|
|
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
I'm okay with most of what you posted but the article BB posted says Skywest, via themselves and Expressjet, operate 150 (90 and 60) 50 seaters....... Denny |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1230907)
"Airframes are"... and here's the $64,000 question. Who buys airframes? I'll give you a hint. It is not pilots.
Incentivize? really? We are a seniority based system. There is no "incentive" unless you consider forfeiting your quality of life for money an incentive. Frankly, if that is where we want to be, that is pretty pathetic. We push throttles. Management buys airplanes. Pay me for flying whatever it is they buy. period. Hell, the incentive is always towards bigger airplanes, as even the productivity system doesn't capture the value of every incremental seat (a 747 doens't pay twice as much as a 757). But LBP ties pilot costs to airframes, and the producticity system ties it more to seats. That's not value judgment on my part, I think it's a simple statement of facts. As we add seats, we want more pilot money. We have an incentive to ask for this, the company has an incentive to ask for the opposite. The two major beneficiaries to LBP are the company, and senior pilots that don't like what their seniority is buying them right now, and want to downgrade equipment for better in category seniority, without taking a paycut. The current sytem isn't flawed T, the problem is that it's incompatible with your wishes. The guy one junior to you that's flying the M88 made a sacrfice in pay, and some other areas, but he's senior. He doesn't want your flying, or he'd bid for it, and he doesn't deserve to have you show up in his category under a LBP sytsem. He's already done what you don't want to do, and made compromises on how to leverage his seniority. So you're approaching the problem backwards, and asking how we might make the system conform to your wishes. The problem you're running into is that the productivity system is better, and provides more money to the group as a whole. There is no logical argument for LBP that works for the average pilot, only certain senior pilots that might benefit. You simply took a wrong turn when you decided, somewhere, that there is no reason you couldn't fly a 737 in a simpler base, for the same money, since you're senior. But there is a reason, and it's an obstacle in your way: the productivity system is better. You just can't see it, partly because I think you're a good guy, and you're sincere in your motivations, but what you're advocating is 100% wrong for the group, and amounts to pulling up the ladder. I'm not accusing you of doing this consciously, or with malice. I'm just pointing out why you're banging your head on this, and failing to convince some of us on LBP: your QOL desires are understandeable, but the LBP system you require to make them a reality is a poor system. |
Originally Posted by SailorJerry
(Post 1231105)
Slywest may have only been speaking for Skywest Airlines. Not Skywest and ExpressJet. Unless I misread the article, the ExpressJet name was noticeably absent.
I cut and pasted below the pertinent paragraph from the article BB posted. "SkyWest subsidiaries SkyWest Airlines and ExpressJet operate about 90 and 60 Bombardier CRJ200 aircraft , respectively, for Delta, under 15-year contracts that Kraupp says do not expire until 2020. Kraupp is emphatic that Delta does not have any rights in the current contract to tell SkyWest to cease the 50-seater operations before the agreements expire." Denny |
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
(Post 1231116)
I cut and pasted below the pertinent paragraph from the article BB posted.
"SkyWest subsidiaries SkyWest Airlines and ExpressJet operate about 90 and 60 Bombardier CRJ200 aircraft , respectively, for Delta, under 15-year contracts that Kraupp says do not expire until 2020. Kraupp is emphatic that Delta does not have any rights in the current contract to tell SkyWest to cease the 50-seater operations before the agreements expire." Denny The company could only go to 218 76's if JA plays hardball. Interesting..... But it could be JA just posturing publicly while knowing behind the scenes they will make the trades. Later SKYW will come out and say how through negotiations they were able to "improve the magins" over their current fleeting and provide "better returns for the shareholders and for a longer time period" while the plan was the same all along. |
Originally Posted by Sink r8
(Post 1231097)
Timbo,
Except for a drunken orgy of RJ purcahsing, and a failed attempt to appease the gods of frequency by such geniuses as Allen and Mullen, airplanes have continued to get bigger in the industry. What you're describing are pre-merger fleets. What you're not looking at is the resumption of the normal evolution towards bigger airplanes, in a an environment where airlines are big enough to offer frequency AND economical (large) airplanes. And those airlines can also use an alliance partner to cover two city pairs, each with a bigger plane, by splitting them, rather than having two smaller airplanes each competing on both routes. Take a look at the evolution of the 737, and you'll see virtually none bought the -600. Everything gets stretched (and I don't just mean for us ageing pilots), from the 767, to the 757, to the 787. I wouldn't be surprised if we get 777-300's. Even the 717 is an upgauging proposition. Airlines are big enough that they don't have to sacrifice economics to assure frequency, and so we're going back to bigger. That's the trend LBP would have us fail to capitalize on. Just look at it in terms of MD-90's coming in to the 88 fleet, and adding seats on the 88: they served to bump up the 88 to 90 pay. How would you argue that under LBP? There would be no basis for it, since a pilot is a pilot, and a plane is a plane. No LBP for me, thanks. I see 737's replacing 757's and 767's (Domestic routes) I see 787's eventually replacing 767ER's (a wash, size wise?) but maybe replacing 777's in 10 years, and 747's maybe sooner than that. The last I heard, the 787 is about the size of a 767ER, not the size of a 777 or 747. I see the 717's as our only 'growth' airplane. Do we call that bigger? It is bigger than a 50 or 76 seat RJ, no doubt, but it's the smallest 'manline' airframe out there. I don't see that as bigger, just more small narrow body flying with the 737's ((-900) and 717's. I don't see Bigger coming any time soon, until we order and take delivery of something as big as the 777-300 and 747, I'm not holding my breath waiting for those. In the mean time, we will have pilots displaced off the 767/757 to the 737-900. |
Originally Posted by SailorJerry
(Post 1231099)
You're exactly right. DCI carriers refusing to participate in the master plan are quickly excluded from the party. My guess is that we may see Skywest exit voluntarily in the late stage of our new PWA depending on what kind of deals they obtain in the LCC/AMR merger. If they can pick up their marbles and move, they will.
The other thing to remember is that typically the 50 seaters are just marginally profitable for the DCI carriers to operate themselves. No second run DCI contract provided margins much better than 1-3%. Any resistance from Slywest may result in their 50 fleet getting the Freedom treatment. While Atkin may be smooth under pressure, it'll only last so long. Basically until his ship sinks. This article is just the first chink in the armor. I guarantee that Delta would never have put their plan on our table without written consent from all the DCI carriers. They'd be nuts to do so. Or maybe they thought the TA wouldn't pass. Ha. Ooops. |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1231132)
There has been some rumblings of some announcement early next year that does not include DAL. No idea what it is, but have been hearing that JA may be ready to move on his stand alone plan. Time will tell I guess.
|
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1231132)
There has been some rumblings of some announcement early next year that does not include DAL. No idea what it is, but have been hearing that JA may be ready to move on his stand alone plan. Time will tell I guess.
http://www3.airlinesanddestinations....terj145-01.jpg Ah yes, another regional CEO with stand alone plan. I can see no way how this well thought out plan could possibly fail. :) |
Originally Posted by Timbo
(Post 1231120)
I guess it depends on how you define 'bigger'.
I see 737's replacing 757's and 767's (Domestic routes) I see 787's eventually replacing 767ER's (a wash, size wise?) but maybe replacing 777's in 10 years, and 747's maybe sooner than that. The last I heard, the 787 is about the size of a 767ER, not the size of a 777 or 747. I see the 717's as our only 'growth' airplane. Do we call that bigger? It is bigger than a 50 or 76 seat RJ, no doubt, but it's the smallest 'manline' airframe out there. I don't see that as bigger, just more small narrow body flying with the 737's ((-900) and 717's. I don't see Bigger coming any time soon, until we order and take delivery of something as big as the 777-300 and 747, I'm not holding my breath waiting for those. In the mean time, we will have pilots displaced off the 767/757 to the 737-900. But in either case, 737-900's replacing 757's is not a loss in seats (weird, I agree). We can both remember a time when a 737 was just a little plane to fit below the 727 in the fleet, but a 737-900 vs. a 757 is actually a slight increase in seats, I believe. Vs. a 767-300 it's a loss, vs. an A320, it's a gain. 717's replacing 50-seat RJ's is a gain, although some of them replace DC-9 50's. A loss of seats, but not a loss of pay. At ay rate, I'm not trying to sell a rosy picture on Delta's future fleet decisions (no idea what they will buy), I'm only looking at what mechanisms we have in our contract to capture revenue, and what the language encourages or discourages. The current system captures some of the revenue from added seats, an LBP sytem doesn't. I think a system that makes pilot cost a constant per seat is naturally better than one that makes it a constant per airframe. And I note the industry has moved, over time, towards bigger and bigger airplanes. It's a confluence of physics, logic, and economics that drive this. They want more butts per flight, and we want to be paid for each of those butts. I'll make exceptions for some of the really nice tushies, the likes of which you see when you offload a sorority charter in Punta Cana before a 36-hour layover. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1230970)
Regionals already pushing back against plan to park 50 seaters:
With about 150 jets at the various SkyWest operations there simply aren't enough 76-seaters to go around and make the 3-for1 RJ swap financially interesting to SkyWest. Word is all of the SkyWest 50-seaters will move from DCI to USAir... The SkyWest MRJs will need 80ish seats to be cost effective (capital cost). With CRJ900s leased by Delta there is no financial incentive for SkyWest to purchase MRJs other than for flying them for another carrier. Most likely Skywest MRJs will enter feed service for American (then merged with USAirways) With more than 76-seats, the first MRJ delivered to SkyWest will also cause SkyWest to cease operations for DCI, because of the Section 1 limitations on 76-seat jets. The elimination of the 150 or so 50-seaters at SkyWest will help create more favorable 50-for-76-seater exchange ratios for the other DCI carriers providing the incentive for breaking existing contracts. SkyWest wins because they get to go after a new lucrative Jumbo RJ contract at American... Pinnacle will remain the sole 50-seat jet operator for DCI... Eagle will most likely be hurt by all of this... YMMV Cheers George |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:10 AM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands