Originally Posted by
RedeyeAV8r
When has Airline MGT come to Mainline Pilot groups (especially in the last 5 years) and asked if they wanted to fly 50 seaters? If that were true, Why did all the MGT's want to void SCOPE clauses? Heck, if MGT offered these jets to mainline, we wouldn't need SCOPE clauses.
Please enlighten me because I don't know of any.
AMR use to fly BAE-146's (from Air Cal) and Fokker 100's. MGT parked them, I doubt seriously the APA wanted to get rid of them. Now I might agree that the Unions of the legacies didn't want 75.00/hr Capts.
Piedmont flew to fly the F-28 and the Martin
USAir flew the BAC 146 (after buying out PSA) and BAC-11's and Fokker 100's
MGT parked them and the Regionals are are flying them.
NWA flew the DC-9-10....
Do you really think the Unions didn't want these airplanes?
I'll admit ALPA might have made an error in not fighting harder to keep these on Mainline lists. It might have required a concessionary hourly rate during Booming ecomomic times, which would not have been popular. This of course is all 20/20 hindsight. I bet all of us wishes that the RJs currently flying under the express banners where all flying under the Mainline Banners instead.
When things are good, the push for legacy pilots is bigger and bigger jets, to get a higher hourly rate. I'd love to fly an A-380 or 747-400/800, but then again I'd Fly the FedEx Cessna Caravan as long as it paid well.
Re-read the post. The manufactures went to the majors first in the early 90's, management at the majors did bite into it, but the pilot groups didn't. Of course no one knew at the time that 10-12 years later half of the domestic feed was going to be on "regional jets", but it is a reality.
It really doesn't matter anymore, the damage is done, and all that's left at most legacies is a not-so-visible line that management was able to push in the name of 9/11, hence, the 70-90 seaters.