Let me guess....you fly for SWA or DAL? Sorry, couldnt resist!

 

The problem is that most of the ALPA carriers, UAL, DAL, and NW have been through bankruptcy and have given up virtually all scope protection. Hence, the companies are dumbing-down narrowbody flying by calling these 75-100 seat aircraft RJs. The combined DAL/NWA has an incredible number of 50-100 seat airplanes at their alter-ego carrier Compass, and the myriad of commuters.

So far the APA is holding tight to their scope and appears to not willing to give an inch more to the dumbing-down of the profession.

 

It depends. DAL pays the leases, but the DCI carrier then in turn has a lease with DAL. It is quite complicated. Then DAL pays the lease. So the end result is that we DAL pay the lease on the RJ.

 

Unions like ALPA have turned the back on their brothers to line their own pockets by allowing this to happen. Now it's happening at Southwest Airlines. Their union is dealing with codeshare now. Looks like their union is going to turn it's backs on their pilots, especially thier FO's. So why do pilots pay union dues??

 

And this is a good point, but what some people don't seem to realize is that just because AA and CO for example won't give on anything larger than 50 seats, does not mean that "protection" translates into growth at mainline. AA has more pilots on the street than any other airline. CO is parking 737's and just furloughed. Now, don't look at my avatar and postion and assume that Im ignorant or am for CRJ-900's taking over all mainline flying. Because Im not.

The point Im making is that what we would all like is for less farming out of flying to "regional" airlines. Theoretically, if airlines stopped this practice, that flying could be done by say a 737 at mainline, which would create more and better paying jobs there instead of an influx of RJ's and whipsawing, etc. But this has not been shown to be true. The airlines won't do it. The economics don't support it. 50 seat jets for the most part are what most airlines want to rid themselves of. So Im not sure if keeping so many of them, even in the name if scope helps the bottom line. As far as putting 70-76 seaters at mainline...again...not gonna happen. We can all point the finger at ALPA for letting the cat out or all the wanna be airline pilots willing to fly em at regionals. Both points have meritt. Air Canada seems to have the right formula, and I've always asked why US airlines can't follow that lead. But I guess it all comes down to money.

 

Being a driver of one of these planes I agree with you. Something I would love to see defined is what is a Regional Jet. I fly from Philly to Dallas/Houston/Kansas City/St Louis/Minneapolis once a month at least. What is regional about that. Frankly I would have rather the US Air never had given those aircraft away. Air Canada is a fine example. There pilots make a ton more than I do flying the same aircraft.

 

Tin,

Kind of hard to say you understand sitting in the right seat of a -900. After all we "all" have choices.

I will not vote to have this flying outsourced, so what if we do not grow. I would take a furlough before I will vote yes to having more of the fleet outsourced to low paying E/170-CRJ-900 companies.

What is most disturbing was the 50 seater was the camel's nose under the tent. Look what you are flying after the "50" seat SCOPE exception was given. Do you not think management will stop at 90 seat aircraft?

Please do not take this post as a pot shot at you. However this needs to go back in the other direction before it gets worse. AA pilots and I suspect CAL recognize this and will not give on SCOPE. Just like SWA pilots realize now what happens when you codeshare.


AAflyer

P.S. Happy Thanksgiving, hope you are at home, or if not, you are at least with a good crew.

 

Incorrect. Pinnacle owns all 16 or whatever of the 900's they fly/will fly for DL, with the exception of the Freedom 900's they are temporarily operating.

 

Some of them are owned/leased by DAL. Others are owned/leased by the regionals. DAL seems to prefer to own the 900's when dealing with regionals with marginal performance history...that way they can take their ball and go home on short notice.

 

No, its not hard to understand at all. I do understand. Im just speaking to what IS, not what SHOULD be. But I do understand and agree with you on what SHOULD be. We do all have choices...and mine for Mesaba was really an afterthought. This was not my first choice airline. Had my first choice accepted or even invited me for an interview, I'd be furloughed as we speak.

My choice in accepting employment with Mesaba had everything to do with the fact that the company had just begun its growth spurt when I got hired. That resulted in me never seeing a day of reserve and being able to hold a line as a Saab captain after exactly 12 months flying the line as a CR9 F/O which is were I will wind up in another month or so.

I could agrue that its easy for you mainline guys to tell all of us newbies to "suck wind" and not take a job at any airline until things get better and there is growth at mainline and less CR7/9's and E170/5's flying around for less.

You say you would be willing to take a furlough in the name of scope and so what if you don't grow. I suspect that there are many people who might not share that willingness and attitude about not growing. Suppose that growth would be at the top end with bigger airplanes?

There are many contributing factors to the way things are. I think we are all best served by looking forward and improving things. If things cannot be improved much in the short term, than we need to all make the best of the situation(s) that we are in. Have a happy and safe turkey day as well AA flyer...I hope you're not having to work either! Im home with my family...I wish you the same.