If this has been addressed (lately) just post a link, otherwise; Which sh## sandwich is less disagreeable than the other? Just Republic vs SkyWest, don’t pollute the thread with opinions about neither, we know it would be better without the contracts, just a comparison, and why.

 

Any additional context? East Coast / West Coast? I would argue the one where you can live in base would be best but I suspect you already know that.

RPA has a union (if that's worth anything. Sometimes it isn't),
No junior manning. As a line holder, any reassignment must return you to base within 2hrs of your originally scheduled release.
We have Long Call Reserve (dunno if SKW has that or not).
No forced upgrades, even with the new contract.
No CRJs... if that matters.
Max premium pay is 200%, SKW offers 300%.
No airport reserve/stand-by* (it's in the contract but not used because of the stipulations)

Thats all I got off hand for now.

 

A good start. QOL issues, including soft pay, base locations, and other scheduling issues certainly would weigh on a decision, but the potential deal breakers are related to the T&C of the employment contracts both these companies have imposed on new hires. How much, how long, what limits and exceptions; these are the details that I’m looking to flesh out here.

 

Honestly, I think Bingo already said it. East or West?

 

What exactly are the particulars of each contract for new FO's at either carrier?
Why only comparing these two? At least 3 other large regionals also have some type of repayment contract for new FO's

 

Yeah, repayment of a taken bonus is miles apart from the garbage contracts these two have produced.

 

You dont want any opinions about them but you've already opined quite strongly yourself. If you think they are both excrement sandwhiches why not find something more agreeable? That said I think you could make a fine life at either. Both pros and cons. Many have done so of course your results may vary, but I'd advise against going somewhere you hate before you even set foot on property. You wont be happy.

 

Presumably the end goal is a legacy, but yeah better learn to enjoy the journey. Don't want to spend your whole career up until your final three years pizzed off that you're not a WB CA with weekends and holidays off.

If you're younger, better assume there will be at least a couple ups and downs along the way. Aggressively pursue a seniority number at your career-destination airline (shoot for "too big to fail"), hang on tight, and enjoy the ride.

If you're older, better plan based on known industry conditions, and have a plan C for worst case Black Swan that you might not have time to recover from.

 

You presume a lot about what I think about this two airlines and totally misread what I am attempting to find via opinion on these boards. I think it fair to presume that being contractually bound to any employer with handcuffs that (financially) penalizes you for failing to meet a contractual time limit is less desirable than a similar opportunity that does not bind you. Both these airlines have very good reputations within the industry, but both are looking to use the current employment environment to solve manning issues that could be handled with a carrot rather than a stick.

To the degree the marketplace for pilots votes with its feet to support this business model, it will only be a matter of time before there will be no choice for any pilot seeking this path into professional aviation. You may be too young to remember but most of these airlines, or the earlier renditions of them, had pay to play, buy your training and get a minimum wage for the honor of getting to fly a 19, 30, or 50 seat airplane. Time will tell where the shoe drops next regarding employment contracts.

 

I don't think they can actually do that. The benefits of a career at a major have as much to do with the type of flying as management's willingness to pony up.

Bigger planes generate more revenue, with which to pay the pilots and provide great benefits.

Bigger planes almost always fly longer routes, which increases trip efficiency and QOL.

There's also the ego factor, while that's a personal thing, I'd guess it matters to at least 50% of pilots.

About the only thing regionals have going for them is bases in smaller towns... where majors do have bases in smaller, low tax locations they go very senior relative to the big hubs in major metro-area poop-holes.


Arguments were made 20-30 years ago by some regional pilots that they should get paid at high enough levels that their flying would operate at a loss. They would be subsidized by mainline flying, which relied on feed to the big hubs. That argument didn't prevail, and that was in an era where regionals actually did almost exclusively regional hub feed.

The fundamental problem is that if you raise the wages (cost) too much, the business becomes non-sustainable. Like what we see with fast food minimum wage mandates eliminating businesses and jobs. The business model doesn't support a single parent raising three kids with an upper-middle class lifestyle and sending them to college.... the customers will just go to Vons and cook their own dinner at home, vice paying $40 for burgers and fries.

The current regional wages are probably at or near the max sustainable... maybe even more than sustainable if the legacies are deliberately and temporarily subsidizing the regional model just to get it over the retirement wave hump. There probably won't be another retirement wave ever, many majors are intentionally hiring a diverse age group to avoid that down the line. It's no longer 1985, where you had to do your 5-7 year obligation at the fighter squadron and then scramble to get hired by the airlines before the age 30 cutoff.