AA and most likely CAL as well, a big no to any more 70 seaters, and the only way AMR will see 100 seat jets is with American painted on the side.

I and thousands of others have absolutely NOTHING to lose.

AA

Rider850

It was arbitrated a year ago.