Two things... 1) Your ability to staff in the next couple years. It will be intertwined with your ability to match or beat the WOs ability to attract new hires which isn't likely for you. And 2) The WOs have been losing more pilots outside of their flow (except maybe Envoy because they flow a ton of pilots to AA right now) to DA, UA, FDX, and UPS than they are flowing. Thebflows just mean all the more movement for new hires.

SkyWest is in a completely different situation than RAH with their west coast bases and is a much better ran company. They will likely gain more flying as some other regionals lose flying.

No one is saying RAH doesn't have a future, but if you look at the way things are going it will likely be that of a longer than new industry average upgrade and a slowly shrinking fleet.

I'm not trying to make this an Envoy vs Republic argument because everyone has different personal preferences that make every regional uniquely attractive, but where do you come up with a "shrinking" fleet when we have deliveries for United scheduled starting in April 2017?

I was never great at math, but adding typically isn't synonymous with shrinking.

Thanks for your help man, I appreciate it.

RAH has an attractive offer on the plate. Good pay, good work rules, reasonable upgrade times that are likely to lower due to fleet growth, and a variety of bases to choose from that are very commutable from my point of view.

They may not have the highest bonus or the best 2 yr pay like Envoy, but you'll make more money at Republic over a longer period. Envoy's pay doesnt look very nice between the bonuses and the upgrade, while their fleet seem to lose CRJs. I also have my doubts about the E75 options with Embraer.

And then there's the awful schedules as the cherry on top. That's a fair amount one has to put up with just for flow.

The only negative about republic right now (from the outside looking in) is the bankruptcy. And even that situation seems to be going much better than people forecasted. Pay at RAH is good. I talked to a RAH guy who was looking at jumping ship to Envoy, and at six months he was holding 15 day off lines and 85 hour credit. I was two years in and 11 days off with reserve at 75 hr credit.

At this point I don't think you can make a wrong decision here. This isn't like should I go to Envoy or MESA. At this point if you go to any of the WO, RAH, Endeavor, or Skywest it would be hard to see it as a bad decision.

I don't know how you think we won't be able to compete with WOs. There's no predicting that. Republic was the first with $40/hr first year pay, who's to say the next contract won't be better?

Say what you want about the 170, but it's the rj of the future and we've got a lot of them and more coming.

To those saying scheduling is better at RAH, I agree. I'm a year in and continually get 15 days off. 16 next month. 80 block, 86 credit. Results may vary but I'm not doing anything special to make that happen.

I agree. I think in one's career progression we may be talking about a few months difference in upgrade/moving on time from one regional to the next.

I highly doubt you know many people that have went to AA off the street, as of recently . It's very rare.

He didn't say many, and I recently flew with one hired at AA and another who was interviewing.

That was not the context of the question in which he was replying. So, I'll answer it with clarity.

Your chances of getting on at AA, through the front door, from another regional carrier are very slim.

Where are you based? Do you commute?

The $40/HR caused the company to go into bankruptcy and renegotiate all of its CPA's with mainline. Raises could happen again, but it's a long and risky scenario for the pilots and is something that the mainline will get tired of dealing with.

They are building up the WO's so they have leverage with companies like RAH that will have trouble staffing at $40/HR and will have to renegotiate CPA's again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you sure about that?
:confused::confused:

Home based in EWR. Can't say I agree that the new contract was the cause of bankruptcy. If it were, it would have been slashed. And there were dozens of 145s parked but being paid for at a cost much greater than our pay raise. Those are gone, as well as everything associated with operating a second aircraft. RAH is much leaner than before. Cancellations are way down.

They will have to deal with their own WOs raising pay, why is it going to be that difficult dealing with the others doing the same?

Good grief. The contract didn't create the bankruptcy. Poor staffing due to a lack of contract did. They (management) rushed the contract through so it would already be in place before the ALREADY planned bankruptcy.

I enjoy how people not here try to twist the facts to fit their agenda.

Btw, we've already had a contractual raise at the end of oct AND the second half of our signing bonus paid out. I love how outsiders said this wasn't going to happen.

Regardless. RAH has contracts in place through 2024 with all the legacies. We aren't going anywhere. I'd be more worried about being "comaired" at a WO as that's already a proven mgmt strategy vs breaking contracts with non WO lift providers. It's a real concern. No cost or penalty to redoing wo lift. Good luck boys. I hope your flow comes through!!!

Because their WOs are viewed completely different from a financial perspective than non-WOs.

As someone with a financial background, not really. This isn't a parent-child relationship where the parent doesn't mind pouring money into the child. The WOs have to make economic sense and they need to convince AA they are worth the time and investment.

And pilot pay is an expense, it isn't coming back to AA's bottom line anymore than increased pilot pay at Republic.

Thats the financial perspective. The WOs matter more from a strategic point of view, not so much financial.

AA looks at its WOs as a cost, not a profit machine. Non-WOs have to make a profit not only for their investors in many cases, but for their mainline partners. That is the fundamental difference. And having a "financial background" has absolutely nothing to do with understanding the airline business and doesn't lend you any more credibility than you may or may not already have.

AA, like every other company, tries to minimize unnecessary costs and only runs the WOs because they expect them to contribute to mainline profitability, if not directly then indirectly. If their WOs have a higher cost than third parties, they will lose flying. Take it to an extreme and they get shutdown like Comair.

Having a financial background means I can more easily pick out certain silly statements often made by sales people (I.e recruiters) trying to attract applicants. Or pilots looking for $5k in referral fees and a boost to their flow numbers.

What a ********** tool.