Even Embraer admits the 170 and 190 is not a "Regional" aircraft. It's not a ERJ-170...it's an Embraer 170. They dropped the RJ at the 145, but regional airlines did not. However, CRJ still considers it's 70+ seat jets a "regional" jet. I beg to differ. I personally agree that regional airlines should not fly anything more than 50 seats, but even that line is muddled a little bit. Does that mean the ATR is a mainline aircraft with its 66 seats?

Regional pay will not improve at regional airlines. If a regional pilot group even attempted to get close to a mainline payscale they would immediately get hit with the "We have to stay competitive" argument. That's a tough one to break when the company tells you "We're going to lose all our flying" therefore putting you out of a job and a means to make it to that nifty mainline dream job.

Regarding that, I flew with a captain who has been with US Airways for 17 years. He has actually flown with them a total of 4 years, been furloughed the rest of the time. Yep, you're reading that right. I wish him nothing but the best of luck, but that put it into perspective for me.

I asked the question of "How much money is enough" in an earlier thread and my way of comparing a regional aircraft to a mainline aircraft was met with a great deal of cynacism. The fact still remains, where do you draw the line? How much should you get paid to fly a 70+ seat aircraft? I don't have any great expectations about any one pilot group answering this question satisfactorily. Truth of the matter is, pilots as a whole will never make what they used to make.

Every year that goes by, pilots take a pay cut due to inflation. I don't know about you but the 50 cent pay raise I got contractually will not overcome increase in living expense. That wouldn't even cover a 20 dollar increase in rent if you were living in an apartment.

I wish I could propose some great solution...but pilot apathy and logistics prevent it. Just my 2% of a dollar...