I posted this as a response on another thread and decided to make this a thread of its own also. Not really interested in a debate, just wanted to express my own observation. Enjoy!

An Observation From The Outside

Before I say what I have to say, bear in mind that my perspective is from the outside looking in with regards to the passenger airline side. I fly freight and am part of an in-house independent union, and thus my observations are just that - observations. With that being said, here is my $0.02.

"We need to take back the industry to what it once was."
I see this a lot on the message board. The only way to take the industry back to what it once was is to turn it back into what it used to be. Mainline carriers flying the bulk of the routes with regionals (commuters) serving to feed mainline passengers to and from cities too small for large aircraft.

"We need higher wages and better work rules at the regionals."
Not going to happen for the simple fact that you cannot pound a square peg into a round hole. The regionals are not designed nor are they able to produce revenue streams large enough to pay crews large salaries comparable to what we have seen in years past.

With rare exception, the "commuters" were not designed to be long-term career destinations for most pilots. Get in, get the experience, and move on was the mantra. Everybody knew it going in and played the game hoping for a spot at a major one day. It was nothing more than paying dues.

The commuters morphed into regionals with the advent of the regional jet. Blame who you wish, but the fact is that regional jets allowed smaller, commuter airlines to grow and to capture larger route structures that used to be flown by the smallest mainline types of aircraft. In some cases, two or more regional jets are flying routes that used to be served by one mainline jet.

A lot of people reflect on the glory days of the airline industry from years past. While those were good days, let us not forget how the industry was structured. Most tickets purchased on a mainline carrier saw the passenger boarding a 727 or DC-9 operated by that mainline carrier. The only exception to the rule is if you wanted to fly from a major hub to an outlying small town, then you would probably have flown on a Beech 99 or Metroliner. A lot of those same routes back then that were flown by large airliners (727's, 737's, DC-9's) are now flown by smaller, regional jets.

"We need a national seniority list."
While the intentions are admirable, a national seniority list is very unrealistic and would create more problems than it would solve. First, bigger is not always better. One union representing tens of thousands of pilots? Too many interests among the various groups and one large organization to represent all of them. It would never work.

And where is the proof that this would increase wages and QOL issues? If anything, it would cause managers to work harder to find ways of doing more with less.

"But if you lose your job, you have to start over at the bottom."
Welcome to the real world that we call life. I know it isn't fair, but where is it written that it has to be fair? This is part of the game and we all know and accept that fact going into it. Instead of demanding someone "owe you" a seniority number at another carrier, work instead to have a plan B in case you find yourself in that situation.

"We need to go back to regulating the industry."
When is the last time more government solved a problem? Re-regulating the industry will not equate to more pay, more jobs and better work rules. It will equate to the federal government having the final say as to who flies where, how often, with which type of aircraft, and for how much.

I recently read an article in which the author was looking for an airline job during the 1960's, the era prior to deregulation. One major carrier was hiring, but was also furloughing. It was not uncommon to get hired by a major and then furloughed during the slower times of the year for several years. In other words, you could consider yourself a seasonal employee for several years until your seniority increased.

And if you think pay, especially first year pay was better prior to deregulation, think again. There is more than one story out there of pilots who were hired and had to live on borrowed money to make it through the first one or two years of low pay. And then most were furloughed for a time after that.

"Wages are too low."
For every one person I see complaining about the pay, I can easily find five who say they "love to fly because it beats working in cubicle." And most of the time it does beat working in a cubicle, but if people are willing to enter a hobby instead of a career then wages are going to remain where they are.