Regional Jets
 

I have a couple quick questions.

1.) What company had the first RJ in the US?

2.) What year?

3.) Did mainline pilots want to fly them?

Hang on a minute. Let me go make me some popcorn, grab a beer, and plunk down on my La-Z-Boy. This is going to get interesting.

I just wana know his angle

1. Comair - Delta Connection

2. 1993

3. Apparently not

Delta, or maybe United with the Caravelle. Yes, mainline pilots flew them.

From what I understand the CRJ was certified in 1992. I was 7 years old. I didn't even know I wanted to be a pilot at that point. A little history lesson from the older guys never hurt anyone.

It would be nice to know the situation that got us into this mess....

Not sure of the year, but early on in the history of America West, they flew Dash 8's within their own seniority list. This is how it should have been.

What are we counting as an RJ? Air Whiskey had the BAa 146 back in the 80s

In 1987, APA and AMR signed an agreement that allowed regional affiliates to fly aircraft with less than 50 seats and a limited number of 70 seaters. There were no RJ's on the drawing board at that time, and regional airlines flew routes deemed "flying we didn't want to do anyway". Almost all of the regional fleets were comprised of Shorts, ATR's, Metroliners, 1900's, etc. True, Air Willie had a handful of B-146's, So did Air Cal, but by and large, most small jets (DC-9-10, F-100's, etc) were flown by the mainline carriers. It was an easy sell at the time, AMR was hiring 100 pilots a month and had nearly 250 orders for new aircraft on the books. Moreover we were able to trade scope for significantly higher pay.

By the mid 90's, RJs had made their debut and the writing was on the wall, and in 1997 APA went on strike over the RJ issue (AAL pilots fly all the jets). Unfortunately the strike was halted by presidential order and a Presidential Emergency Board was convened.

It is believed that APA's independent status was cause for the AFL-CIO (read that ALPA) to actually lobby the president to stop our strike. Partly out of spite, and partly out fear that it's members would be hurt.

Anyway, the rest is history.

The DC-9 is not a regional jet. It is the first narrow-body two-pilot jet. It does fly the same routes as regional jets, but its pay separates it from regional jets.

Delta started this whole thing because the military guys didn't want to fly the Barbie jet. Did not even put up a fuss.

AND we're off!

If you want to kick it up to the 90's, so did Westair, Mesaba, BIZEX, ASEA, etc

Yes it is, ALL the Embraer/Bombardier products do is represent the evolution of 2 pilot narrow body jet. The DC-9 (and others) were made to operate on short segments, or in "regions" on routes where larger aircraft don't/wont work, OR to supplement service of the larger aircraft. Sounds like a "regional jet", doesn't it?

NO, sadly it's jets operated by "regional" airlines that fly the SAME routes as the small AND large jets operated by the legacies.

Not really, it's pay separates the pilots at the commuter airline flying a "regional" jet from the major/mainline/legacy pilots flying a "regional" jet.

Good post, do.

Yep - the DC-9-10, first operated by Delta Air Lines seated 90 passengers. Same size as an CRJ900 eh?

they also got paid a lot more than your 170/190 rates

The DC-9 is a narrow-body jet. It is not a regional jet. They designed a bunch of different versions of it to do different missions. The stretch models were designed to fly with half-way across the country with full passengers and no weight limitations. Every narrow-body jet from here on out will probably be given a title like "RJ" or "Ejet" to keep pilot pay down. Are you trying to put the DC-9 in the regional jet category and bring the piltos pay down another 60 percent?

If you are saying every narrow-body jet is now an RJ, does that include my 757? I'd say hell no. The issue is that airlines are trying to do any route they can with an RJ, if United could get an ERJ-145 to do the ORD-HKG route, they could. Now, the routes that a CRJ-200 should be doing are routes like PHX-TUS, or in the longer stretch jets, CRJ-900, etc, are routes such as PHX-SNA, PHX-ABQ. But we see ERJ/CRJ jets doing routes like PHL-MCI, which is not a "Regional route" by any stretch of the imagination.

For purposes in this thread, a "Regional Jet" will be considered any of these types: CRJ-100/200/700/900; ERJ-135/140/145; Dash-8-100/200/300/400; and Embraer 170/175/190/195. Which ones will not be included? Any of the DC-9 series, Fokker jets, Boeing 737-200/500/600, Airbus A318.

How about just saying any airplane flying part 121 NOT built by Boeing or Airbus.

That would include a Diesel-9, would it not?
Besides, it needs to be made very clear for some of us. ;)

Are not McD airplanes now considered "Boeings?";)

Ah, the usual us versus them threadshift. I would like to see more of the guys/gals from the eighties and nineties offer their opinion of how scope was relaxed and regional jets began to proliferate at all these second tier operations.

I would consider a "Boeing" as any jet with the 7x7 designation. Yes, including the 717, but not the predecessors of said jet.

And they were paid even more still than xjet. You do the same thing every other regional does Meatball. Step down from your high horse. Xjet takes jobs from Continental.

thevegabound, don't you mean Continental gives jobs to XJET? I can't really see the CEO of XJET telling Continental what routes they are going to fly. It's all a big mess that has caused me to get furloughed but lets keep the anger aimed where it should. Mainline management.

Did Clinton stop your potential strike or just postpone it? My understanding was that the president can only postpone it for another 30 or 60 days. After that the strike would be on again. I could be wrong but that's what I remember hearing.

As I Understand It
 

This really goes back to the late 1960s.

When the 707 and DC-8 entered service in the early 1960s, it was a huge shift in air travel. Overnight, average speeds doubled or tripled, cutting times dramatically for passengers and crews alike. Further, the comfort and amenities of the jets, coupled with a rising safety trend, meant everyone wanted to fly on an airplane with a fuselage diameter of about 12 feet.

The introduction of the turbofan allowed manufacturers and operators to introduce new aircraft that could operate at a profit on shorter legs to smaller runways. This was logical: the early jets were only efficient on long-hauls, and required "big-city" airports to handle their lengthy runway requirements. Over the next 8-10 years, new airplanes introduced by Boeing or Douglas generally got smaller: 720, 727, 737, and DC-9.

By the time of the 737 and DC-9, airline crews had become acustomed to the relative luxury of jet operations...and jet pay. They didn't want the evolution to get any smaller, so ALPA and APA effectively blocked new aircraft from their fleets with less than about 100 seats. (Smallest I can think of was Fokker F-100s at AA). The union view was "The Company can just operate these planes into our existing destinations, even at a loss...we'll make it up elsewhere, but I'm not going back to an Electra or DC-6."

This worked for a while. I remember as a kid how the CAB would set fares and approve destinations. Break-even load factors in those days were around 55%. (Today it is closer to 85%).

When deregulation happened, about the same time that oil skyrocketed in the first oil crisis (1973; look in the history books, you young-pups), the airlines had to make changes. They had largely evolved to an all-jet fleet, and now did not have aircraft to serve smaller cities profitably. I am not sure exactly when, but a short time after the oil embargo is when airlines began to use feeder-carriers to serve the smaller cities. At first, the unions didn't seem to care: the routes were flown by things such as Convair 580s, Viscounts, Electras, even DC-3s. It wasn't seen as a threat: the feeders were flying equipment that was half the speed of mainline, was not as comfortable, and had fewer amenities. I also believe they did not have faux-mainline paint schemes yet.

As the years went by, the difference between feeder and mainline continued to erode. By the 1980s, feeders were almost all turboprop, which improved speed slightly, reliability and safety significantly, but passenger perception only slightly. The unions still did not see feeders as a serious threat, and stuck to their guns about not flying anything smaller than a 737 or DC-9/MD-80.

Then came Canadair.

The introduction of the "RJ" meant mainline-ish speed, and almost the same comfort for passengers. Granted, seat size is smaller. It also coincided with a reduction in service at the mainlines, so the difference in amenities became indistinguishable. Since the livery was almost the same, the average passenger didn't know if he was on mainline or feeder. Not that he could have done anything about it anyway...when he went to a travel agent, or the emerging web-based ticket sales, there was no way to say "Don't book me on a feeder." Still isn't.

By this point, in the 90s, ALPA had finally taken notice. RJs, their companies, and their pilots were the enemy, and the union focussed their efforts on stopping the spread of RJs taking away mainline jobs. They did this by trying to enable scope clauses, mostly with no success. Bombardier and Embraer kept building airplanes, and companies were buying and flying them.

The next ALPA tactic was "If you can't beat them, join them." I believe just about every regional carrier today is represented by ALPA...correct me if I am wrong. Now the mantra is "It is the companies' fault. These RJ pilots should be getting paid more, in accordance with the standards of a true (ALPA) airline pilot. And mainline guys should be getting even more."

This would be similar to ALPA's reversals on age 60 (against it in 1959; endorsed it in the early 1960s, against repealing it in 2007; endorsed age 65 in 2007).

Bottom line: I don't see how ALPA can represent "both sides" and improve the lot for one, without hurting the other. If ALPA successfully increases pay & benefits for the regionals, it erases the very reason they came into being...lower cost. So why would the mainlines even employ them?

I wish this had happened:

I have been told that when UAL wanted to buy the 777, UAL told the MEC "We can buy lots of 777s, a mix of 777s and RJs, or RJs. What do you want?"

What do you think senior guys at an airline (who sit on the MEC) would ask for? Lots of big airplanes with lots of well-paying Capt seats. They said "Just 777s."

I would rather see RJs operated within the mainline, controlled by scope, flown by regular mainline guys. Everyone wins. Company can market into small cities to grow the brand. Same level of training. Same level of service. Same entry standards. Same union without two axes to grind.

Growth of your airline, stability, and happiness. (Ironically, growth leads to more high-paying Capt seats).

PS--Pretty sure the Airworthiness Certificate for the 717 reads "DC-9 Series 95." (It's a Douglas).

Excellent post

Great post, Phlyer!!

I believe you have it exactly inverted. He's arguing that the RJ's are in the same category as mainline aircraft, thus necessitating the higher pay.

After a number of air crashes many years ago, airlines have since been required to disclose in their reservation systems that "Flight XXXX is operated by YYY airlines." This disclosure is not obviously not necessary for flights operated by the same specific air carrier from whom the ticket is purchased.

There ARE ways to not be booked on a feeder, but it requires a savvy consumer, and not just somebody looking for the cheapest ticket out of town. If the airport with commercial air service that is closest to your origin or destination is small enough that it only has "feeder" service, then you'd just have to travel farther to find an airport with mainline equipment; or possibly not travel by air at all.

For someone who truly wants to avoid the "feeder" service, they will have to fly to and from only the airports served by a mainline carrier, pay the prices for tickets on flights operated only by mainline equipment, hope that there are available seats on those planes, and travel only on the days and times when those mainline aircraft operate.

Unfortunately, when the price is right and the schedule is convenient, the statement on the ticket that "Flight XXXX is operated by YYY airlines" becomes an afterthought. You CAN avoid being booked on a feeder, but most people probably would find it not to be worth their time and effort.

Hmm...let's see:

Fokker F-28-1000 65 Seats, about 1000 nm range
Fokker F-28-4000 85 Seats, 1025 nm range MAXTOW -73000 lbs

Sud Aviation Caravelle - 1, 1A, III 80 seats, range 1510 NM MGTOW-101,413 lbs

BAE-146-200 85-100 pax, 1290 nm range, MAXTOW -93035lbs

All operated at mainline carriers with commensurate pay rates and benefits

CRJ-700, 70 seats, 2002 nm range, MAX TOW -72500 lbs
CRJ-900 90 seats, 1828 nm range (LR) MAX TOW-84500 lbs

ERJ-170 80 Seats 2102 nm range, MAXGTOW -81840 lbs
ERJ-175 88 seats, 2001 nm range, MAXGTOW -85140 lbs
ERJ-190 110 seats, 2402 nm range, MAXGTOW -113,960 (IGW variant)

All "RJs" operated at "regional carriers" for low pay and poor benefits.

A quick glance shows not very much difference. In almost each case, the newer RJ has the same number (or more) seats, much more range and usually cruises faster. All for lousy pay and benefits.

After furlough at US Airways, I flew left seat for a US Airways express carrier. I flew "regional" flights like PHL-MSP or PHL-IAH for less than 1/2 of what I made in the right seat of a 737 at mainline.

The whole "concept" of an RJ being something new that first popped onto the scene in the 1990s with a stretched bizjet being marketed by Bombardier is a scam. I'm convinced that if the A-380 were made by Embraer or Bombardier it would be sold to pilots as a 600 seat RJ.:eek:

Good Points
 

Trent:

Good points, and you and I are on the same page...the average Joe wouldn't know nor care. Wal-Mart got big for a reason.

I didn't know it was a requirement to state the other carrier. Makes sense, though.

I was thinking of "the old days," when you would call Reservations, and they would give you the litany of detailed flight information. It seems to me a lot of the details came after you had made your purchase.

True, but the issue I have with RJs is that they create more congestion, especially in the eastern part of the US. I do, however, realize, that any jet is much of a congestion issue as a CRJ-200.

No, no Wolfie. You really have nothing to add to this thread, or to counter the opinions of UAL T38 Phlyer. You aren't a US Airways 757 pilot, so there is no need to talk about "my 757".

You've never had to deal with the airspace congestion issues in the eastern part of the US, because you've never been there. But again, you choose to expose yourself as an imposter, so I will direct people over to the other thread that was locked as a result of your distorted opinions. You tried to excuse yourself by saying that your son had accessed your account and made those remarks, but we all know the real truth of how you were just trying to cover your tracks. How shameful!!

http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ma...tegration.html

If you don't like my opinion, ignore it, which is what you should have done in the first place.

Great Post! I wish there was more of this on these boards . . . meaning civilized discussion and banter instead of what it is . . .

YES, it is.

Hmmmmmm, let's see. Different versions with different capabilities/profiles/segment requirements/missions. CRJ100/200/700/900/1000 and ERJ 170/175/190/195 come to mind.

Two other guys understood what I was getting at, especially 80ktsClamp.

What they got was some 777's, and the promise for more at the expense of scope relaxation. But hey, screw the junior guys, as long the senior widebody guy will have a seat, it's all good.

They call that HJS, heavy jet syndrome.

And flew them as Air Wisconsin with a snappy white green and orange paint job while connecting with all carriers in ORD and MSP. After becoming UAX, MSP was dropped and the first of many screw jobs at the hands of UAL began.

It was the AMR computer system changing the rankings of connecting flights from time based to on line favored that started this madness. Once the DOT and ALPA/APA allowed an airline's code to be flown by other carriers, the game was changed. And not for the better from any pilot's perspective, major or regional (local service airline was the old CAB term).

1) As mentioned earlier, it depends on your definition of an RJ. But if you're referring to the 50 seat Embraer/Canadair products as mentioned earlier Comair - CRJ100 / XJT - ERJ145 (ER variant).

2) 1993 and 1997 respectively.

3) The active pilots at the majors during the late 80's early 90's gave up scope on account of ignorance (not knowing the capabilities of the RJ's) and pride ("we're not going to fly those little airplanes"). This is not including the next gen "RJ" dabacle (E170-190, CRJ700-900); which was the drop that spilled the glass(post 9/11), for instance UA gave up scope on 70 seats for more 777's...and just like that we got to where we are at today.