You reasoning is fundamentally flawed.
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
This isn't about scope or labor contracts, this is about a disruptive technology (the RJ) that changed the industry in a radical way. How radical? How about AMR, simulated bankruptcy, US Air two bankruptcies, United bankruptcy, Delta bankruptcy, Northwest bankruptcy, Continental concessionary contracts. That seems pretty disruptive to me.
What does "disruptive" technology have to do with it? Is there not two pilots flying the airplane regardless if it's a 777 or a CRJ? Who those pilots are is not a technology issue, but rather a legal one. Bankruptcy, while it ultimately affected some carriers mainline labor scope contracts, nevertheless is not "disruptive technology."
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
As many have pointed out, pick the carrier with the best scope (AMR?, CAL?, or whoever) and show me what is happening to that carrier in mainline. Both AMR and CAL are losing airframes this year and they have no plans at all to buy 90-110 seat aircraft. So the premise that good scope leads to early upgrade to captain has no real world proof. It is just some "common wisdom" among disaffected first officers that has no wisdom behind it.
Airframes are being replaced by 737s, not lost. AMR would like to have more 76 seat jets flown at a discount by AE, but has not said they want 110 seat aircraft. Your assumption also is that mainline would fly the smaller narrow bodies for the same rates as commuters. I don't think guys care what they fly necessarily, but they do care about what they're paid. The APA already has RJ pay rates. They're listed under "F100" in the greenbook. They can buy as many as many small jets as they want. So, your conclusion is totally erronous.
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
I support the reintroduction of 70-76 flying back to mainline. You have to remember that once you do that, you will lose ALL control over how many of those airframes that management gets. Swallow up Compass, great, but now E-175 flying is unlimited. Be careful what you wish for. I am pretty sure that E-175 captain pay is less than 767 FO pay.
Management must be free to put the right equipment on the right route. I don't think any union has a problem with that. Again, it's who's in the cockpit that's important. Your implied assumption is that management would subsitute E-175's for 767s. Totally illogical, even for airline managers.
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
What is the end game for this? Consolidation will play a big part. Delta is losing 200 50-seaters in 2008-2009. Mainline flying is pretty static in comparison. It seems that UAL and CAL are slimming down for their wedding that probably will come late this year or early next year. What happens with AMR and LCC is anyone's guess. I am thinking that LCC gets fragmented with about half surviving.
I can't speak to CAL and UAL, but I'm not sure that there's money enough to float that boat anchor around CALs neck.
As for AMR and LCC, even AA management must see that LCC is a totally unworkable quagmire, not to mention the integration nightmare that would make TWA look tame by comparison. I'm pretty darn sure that the APA has had it's fill of absorbing other airlines. Anybody that would loan AMR money for anything more than a fragmented acquisition of hard assets (not personnel, considering the large number of ex-TWA pilots and FAs on furlough) only would have to have their head examined.
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
At some point, there will be three or four carriers left. Market fragmentation will decline because there are less players. Delta's strategy right now is to move to higher yields just by having a massive network that goes everywhere. Want to go to Lagos, who do you fly? That will work for a while, but eventually others will catch up. In the end, with fewer carriers and a growing market, you will probably see the minimum gauge get back up to 100 seats, but that is a long way off.
Some think that Delta has overreached in it's international expansion.
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
. . . .. If you want to recapture 70-76 flying at mainline, I am all behind you. You are only going to do that if you can convince your management that it is in management's interest.
It's in management's interest to transfer as much flying as possible to cheaper pilots. They would have 1000 hour commuter pilots flying 777s if they could. The corporate execs deal in raw power. Labor must meet that challenge using all the legal means possible, and that is collective bargaining.
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
If you think that you can do this by being "tough" or "radical" or "hard line" then dream on. That is a bunch of self delusion by frustrated pilots that imagine themselves as the sun drenched gun fighter going off to slay management. Go read the Railway Labor Act and then come back and give me your "radical" theories. Who are the highest paid pilots now? Southwest, right? What a bunch of radicals. SWAPA does not even have a Strike Committee. Seems their measured, thinking approach has served their pilots pretty well.
Southwest does not have RJs. They are the highest paid pilots. Hmmmmm. Is there a pattern here? However, as point of fact, SWAPA is restless now and sees a scope fight developing. Southwest's past management has been quite different in approach and tone towards labor than almost all the other major airlines. In management school there's an old saying that goes "Any company that has bad labor problems has bad management." It's as true today as it was long ago.
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
Good luck with your hard lines and LEC resolutions. How about go develop a business plan for recapturing this flying and you will be much more successful. I know that will be a lot of work, might as well be you that does it.
This is an old negotiating tactic from management. Make the union negotiate against itself by making them manage labor costs for management. Labor is a cost, just like fuel. Let them figure out how much to charge for a ticket.