Consolidation has begun
08-07-2019, 05:43 PM
#32
Gets Everyday Off
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Position: Relaxed
Posts: 6,948
Originally Posted by pangolin
Scope makes point 5 incorrect. Your other points? Maybe.
The ratio of 76 seat planes to all the planes at the majors would not increase. True, the ratio of 76 seat to 50 seat would increase. But if no more 76 seat planes are being flown, that would not violate many scope sections.
Where it would, I could see negotiations like this:
Today -
100 76 seat planes fly (RJ)
100 50 seat planes fly (RJ)
In the future -
50 A220-100 fly (major)
100 76 seat planes fly (RJ)
50 50 seat planes fly (RJ)
Same number of planes, same number of pilots
More lift (20% more seats for organic growth, those routes or other routes)
More pilots at the majors
Fewer pilots at the regionals
No more 76 seaters
Fewer 50 seaters
How would that sound?
08-07-2019, 05:59 PM
#33
Fly or Die
Joined APC: Jan 2019
Posts: 484
Originally Posted by Phoenix21
Endeavor, Envoy, PSA, Republic.
Sigh...
08-07-2019, 08:02 PM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,203
Originally Posted by ESQ702
Totally agree with you. I hate the limited West coast base options. Outside of Skywest (where the bases run fairly senior from what I’ve seen) and Compass (good luck to the recruiters working there...) the pickings seem slim unless you’re more “adventurous” for Mesa.
Sigh...
Sigh...
West Coast will go jr at OO. BOI and SLC are already NH bases on the ERJ. Just image what moving 30 aircraft for LAX/SEA/SLC. And getting 13 new ones will do.. Im sure a east coast guy would pick ERJ ORD over SEA/LAX... guess will find out the next 11 months s how it shakes out.
08-07-2019, 08:56 PM
#35
Fly or Die
Joined APC: Jan 2019
Posts: 484
Originally Posted by amcnd
West Coast will go jr at OO. BOI and SLC are already NH bases on the ERJ. Just image what moving 30 aircraft for LAX/SEA/SLC. And getting 13 new ones will do.. Im sure a east coast guy would pick ERJ ORD over SEA/LAX... guess will find out the next 11 months s how it shakes out.
08-08-2019, 10:30 AM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,111
Originally Posted by amcnd
West Coast will go jr at OO. BOI and SLC are already NH bases on the ERJ. Just image what moving 30 aircraft for LAX/SEA/SLC. And getting 13 new ones will do.. Im sure a east coast guy would pick ERJ ORD over SEA/LAX... guess will find out the next 11 months s how it shakes out.
08-08-2019, 01:21 PM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,203
Originally Posted by hawk21
West coast will go junior for FOs. Captain side still remains pretty senior and will likely continue to be.
BOI CA ERJ is under 5 years..
SLC ERJ is under 6. Thats crazy compared to the 10+ it use to be..
Same ERJ LAX/SFO under 6. And this is before all this West Coast announcement ...
Last edited by amcnd; 08-08-2019 at 01:39 PM.
08-08-2019, 04:30 PM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2017
Position: CRJ9 CA
Posts: 4,083
Originally Posted by TransWorld
Clarifying. If A220s (flown by the majors) take over some 76 seat flying and 76 seat flying takes over some of the 50 seat flying, then some 50 seat get parked.
The ratio of 76 seat planes to all the planes at the majors would not increase. True, the ratio of 76 seat to 50 seat would increase. But if no more 76 seat planes are being flown, that would not violate many scope sections.
Where it would, I could see negotiations like this:
Today -
100 76 seat planes fly (RJ)
100 50 seat planes fly (RJ)
In the future -
50 A220-100 fly (major)
100 76 seat planes fly (RJ)
50 50 seat planes fly (RJ)
Same number of planes, same number of pilots
More lift (20% more seats for organic growth, those routes or other routes)
More pilots at the majors
Fewer pilots at the regionals
No more 76 seaters
Fewer 50 seaters
How would that sound?
The ratio of 76 seat planes to all the planes at the majors would not increase. True, the ratio of 76 seat to 50 seat would increase. But if no more 76 seat planes are being flown, that would not violate many scope sections.
Where it would, I could see negotiations like this:
Today -
100 76 seat planes fly (RJ)
100 50 seat planes fly (RJ)
In the future -
50 A220-100 fly (major)
100 76 seat planes fly (RJ)
50 50 seat planes fly (RJ)
Same number of planes, same number of pilots
More lift (20% more seats for organic growth, those routes or other routes)
More pilots at the majors
Fewer pilots at the regionals
No more 76 seaters
Fewer 50 seaters
How would that sound?
08-08-2019, 05:59 PM
#39
Gets Everyday Off
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Position: Relaxed
Posts: 6,948
Originally Posted by pangolin
50 seaters are generally unrestricted. I don’t see regional flying slowing unless the economy contracts.
Remember when 37-40 seat planes were all the rage? Not many of them flying today.
Not to debate the issue, we will check in on this in a few years and see who is right.
08-08-2019, 06:10 PM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2019
Posts: 744
Originally Posted by TransWorld
Guess I have a broader perspective. Shortage of pilots. Higher PAX loads from some out airports. More seats with the same number of planes.
Remember when 37-40 seat planes were all the rage? Not many of them flying today.
Not to debate the issue, we will check in on this in a few years and see who is right.
Remember when 37-40 seat planes were all the rage? Not many of them flying today.
Not to debate the issue, we will check in on this in a few years and see who is right.
However if the regional partners can’t staff the planes scope clauses will force more of the flying in-house just as you have suggested. This will probably be much less profitable for main line and they will fight it as hard as they can, but market forces may dictate exactly what you have predicted.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
