AAG places new Group 1 aircraft order
02-04-2015, 07:39 AM
#51
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
I expect to see a Group I order for the simple fact that regionals will become more unreliable in the coming years and AA will have to take steps to ensure their brand's operation. While the majors have no shortage of applicants the regionals are starving for pilots. They will have to make a similar move as Delta did with the 717.
ExpressJet lost over 100 pilots in January alone. They tried to hire 40 pilots and got 6... All this while performing extra flying that Endeavour couldn't staff.
ExpressJet lost over 100 pilots in January alone. They tried to hire 40 pilots and got 6... All this while performing extra flying that Endeavour couldn't staff.
But, some believe this is all hysteria and so we shall see.
02-04-2015, 07:51 AM
#52
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
And capturing group 1 at the mainline is wrong in what way again...??
Good Lord guys. We got the jets, we got the flying. They haven't even ordered them, I'm not sure they even will. Sure I'd love a higher pay rate but how were we going to get that by voting No? The mantra just a few years ago was "get the 190s on mainline." Now we're already complaining about them.
Perspective, folks!
Good Lord guys. We got the jets, we got the flying. They haven't even ordered them, I'm not sure they even will. Sure I'd love a higher pay rate but how were we going to get that by voting No? The mantra just a few years ago was "get the 190s on mainline." Now we're already complaining about them.
Perspective, folks!
All some of us have said regarding this issue is that Group I will replace some of Group II, just as Group II A321 flying will replace some of Group III. Fine. It will be great for junior pilots to fly Group I. I have zero problem with that. Personally, at this point anything that makes AA stronger I like. The stronger AA becomes, the better chance I have to make it to 2020 and my financial benchmarks.
Those junior that don't want to risk a Group I existence as a new-hire at AA should go to Delta or UAL, but UAL is about to order Group I sized aircraft too. I'm a Parker fan now and he's a smart guy (although ruthless). He'll make the right decisions for AA and I think Group I is financial gold mine for this carrier. With Group I efficiencies, it means we no longer have to run from SWA and can not only go head-to-head with their expensive pilots, but beat them by a wide margin on costs on any route. All is well, even with Group I.
02-04-2015, 08:49 AM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,894
Agreed.
And I have let the vote go, believe me. Lord knows I struggled with it. I am simply answering those who are convinced we would have gotten more had we done differently, to which I point out my opinion of that statement.
And I have let the vote go, believe me. Lord knows I struggled with it. I am simply answering those who are convinced we would have gotten more had we done differently, to which I point out my opinion of that statement.
02-04-2015, 09:08 AM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,238
73, the vote is over. It's time to let it go.
All some of us have said regarding this issue is that Group I will replace some of Group II, just as Group II A321 flying will replace some of Group III. Fine. It will be great for junior pilots to fly Group I. I have zero problem with that. Personally, at this point anything that makes AA stronger I like. The stronger AA becomes, the better chance I have to make it to 2020 and my financial benchmarks.
Those junior that don't want to risk a Group I existence as a new-hire at AA should go to Delta or UAL, but UAL is about to order Group I sized aircraft too. I'm a Parker fan now and he's a smart guy (although ruthless). He'll make the right decisions for AA and I think Group I is financial gold mine for this carrier. With Group I efficiencies, it means we no longer have to run from SWA and can not only go head-to-head with their expensive pilots, but beat them by a wide margin on costs on any route. All is well, even with Group I.
All some of us have said regarding this issue is that Group I will replace some of Group II, just as Group II A321 flying will replace some of Group III. Fine. It will be great for junior pilots to fly Group I. I have zero problem with that. Personally, at this point anything that makes AA stronger I like. The stronger AA becomes, the better chance I have to make it to 2020 and my financial benchmarks.
Those junior that don't want to risk a Group I existence as a new-hire at AA should go to Delta or UAL, but UAL is about to order Group I sized aircraft too. I'm a Parker fan now and he's a smart guy (although ruthless). He'll make the right decisions for AA and I think Group I is financial gold mine for this carrier. With Group I efficiencies, it means we no longer have to run from SWA and can not only go head-to-head with their expensive pilots, but beat them by a wide margin on costs on any route. All is well, even with Group I.
Its time to make the AAL the powerhouse it will be by competing with SWA, DAL and UAL and work harder to make THEIR management pay their employees more so they'll just go out of business sooner.
The RLA has really made chumps out of labor. Paying Hoffman & James monthly tribute for something that their good friend over at the Companys law firm (Siegal) keeps counting on to make APA do their bidding is PRICELESS!!
02-04-2015, 09:51 AM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2005
Position: recalled until the next round of right sizing to optimise synergies
Posts: 199
I'm pretty sure Group I has always been the "cheapest part" of the pilot labor contract...and the MTA pay rates were even cheaper than the JCBA rates.
So if they are salivating so much, why have they only operated a handful of E190s for so long?
I actually hope they DO order E190/195s to start bringing in some of the RJ flying. Eventually the staffing issues at Envoy, Piedmont, Mesa and PSA will only get worse.
So if they are salivating so much, why have they only operated a handful of E190s for so long?
I actually hope they DO order E190/195s to start bringing in some of the RJ flying. Eventually the staffing issues at Envoy, Piedmont, Mesa and PSA will only get worse.
02-04-2015, 10:13 AM
#57
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Don't worry, they will just operate 20 in perpetuity and this is all hysteria. All is well.........All is well.
02-04-2015, 10:43 AM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Window seat
Posts: 5,294
Revenue capability is about 2x the increase in hourly cost.
But if there's no demand you're not getting additional revenue.
02-04-2015, 10:54 AM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Window seat
Posts: 5,294
A big part of it. If they cannot staff E-175 flying at the regionals in the future and the S80 is unsuitable for many routes that regionals do and are slated for replacement, the E-195 (or similar) fits the bill to solve several issues. 107-seat (or thereabouts) mixed-class E-195's have good Caribbean, CA and northern SA route potential from MIA and DFW. Copa flies them all over the place out of Panama City.
But, some believe this is all hysteria and so we shall see.
But, some believe this is all hysteria and so we shall see.
Almost worthless out of DFW to CA or the Caribbean. DFW- Nicaragua is 1600 nm. DFW-Montego Bay is 1530 nm. Published range is 2000 nm.
DFW- northern SA isn't happening. DFW-Barranquilla is 2060 nm and that's the closest SA city.
02-04-2015, 11:22 AM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Position: B737
Posts: 1,204
But hate to burst your bubble. If we ordered more and I wound up flying them, then I would. It's part of the job. I'd rather us get the RJ flying back in house than hope we never did just to avoid flying a Group I airplane for a little while.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
