Alaska selling some 319's?
12-31-2019, 11:22 AM
#71
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,370
Originally Posted by rickair7777
Scope doesn't mean you can operate mostly-empty NB's and still pay the crew legacy rates.
Legacies have RJ's because that's how the legacy business has evolved.
Legacies have RJ's because that's how the legacy business has evolved.
That is patently false. They have RJs because they can operate them cheaper, not because of the business model. An excellent example is current up-gauging, many times the number of passengers doesn't change at all, just the number of flights. Many times RJs were (and in cases still are) operated on routes that support larger aircraft, but they do it because of the cheap costs.
This is completely ignoring that legacy airlines used to operate aircraft of that size regularly. A CRJ-900 and an EMB-175 are awfully close to a DC-9-10. Without scope relaxation more airframes of that size would be around.
I'm also impressed that you can say things like that when I can add Southwest to my argument so easily with your statement.
The regional business model isn't about whether the airline can find a way to operate a route with aircraft crewed by their own pilots, it's about whether they can find a way to do it cheaper by moving those jobs to a contractor that has to compete with others on being the cheapest and can be shed if crew costs get too high.
12-31-2019, 11:26 AM
#72
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,370
Originally Posted by rickair7777
I don't support relaxed scope.
I question the wisdom of clawing back regional flying which is already out there, which some folks seem to imply.
1. The company will extract big concessions to put the toothpaste back in the tube.
2. The company may well choose to eliminate some/all of the RJ flying you claw back if they don't think it can be done economically at mainline. There's not much mainline flying of RJ's in the US, and none in the 70 seat range. That could hopefully be mitigated by the addition of mainline 100 seaters.
3. The company may now be competing in it's niche against majors who DO use outsourced RJ's.
4. The new mainline RJ pilots will get paid more. That's coming out of SOMEBODY's pocket...
Cap the RJ's, sure. Maybe even reduce them over time to a specific ratio lower than today's. But elimination of outsourced RJ's at a company which already has them is going to be a bridge to far, or best case cost the pilots more than it's worth (unless you're on some quixotic quest to "save" the RJ pilots and bring them to mainline, which would involve an SLI BTW.).
I question the wisdom of clawing back regional flying which is already out there, which some folks seem to imply.
1. The company will extract big concessions to put the toothpaste back in the tube.
2. The company may well choose to eliminate some/all of the RJ flying you claw back if they don't think it can be done economically at mainline. There's not much mainline flying of RJ's in the US, and none in the 70 seat range. That could hopefully be mitigated by the addition of mainline 100 seaters.
3. The company may now be competing in it's niche against majors who DO use outsourced RJ's.
4. The new mainline RJ pilots will get paid more. That's coming out of SOMEBODY's pocket...
Cap the RJ's, sure. Maybe even reduce them over time to a specific ratio lower than today's. But elimination of outsourced RJ's at a company which already has them is going to be a bridge to far, or best case cost the pilots more than it's worth (unless you're on some quixotic quest to "save" the RJ pilots and bring them to mainline, which would involve an SLI BTW.).
When it comes down to it though, RJs aren't some magic airframes that are necessary for the airline's survival. How many routes could have a reduction in frequency and just move to a larger airframe? That covers most if not all of them.
12-31-2019, 11:43 AM
#73
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,409
Originally Posted by Baradium
I feel bad for Alaska pilots if that philosophy is one their union has, since they don't have any scope restrictions at all that I'm aware of. Working towards a goal of eliminating outsourcing doesn't mean it happens in one cycle, and do you think if on large airline made progress that the others wouldn't howl for the same with their next contract?
Originally Posted by Baradium
When it comes down to it though, RJs aren't some magic airframes that are necessary for the airline's survival. How many routes could have a reduction in frequency and just move to a larger airframe? That covers most if not all of them.
Your GCE is failing to recall that the majors have leveraged their customers STRONG preference for FREQUENCY to great economic benefit over the last 20 years.
If you cut frequency your customers will sprint to the competition
Or drive in some cases.Like it or not, RJ's enable frequency in a lot of markets.
12-31-2019, 11:51 AM
#74
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,370
Originally Posted by rickair7777
What demands have the big three unions made towards eliminating RJ's? I talk to a lot of folks and haven't a thing about that one. I know they're not giving any allowances for more RJ's.
That covers almost all routes, on almost all airframes. Run one A380 on each route once a week. Easy. For thin routes, use a 777.
Your GCE is failing to recall that the majors have leveraged their customers STRONG preference for FREQUENCY to great economic benefit over the last 20 years.
If you cut frequency your customers will sprint to the competition Or drive in some cases.
Like it or not, RJ's enable frequency in a lot of markets.
That covers almost all routes, on almost all airframes. Run one A380 on each route once a week. Easy. For thin routes, use a 777.
Your GCE is failing to recall that the majors have leveraged their customers STRONG preference for FREQUENCY to great economic benefit over the last 20 years.
If you cut frequency your customers will sprint to the competition
Or drive in some cases.Like it or not, RJ's enable frequency in a lot of markets.
12-31-2019, 11:51 AM
#75
Banned
Joined APC: Dec 2019
Posts: 58
Originally Posted by Baradium
I feel bad for Alaska pilots if that philosophy is one their union has, since they don't have any scope restrictions at all that I'm aware of. Working towards a goal of eliminating outsourcing doesn't mean it happens in one cycle, and do you think if on large airline made progress that the others wouldn't howl for the same with their next contract?
When it comes down to it though, RJs aren't some magic airframes that are necessary for the airline's survival. How many routes could have a reduction in frequency and just move to a larger airframe? That covers most if not all of them.
When it comes down to it though, RJs aren't some magic airframes that are necessary for the airline's survival. How many routes could have a reduction in frequency and just move to a larger airframe? That covers most if not all of them.
12-31-2019, 12:33 PM
#77
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2019
Posts: 442
Originally Posted by NotTellin
I’m embarrassed to be an ALA5KAN Airways pilot right now. smh
12-31-2019, 12:54 PM
#78
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2019
Posts: 442
Originally Posted by rickair7777
We'll have to disagree on that. The current legacy (largely hub and spoke) business model includes lots of lower-cost RJ's. You'd be at a disadvantage trying to play in the arena with all-mainline (at legacy pay rates). You could do it with Sunny pay rates.
I'm not exactly sure what the AS business model is, it's at least slightly hub and spoke.
True. But you have to exercise some enlightened self-interest in that. Putting the company at a significant competitive disadvantage compared to their peers may not be great for your long-term prospects. Consider carefully.
I'm not exactly sure what the AS business model is, it's at least slightly hub and spoke.
True. But you have to exercise some enlightened self-interest in that. Putting the company at a significant competitive disadvantage compared to their peers may not be great for your long-term prospects. Consider carefully.
12-31-2019, 03:16 PM
#79
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2017
Posts: 936
Originally Posted by jamesholzhauer
Hope you plan on voting away your PS and voting to give yourself a pay cut to position yourself at a competitive advantage over your company’s competitors, then. Also you should sell some more scope away on both ends to ensure your competitive edge remains strong for your long term prospects. Make sure AM and AF/KLM keep doing your 787 flying for you. Consider carefully.
At least they have flights that cross the Atlantic...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
12-31-2019, 03:45 PM
#80
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2019
Posts: 442
Originally Posted by NewGuy01
At least they have flights that cross the Atlantic...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
