Flyby1206

I think it is very very hard to define what "makes money" in terms of routes/equip. AE flying BOS-JFK has a super high seat mile cost, but the overall network revenue it brings to AA mainline and oneworld carriers outweighs the money they might lose when looking at the Eagle BOS-JFK flight.

Eagle flying SJC-LAX might be another money losing flight, but if there is a concentration of AA exec plat customers who live in SJC then they have to operate the flight to retain those frequent fliers or risk losing them to competition.

So we have two examples of segments of the overall network that are "money losers" but clearly have a place in the bigger picture. The bigger picture might be harder to see, but more important than the tiny brush stroke.

Mason32

The only thing I manage is making my sign in time, doing my time, and going home to my family.

The other poster is correct... the myth of the pilot salary being too costly for an airline to make money is true. It's a myth, even if they put all RJ drivers on mainline type pay, they'd still make money, just not as much... and that's the goal, to make as much as they possibly can. So, if they can beat up mainline unions with BK, arbitrations, concessions to get larger planes at regionals it just means higher profit levels.

lets be realistic. AA used to fly 34 seaters all over the country, and frontier was flying convair 580's... so the arguement that mainline companies can't make money flying smaller planes is BS... what is true, is that they can't make as much as they can if they outsourced it to regionals.

For these over simplified, but accurate, reasons there can be no further weakening of scope rules.

Now, mergers or consolidations of wholly owned's could be worth looking at with renewed interet.... but it would need to benefit the mainline carrier as much as the regional. The majority of proposals I've ever read disproportionally favored the regional with guaranteed career progression, without providing recession protection to the mainline guys.... and that's where the discussions usually fall apart.

The mainline company can typically go on without the regional, since they can just contract with a replacement.... ask Comair how that great strike contract worked out for them. The same can not be said in reverse; the regional typically can not survive without the mainline.... so, why should they bend one inch on scope.

eaglefly

All interesting points that have some merit.

However, airlines are in business to achieve maximum profit and thus they seek minimum expense. If they can do something cheaper, they will. Thousands of RJ's prove that regardless of other supposed logic.

I would expect this trend to continue.

Jinrai Butai

So why do mainline pilots still crap all over regional pilots instead of merging with them to fight the airline? Management whipsaws pilots and the pilots are too stupid to see it happening. Mainline pilots have the most power to control the situation. If they wanted a merger bad enough, they could get it. They only have themselves to blame but they'd rather blame regional pilots.

Wheels up

There is no incentive for the companies to combine lists. And I've got a news flash for you, ALPA has been beat to a pulp and bent over the bedpost numerous times in the last 10 years. ALPA is now a concessionary, compliant union with the likes of UAL and DALPA running the show.

And remember, it's not just pilots, but all the other labor groups who are selling themselves cheap to the regionals. As long as you continue to show up for work, there's no reason that the major airlines should combine lists. If oil spikes in price, that'll come pretty soon.

One good thing is that those airlines that have some kind of limits on >50 seaters have something to work with. The 50 seat RJ is rapidly becoming obsolete. Unless the regionals can steal larger aircraft flying from the majors, they will implode under their own inefficiency.

Other than even further gutting their pay and workrules dumbing them down to regional standards, combining lists ain't gonna happen. Maybe the regional MECs should try bringing THEIR contract UP instead of whining how the major airline pilots ought to carry their water for them.

Jake Wheeler

Airlines love this line of thinking and encourage it. This helps them maintain their current financial position and allows them to keep pushing things in the direction best for them.

Pilots are their own worst enemies. They'd rather hurt each other rather than sacrifice a little for the greater good.

acl65pilot

Great points Jake.

We need to direct our energy in one direction and not a each other.

shiznit

Almost true but not quite.....

Scope clauses (as referenced in this thread, there is a lot more to it than just RJ's, ask UAL)

SCOPE CLAUSES DO NOT LIMIT HOW MANY RJ's AN AIRLINE OPERATES!!!!

The only thing the scope clause does is say how many the airline is permitted to operate without pilots of "said airline" at the controls.

For example, DAL is restricted to 255 70-76 seat RJ's with a max 153 71-76 of the allotted 255, until mainline aircraft exceed 768 etc......

However, DAL Inc. could go out today and buy 300 more 71-76 seat RJ's, THE ONLY STIPULATION IS THAT MAINLINE DAL pilots be in the cockpits.....

Scope clauses NEVER prohibit the aircraft the airline CAN or CANNOT operate, they only reference under what circumstances "other people" can sit in the cockpits of aircraft flying under the code/banner/paint of the "Company".

Beagle Pilot

It can if that is what is negotiated.

Obviously you haven't been around long enough to remember when USAir's scope clause prevented Express from operating jets or when the APA's scope clause did the same to Eagle. Now, there are limitations to size and quantity in different types of aircraft.

Either way, I fail to see how this little tidbit conflicts with the concept that a scope clause hobbles an airline for the protection of the pilots in that airline. Please explain why this isn't true.

Beagle Pilot

Yes it is and that's why I don't worry about the minutia. It's like a sausage machine. I really don't care where it starts or what happens in the middle. All I care about are the results at the end. In this case, all management cares about is the money. If they are doing something, such as keeping Eagle, then it must be making money for them. If they get rid of Eagle or park all the MD-80s (much more likely IMHO) then it's because they aren't making money from them. It's the results that count. As pilots, we don't need to be bogged down arguing about which base, aircraft or route is most profitable. That's management's job. What we need to focus upon is how to maximize our pay and QOL from those management decisions.
This is correct; it's the bigger picture that matters. Too many pilots, especially those drinking the APA Kool-Aid, fail to see the bigger picture or consider the ramifications of what they are seeking to do. Many also tend to see their pilot group in a vacuum without considering what would happen outside that vacuum. For example, if the APA signed a contract for a Z-scale for all pilots under 20 years if AMR would sell off Eagle, does this mean there would be APA pilots flying RJs at American? Of course not. It just means that flying would be subcontracted out to the lowest bidder while APA pilots flew 757s for RJ pay.

Agreed 100%. Instead of banding together to fight the suits, pilots end up fighting each other because it's easier. Stupid, but understandable.