xkuzme1

I think that there are a couple of things that make these next couple rounds of contracts more geared towards the protection of scope.

In 96 when the last hiring spree happened is when scope starting going away. Scope was traded for pay. Ask any one of those people that voted away their scope wished that they had voted differently.

In 96 there was a huge glutton of out of work military pilots because Clinton had chopped the military budget. Most of those military folks really knew nothing about the airlines. To a military pilot scope was something that you rinsed your mouth with. Military pilots also tended to be cocky with an attitude that said "due what ever you have to do to pay me what I am worth". There is not the major glut of unemployed military pilots this time around. Most of the ranks of new main-line pilots will come from the ranks of the regionals. THIS IS NOT MEANT TO BE A SLANDER OF MILITARY FOLKS. IT IS JUST MY OBSERVATION.

Regional pilots that have seen some of the biggest career stagnation in the history of aviation will fight for scope. 9/11 happened, then 65 happened. That roughly 12 years for some senior folks at the regionals. Nobody understand the extreme importance of scope more than the pilots that will be voting on the next few rounds of contracts at main-line carriers.

If flight time/duty time passes, that gonna mean more pilots.

As of right now age 65 will come to fruition in 461 days, 11 hours, 41 min, and 10 seconds.

About the time the these contracts start to get settled, with any luck the economy will be starting to ramp up again, people will want to travel and the airlines will need to grow...fast (see 1996). The only people available to hire will be those people that have been sitting in a CRJ/ERJ for 12 years.

Just my $.02 worth.

X

Flyby1206

Which is less likely to be acceptable to the pilot group? A contract without any payraises or a contract without taking back any scope?

I hope it all happens and you guys get a 20+% payraise while taking all flying above 50 seats, but that AAint happenin. Turboprop flying will be gone forever. AA labor groups arent willing to take the massive paycuts to make it financially feasible to operate these a/c against the regional turboprop carriers. There is a small chance for regaining 70 seat flying in my opinion, but it would still take a huge C-scale type contract.

galaxy flyer

Flyby1206

Quite correct, the contract talks will center on that very question: how big a raise for incumbents versus how much do you want scope? The senior guys (and AA is among the oldest) are looking at retirement and how to guarantee the pension plan, PERIOD. The last concessionary contract was all about saving the pension plan. Senior B767/777 captains are looking at retirement and, I doubt, they are willing to give up money, so the company can fly 70-seaters under the contract. AND, what pay rates will apply to those 70-seaters? Will it be about what they are presently paid, will it be "formula" pay which is about half MD-88 pay? Or will it be, say, 75% of MD-88 pay? Is the APA membership willing to agree to $99/ hr for 70-90 seat RJs? That's what USAirways pays. The details are important.

Xcusme

Scope, industry wide, went "south" with the bankruptcies, post-9/11, the hiring of the '90s, military and civilian had nothing to do with it. There were 5,000 RJ crews in 2001, 10 years later, there are maybe 17,000. There weren't even any 70-seaters in 2001. It was entirely BK that eroded scope. BTW, RJs are flown by the "parent" line very rarely, I think, only Air Canada, JB, and some at USAir.

GF

eaglefly

Don't forget that many of those laying in that bed are doomed to lay there for the duration of their careers, should scope relaxation continue. As mainline pilots retire, those "beds" are reduced, the cheap springy beds replace them and future pilots end up with a career of poor sleep.

You'd think more of those in the crappy beds would cheer for tighter mainline scope instead of the current climate of doing the exact opposite.

buzzpat

I don't really have a dog in this fight and was just cruising through this thread. But, I need to educate you a little as to your "observations" about the military.

There never has been a glut (not "glutton") of military pilots, even during the Clinton administration and there is no such thing as unemployed military pilots. They choose to leave for other pursuits and are not forced to leave with the exception of those who get in trouble or are passed over for promotion. In fact, during the 1990s and 2000s, military pilots were paid bonuses to stay IN the military. Those that stay in see it as a better opportunity and as a privilege to serve the country.

Secondly, you are correct in that most military pilots have little to no understanding of commercial airline operations. They do, however, have experiences that traditional regional pilots will never know, ranging from flying international operations at an earlier stage in their career to flying and fighting in combat. Your observation that "military pilots also tended to be cocky with an attitude that said "due what ever you have to do to pay me what I am worth" is patently untrue. Like anybody else, they look at their potential career earnings, quality of life and family concerns to make decisions about the profession they have been trained for.

I say this as not only a retired military pilot and current legacy pilot, but also as the military aide to the Clinton administration in the 1990s. There really is no difference between those who come up through the military channels and those who ascend through the private arena. A pilot is a pilot.

That's all, carry on.

QuagmireGiggity

I read that somewhere else too and I don't think it's correct. Maybe 17k now but in 1999 we had 2400 at Eagle alone.

hoover

I think that the military pilots are the best at what they do, but I do not agree that this statement makes them better commercial pilots. i haven't been in many combat experiences going into kalamazoo and international ops takes about an hr to learn. that being said the US military pilots are the best and there is no way I could ever do their job any better.

buzzpat

I didn't say it made them better, just that they bring something else to the table, and that there weren't a glut of them in the 1990s that affected commercial hiring. That being said, "International ops take about an hour to learn?" Not quite. After 20 years of international, I was always learning something. Its a completely different animal, and to be so naive as to think you can learn how to do it safely and efficiently in an hour, well, is a huge mistake and, quite frankly, shows how little you know about it. Flying into Kinshasa, Zaire, or Tokyo is not flying into Kalamazoo. Flying the NAT tracks is not flying a victor route. One day, I'm sure you'll agree.

hoover

75% of what I fly is international. Yes, it is that easy. the hardest part is being able to understand the controllers. Flying is still flying no matter whose airspace you are in. You are right you didn't say that it makes the military guys better I just don't see how combat is rellevant in commercial ops. Not saying that they aren't as good either. I don't think you can lump everybody into groups and judge individual skill based on the group. Like corporate vs 121. It's not the type of operation rather the person who makes a good canadate for the job.

Swedish Blender

Personally I would be surprised. Fly an ATR out of SJU? Doubt it.

Right now AE is the only one who can fly something bigger than 50 seats. ATRs and what 47 CR7s. Those are by serial number. Not by slots. I do not believe APA will give up any more scope, but I also do not think they will recover those a/c.

BWTFDIK, APA was offered those planes several years ago and balked.

BTW, CAL still has the best RJ scope (unless UAL guts it).