tsquare

And the downward spiral of talent will accelerate. Interesting.

Beagle Pilot

Possibly, but due to the Colgan hearings and current legislative changes being offered up, I can see it being a push.

The people we lose are primarily those who came to the airlines to make money. You know, those who were too stupid to be doctors, not sleazy enough to be lawyers so they decided to become airline pilots.

Certainly, some will be enthusiastic professionals who love flying but simply can't afford to take care of a family on regional first officer pay for 10 years, but my experience tells me that those who complain about it the most are more interested in their pocket book rather than "the profession".

If it does happen as you assert, then the crash in Buffalo last year won't be the last where overworked, underpaid and low-time pilots are put into situations by greedy airlines which end up costing the lives of dozens of passengers.

eaglefly

I believe he's in management at Chick-Fil-A.

Romulus

Half-measure corrections produce half-measure results.

Funny, but I believe it.

mwa1

well then I'll have fries with that next post Mason.

Flyby1206

Lets not turn this into a flightinfo thread, c'mon now

Beagle Pilot

Back to the OP, and don't shoot the messenger here, but it appears the airlines will push for either scope release or contract financial release until they can compete head-to-head with the LCCs domestically. Most of the legacies are getting their butts kicked in the domestic market except for transcon and hub-to-hub. Sure, management always wants to push for a cheaper solution to boost their bottom line, but having the ability to compete effectively against Allegiant, Southwest and other LCCs is a must-have goal or the airline will go the way of TWA, Eastern and other glorious airlines of the past.

NERD

Either you are flame bait or ignorant of the facts. Of course the airlines will push for scope and contract give backs. That is their job. Reality is our contract costs are on par with the lccs. SW, AT are at or above most legacies(I won't include alg as they are a very small niche carrier) now in both pay and retirement contributions for like equipment(in some cases their pay is higher than our widebodies) Don't believe the rhetoric about pilot pay. We are a very small percentage of the cost of an airline. While I admire the employee/employer relationship sw has, without the hedges sw looks kinda like the rest of us now. AT seems to be taking employee/er relationship tips from NWA. One thing they don't have is the anchor of 100s or high seat mile cost rjs. Legacy mgmts now realize the less than 70 seat or so platform has a limited use(probably less than half of what is out there nationwide). Problem is they or previous mgmts signed long term contracts with subcontractors. The subs don't want to let them out of these contracts(rightfully so) without some form of payback. Either in the form of fewer larger airframes as a tradeoff or cash. Unless the mainline groups allow more of the larger types, these contracts will not be removed as they expire and said contractors cut loose. Currently the wholly owned are the most ripe for dismantling/rightsizing of the domestic feed. The majority of cities don't require/support 10 flights per day to 3-4 legacy hubs. They will do just fine with 5-6 and a mix of 70 seat and mainline lift. Bottom line is I would not start studying your 100 seat dejour manuals yet unless you are thinking of getting hired a mainline. Time to go to work now, sayonara (sp)

Flyby1206

Good post, I actually agree with most of it. Do you think the 70seat and below markets will stay at subcontractors (at a much reduced level than it is today)? Maybe a resurgence of the turboprops? I definitely dont believe regional subcontractors are dead and gone, but I dont think they will be flying 100 seaters anytime in the next decade.

Beagle Pilot

I understand your emotional involvement in this issue, but it will be resolved by cold, hard facts and reason not emotion. While it is obvious my post conflicted with your world view, several of your statements, while containing elements of truth, don't tell the whole truth or consider all the facts. I won't respond to all of them due to time limitations, but here's a few thoughts:
On par is not the same as equal to. Profits margins in the airlines are razor thin and a difference of a cent per passenger seat can make or break an airline's competitive edge.
The APA Kool-Aid always look at their contract in the microcosm of itself. AMR looks at it as part of the entire airline operating cost. If all employee contracts were identical, do you really believe both AA and SWA would be equally profitable?
More Kool-Aid since it only paints a partial picture. Two thoughts here.

First, it's misleading to dismiss something when it isn't considered in full context. If someone is prejudiced against a race horse, then hobbles it for a race, they can easily say "See? I told you it was a lousy race horse". Scope limitations hobble airlines. They are important for pilots since the purpose of scope (and unions, for that matter) is to protect jobs, but it is a hobble nonetheless.

Second, we all know the more seats in an airliner, the lower the proportion of labor costs. However, this only applies to filled seats. Furthermore, those filled seats must be sold at a minimum fair market price or higher. It doesn't make financial sense to fly a 767 from Peoria to Jacksonville with only 30 people on board and each only paying the fractional cost of their single seat (i.e. 1/181th or however many seats are onboard).

The bottom line here is to follow the money, not the rhetoric. Airlines, like any other corporation are money engines. It's all they do. If an airline, or other corporation, doesn't make money, then investors bail and it eventually fails. Managers who don't make money for the corporation are replaced, therefore they only do things which make money for the corporation. They make mistakes, but their goal remains the same: chasing the Almighty Buck. If any portion of the company isn't making money, it's ditched. This includes RJs, 70 seaters or a larger aircraft like the old AWA's 747 PHX-NRT flight. If it's a money loser, it won't last. If the company keeps it, then it's making money for them whether they'll admit it or not.