|
Originally Posted by Gunfighter
(Post 926733)
Has ALPA done any analysis (that we can see) on the financial impact of the proposed Flight Time/Duty Time limits on regional carriers. My initial assessment is that the changes to flight time and duty time regulations will erode the cost advantage of outsourcing. We will have a smaller financial hurdle to overcome with respect to regaining scope. In fact, we should be approaching this from the standpoint of providing a higher quality product (mainline operated flights) to our customers for no additional cost.
Under the new rules, we could actually save the company money by performing flying that was previously outsourced. Mesaba just got fined by the DOT $125,000 for poor customer service. |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 926651)
Oh they will ask and try to assign great value to it, but the fact is that we would have to play their game to accept that value. We already own that flying. If we sold it for a bargaining credit, we are the fools.
|
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 926572)
Pure BS...from start to finish. You are purposely carrying the water AGAIN for ALPA/DALPA. And your typical RJ BS with regard to senior pilots being the problem is just pathetic.
Carl
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 926656)
Carl; Frankly you are a minority. Many of the Senior Captains I fly with are very frank about the fact that all they want is money and they want it now. They only have a few years left and they need as much as they can get to retire. The hold no ill will, but that is what they say. So quit thinking I am slamming you.
Do these senior captains say they are willing to give away scope to get the money, or are they saying all they want is money? Of course, I don't fly with any senior guys, but I have never heard anyone say they were willing to give up scope for anything. I don't see it on the forums, I don't hear it in the DTW pilot lounge, I don't hear it in the cockpit. Everyone I talk to wants money AND scope. So, from my vantage point, I think Carl's views are the views of the majority. Where are you hearing this "I want to get mine, everyone else be dammed" viewpoint? |
Originally Posted by Wingnutdal
(Post 926701)
Restoration is nothing without scope. A wise Captain I flew with talked about a 50 seat "Scope gap". There will always be a 50 seat difference between the largest plane flown at DCI and the smallest at mainline.
We could get full restoration and the next downturn could wipe it all out. We give up scope for money, the company will be back for pay cuts before the ink is dry. Then the scope and the pay rates are gone. |
Originally Posted by Michael70776
(Post 926778)
A very wise captain indeed.
We give up scope for money, the company will be back for pay cuts before the ink is dry. Then the scope and the pay rates are gone. |
Scope
Personally, I think we need to get out of the box on scope and go back to how all this started. We were told that RJs and regionals were good for us in that it opened up new markets and gave us flow, in turn creating the need for more mainline aircraft because of more feed. I say that we define DCI flying base on the population of the airport served from the hub. Just say the number was 50,000 people within a 25 mile radius of the airport as an example. You could give a little flexibility in establishing a new route or competeing with another mainline in an exemption clause that would go from 6 months to a year then convert to mainline or drop the service. Then the more DCI the better because we would probably never fly mainline line to that market anyway. Flying hub to hub on DCI does not cut it with me. That should definitely be mainline flying. Just food for thought.;)
|
Originally Posted by JABDIP
(Post 926785)
Personally, I think we need to get out of the box on scope and go back to how all this started. We were told that RJs and regionals were good for us in that it opened up new markets and gave us flow, in turn creating the need for more mainline aircraft because of more feed. I say that we define DCI flying base on the population of the airport served from the hub. Just say the number was 50,000 people within a 25 mile radius of the airport as an example. You could give a little flexibility in establishing a new route or competeing with another mainline in an exemption clause that would go from 6 months to a year then convert to mainline or drop the service. Then the more DCI the better because we would probably never fly mainline line to that market anyway. Flying hub to hub on DCI does not cut it with me. That should definitely be mainline flying. Just food for thought.;)
The labor saving is not all that much either. I heard some Rj captains make over 100k. If you do a seat/pay analysis, their payrates are almost equal, except the fact that Delta does not have efficient control of the outsource product. It can ALL be done in house. TYG |
Originally Posted by Mesabah
(Post 926758)
This is absolutely true. Another part is showing customers that mainline is a better product. Make the customers also join in the fight to push management to put the flying back.
Mesaba just got fined by the DOT $125,000 for poor customer service. |
Originally Posted by TenYearsGone
(Post 926800)
Here is a thought. DCI flying or Delta Flying done by Delta pilots. Outsourcing ruins our product and "name".
The labor saving is not all that much either. I heard some Rj captains make over 100k. If you do a seat/pay analysis, their payrates are almost equal, except the fact that Delta does not have efficient control of the outsource product. It can ALL be done in house. TYG |
Looks like a congresswoman was shot today. Fox News and MSNBC's website is reporting she has died. Unfreakingbelievable. :mad:
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:49 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands