What I find interesting about this pay argument is that as educated individuals that embark on this career in aviation will have done the research to understand the various pathways to their dream job.

Part of that research is knowing what the payscale is likely to be for the first few years, yet when they arrive at that point, there is this outrage and uproar that the pay isn't good enough for what we do. This hasn't exactly crept up on you, the information is open source.

Short of contracting in China, the US legacy carriers are probably the best paid pilots in the world and if you constantly compare your salary with those, then there will be differences. In the same way someone embarking on a medical career will be paid substantially less than a top plastic surgeon.

If money is your goal, then the regional's are a pathway in my view.

 

I personally know several from piedmont that got ots and were non military outside the flow. Many people mistake them as being flows.

 

My source is directly from the retiree AA pilot website. They posted exact stats, you can look for yourself. None of this 'I had a buddy.."

 

Mrj70er
Gtw 85,969lbs
Range 76 pax (225lbs)1,670 nm

Mrj90std
Gtw 87,303lbs
Range 88pax (225lbs) 1,150nm
You loose 12pax at 225lbs that’s
2700lbs. You certify at 86k for a
76 pax version. Range goes to
1,300nm

 

It’s going to be a tuff sell with 500nm less range then a E175 (it’s on par with CRJ900) with the same load, even with advertised 20% less fuel burn.
This has to be a nightmare for MRJ! If they could have lightened it up with the composite wing they had a chance.

 

Affirmative.. and those people are being improperly marked as flows.. we know this.

We just had another one finish their last trip. Jumped the flow by a year by getting ots. Was a LCA the last year. All of our ots to aa have been lca's.

 

Ergo, actually a C-scale.

 

Bombardier says they won’t put
GTF’s on their crj900 because it won’t save anything because of higher weight of engine. Complete BS if you ask me. Not sure why though. Let airbus help with cost of new engines, wings and avionics. 76 seats and 86,000lbs.

 

76 seaters are not being added to any regional fleet in the US. If they made such a machine it would be to replace existing 76 seat aircraft at best. Considering the cost of an airframe - and the engineering to mount a GTF nacelle on the empennage I can see why they say there’s no savings.

 

It’s not the weight of the geared engines (newer higher compression engines are heavier), it’s where that weight goes. Too much in rear would require forward ballast to make the CoG right.

GF