90 Seat Regional Jets
 

I believe that regionals should be limited to 70 seat aircraft.
I am trying to find out what regional airlines fly aircraft with more than 70 seats but less than say 110 seats.
I know Air Wisconsin flies the BAE-146
I know Mesa flies the CRJ-900
I know JetBlue flies the EMB-190
I saw Republic has a pay scale for the EMB-190, but do they actually own any, or are they on order?
Any other regionals that fly aircraft with 70-110 seats and give regional airline pay?
Thanks a lot

What's a regional jet?

Was Indy Air's airbus a regional? It was flown by a regional.

Was northwest's old DC-9-10 a regional. It held less than an 190 and had less range. It even had less range then some 50 seaters.

The regionals will fly any airplane that the majors give up in scope.

Jetblue isn't a regional...I think I know what you mean, but today a regional is alot different than it used to be.....instead of saab's, DH8, BE1900, its CRJ900 E170, etc.

Employees should stay away from telling employers what type of equipment it should operate. Can you name a successful company, or even an industry, that has been successful when the employees dictate to the management and even the companies' founders what kind of equipment they can operate (i.e. scope clauses), what they will pay the employees to operate it, and when and how they will work (work rules)?? Can you name any?

If that is your desire, start your own business. Never outside of the airline industry have I heard employees who felt it was their right to run the company. If you are capable of running a business then do it. But when you seek employment at the door of another man, then let that man decide how and where to make the profits.

i think i am missing your point. please explain why you feel they should be limited to 70 seats?

wouldn't it be nice..........
 

Like to hear your feelings on scope when JB starts flying to Barcelona with Spanish pilots!!:D

Flier2005,
No kidding...Why should there be limited on how many seats they fill?! And I concur, regionals use to be T-props only. The definition has changed somewhat over the years. (T-props to RJ's)

On a side note, the reason why they are operating a/c with more seats is because of money. Let me give you an example: My dad told me that in a 50-seat RJ, typically the first 20 seats pay for operating cost, fuel, the 'whole nine' and the last 30 seats are basically profit. RJ's operating cost/maint expenses/etc. cost just a little more then the equivelant sized T-prop commutor, BUT they have longer range, and get you there faster. Anyways, I could go on and on, but here's the bottom line...The more seats there are to fill, the more money. Companies like dollar signs!!!

Thats how I understand the whole gambit. If I am wrong, somebody please correct me.

D

When has scope ever not allowed the airline to operate any type of airplane that they want?

Name me any airline that can't fly whatever they want. If a regional wants to fly bigger equipement then go ahead and try. They might lose some agreement with a major that they do business with but they can do it if they want. (ie when delta pulled away from ACA because they got airbuses)

Northwest believes that 76-100 seat airplanes are going to save their company. If this is true they why don't they go out and get some. Nothing is stopping them. There is nothing in Northwest scope clause that says they can't buy even a 2 seat jet.

i checked the specs on the new DHC-8-400Q, on a 300nm route it only needs to fill 35 seats to break even...
I'd like to know how a 50 seat RJ can fill 20 seats and break even when they use twice the gas ? Sorry but thats not making too much sense to me.....
They may get you there faster but with fuel prices the way they are, my money is on the turbo props....

Sounds like the airlines are starting to feel that way too. Horizon converted all of their remiaing CRJ-700 deliveries to Q400s didn't they? I have a feeling Expressjet and Skywest are about to see a turn in their fortunes. I'm also curious how fast Eagle is going to continue to pull T-props from their fleet.

Well I know you cant believe everything you hear but everyone I know with the CL-65 type rating can testify that they have been told it only takes 20 seats to ballance the books.

But I usually dont consider tenth party sources as facts.

40% Break even load factor?
 

You really need to start comparing apples to apples here. If I charge 5000 for a DAL-HOU R/T, then 1 seat will pay for the a/c.
If I charge 99 dollars for that same flight, then I break even only when its full.

RJ economics make sense up to time x, (about 1.5 hours based on a study I did for a Euro carrier-when fuel was 18/barrel) beyond that its not that efficient.
If the market only has 45 pax a day, then it makes no sense to put in a 737 to fly that segment. But by the same token, if I need 3 RJs in and out of the city pair, thats when it becomes questionable.

RJ's started life by supposedly taking a marginal market and allowing it to grow for bigger a/c. Now obviously with the RJ glut, they are trying to compete with larger a/c. A recent trip of mine had me fly from Texas to YYZ.The next day I am in Mexico, then in LAX. None of these city pairs are "marginal".

I think that there is a need for RJ's by all mainline carriers. The problem is not that we have too many RJ's(we do) the problem is we have too many airlines.

Also,the Low Cost Carriers can come in and -here is the kicker- not provide a much cheaper seat, but provide more capacity which in a supply and demand market keeps prices low. Try a search on one of the online travel sites and compare prices. They are not that far off between low cost and legacy.

I think limiting an airline to x seats per a/c doesn't help anyone. What we should hope for is for this sub-contracting of flying to stop. And (let me get my nomex on before everyone flames away) a shrinkage in capacity.
And if the shrinkage occurs, there will be hundreds if not thousands of un-employed and under-employed pilots out there. The fact that any airline has such huge amounts of apps on file pretty much means that they can dictate pay and benefits. Just like an RJ glut, we have a pilot glut.
-----Closes lid on bomb shelter. Fire away.

Nice post
 

I enjoyed reading your post KPT. I think you have a good point that RJ's allowed airlines to serve marginal markets, and that probably led to more pilot jobs.

My problem with the large RJ's is that regionals are operating large RJ's that are replacing mainline jets. I think these 90 seat jets should exist, but I think probably anything 75 and under should go to regionals, and anything 76 or up should go to major airlines at major airline pilot pay.

Heres the problems with 90 seat airplanes at the regional level...there are very few pilot groups who will hold the bar high enough on pay.

You have Mesa, Repubic, PSA all willing & fighting with each other to fly 70 and 90 seat airplanes for crappy pay. Hell, Co-Ex, Piedmont (if you break it down by seats), Airwilly, and a few others make more flying 50 seat airplanes than what those guys make for the bigger ones.

But the majors love it, if they can have the regionals fight over bigger airplanes for making WAY less than they should. . .then they're winning! I could care less if I'm flying a C152 if you're going to pay me what I expect to make for it.

I agree with ryane946 110%.

I don't agree you should set an arbitrary number like 76, why 76?? But yes, I also agree they shouldn't be at the regional level. I was EXTREMELY happy when US Airways said that the E190 will be at the major level, untouchable to the likes of repubic or mesa. I just wish they would have taken the CRJ900 too, not sure of why they made the distinction.

I think your missing the very important point of scope and that's "in the service of".

Your correct that an airline may "fly what it wants", but at the risk of destroying a marketing/code share agreement. Take any regional flying "in the service of" any major. They can't fly an aircraft in that service barred by scope of a pilot contract.

So, to me the million dollar question is why can't major mainline carriers find a way to keep it all in the family and fly RJ's themselves instead of farming it out to a second party? Why can Air Canada do it, but no one else can?

It's not that they CAN'T, it's because they DON'T WANT TO. Why pay a mainline guy mainline pay to fly a 90 seater when there is a regional guy just itching for a chance to fly that 90 seater for roughly half the rate? This is exactly what the mainline carriers want. Sub-contract out the work to the lowest bidder, its the American way...

Well, I mean just like the other aircraft in the fleet, make the pay comesurate with the size of the aircraft. Im sure a mainline pilot is smart enough to realize that he will not be paid the same to fly a CRJ as he would to fly a 737. Just like a 737 driver knows he's not going to be paid the same as a 777 driver (unless he flies for WN). Scope clauses are a headache in that they are an artificial cap on the number of seats an aircraft can have and how many of that type can be flown, which means the airline is not able to effectively match capacity with demand. Like I said, Air Canada obviously found a way to make it work.

Yes, how dare a labor union negotiate contractual language to prevent the outsourcing of union jobs. :rolleyes:

one word:

COMAIR

when they went on strike for 89 days they effectively shut part of delta down. they were their feed. delta, and the other carriers, wished to avoid a single company holding them hostage in the future...

I think he was refering to AirCanada operating their own RJ's. Mainline aircanada operated the RJ's starting in 1995 and still operate some themselves today. AC deciding to operate the RJ's themselves instead of givin them to their regional turned AC around. AC went from near bankruptcy and possible layoffs to hiring like 500 pilots right away followed by major expansion all caused by deciding to fly RJ's themselves.
I think Delta, NWA, United, American, continental should all start operating RJ's themselves.

air canada and jazz are now seperate, although owned by the same company

All CRJ aircraft are operated by jazz, and on a seperate senority list

[QUOTE=ryane946]I believe that regionals should be limited to 70 seat aircraft.
I am trying to find out what regional airlines fly aircraft with more than 70 seats but less than say 110 seats.
I know Air Wisconsin flies the BAE-146
I know Mesa flies the CRJ-900
I know JetBlue flies the EMB-190
I saw Republic has a pay scale for the EMB-190, but do they actually own any, or are they on order?
Any other regionals that fly aircraft with 70-110 seats and give regional airline pay?
Thanks a lot[/QUO

I think it should be Fedral Law that this flying cant be farmed out to feeders at more than 70 seat jets!!! Thats where it should stop.....plan and simple....." why " you may ask?

BECUASE people will never or VERY RARELY get to a Major/Legacy carrier because they are basicly outsoursing their OWN future.......

by the way I work at a regional.....and I DONT want to fly more than 70 seats( at the expense of destroying an industry) so I can tell the gals in bars I fly for " INSERT AIRLINE HERE THAT THEY REALLY DONT FLY FOR " ( just a paint sceme) ........SJS is really killing us all....

Jazz only started recieving RJ's a couple years ago. Originaly(1995) Mainline AirCanada flew the RJ's themselves with all the new RJ pilots on the AirCanada senority list. Since about 2003 AC has been sending their RJ's to Jazz. But AirCanada still operates I think 3-4 RJ's themselves with those remaining pilots on Air Canada's senority list.

No I didn't miss that part. When ACA lost the united contract they also lost the delta contract because they decided to get the airbus's. No airline is limited to the size of aircraft but they may lose contracts with other airlines. It's their choice to fly whatever they want too.

I think it's funny when people believe the regionals should be allowed to fly bigger and bigger equipment for whom ever they fly for. They never seem to have a good answer when I ask why they should be allowed to take more flying from the majors.

I heard that PSA rejected the intial proposal from US Air to fly the 900s at 70 seat rates (which they currently fly for 50 seat rates. If it is true, good for them.

what you're saying just doesn't make any sense.

the 146 used to be a mainline aircraft. How many are flying around at mainline these days? How many are flying at regionals these days? Used to, coulda, shoulda, woulda, etc. doesn't mean anything anymore IMO.

Air Canada does operate 6 CRJ's at mainline, but compared to the 66 jazz operates it's insignificant. All future CRJ's will go to jazz.

Don't misunderstand me, Im not "blaming" mainline guys for having these provisions in their contracts. My point that I think only Linebacker35 seems to get is that if the mainline guys simply flew these smaller aircraft themselves like Air Canada did initially with CRJ's and now with E175-190's that there would be no need for such language, no whip-sawing, no farming out to the lowest bidder...sh!t it could possibly keep people like J.O. outta this business.

Two words...THANK YOU!

We all get it, but the past is the past. You can't change it. For the majors to start flying the RJ's again, profits would have to be in the billions for the pilots to have the leverage to scope that flying. Not only that, but the majors would have to purchase the feeders. Look what happened to AWAC in the 90's to see how well that went down.

And even then, when the industry turns down AGAIN, they will lose it in concessions. It's a lost cause.

Personally, I think the government should've gotten involved a long time ago. If you call United, and purchase a ticket from say DEN-[insert small town], you aren't flying on United at all. Chances are it's mesa or skywest.

If you do the same for dominos, do you expect your pizza to come from Sal's Pizzeria down the street? Nope.

There is nothing inherently interesting to the government in the outsourcing of regional flying. It is not particularly dangerous, decietful, or unethical. Everything is disclosed, as long as you read your ticket.

The government will NOT, even in the best of times, intervene in this industry strictly for the sake of pilot compensation. The government represents the best interest of the people as a whole, which in this case is measured by ticket prices...the lower the better! Most of the news media ( and passengers) think the recent rise in fares is a catastrophe (for them).

Pilots are not going to get what they want, need, or deserve via the graciousness of management, politicians, or the traveling public. Anything we get, it's going to be because we approach the problem in a strategic, unemotional fashion, set up the playing field to our advantage, then strike without mercy at the time most favorable to us, and TAKE WHATEVER WE CAN GET AWAY WITH! That is the nature of business, and we are in business for ourselves. Obviously part of the strategy needs to be to avoid killing the goose that lays the golden eggs! Also, CAREFULLY CALCULATED public displays of emotion can be effective in persuading stockholders and directors during negotiations.

As a professional 121 pilot, I do have some duties to the traveling public, which I fulfill regardless of the state of my compensation:
1) I come to work well rested (depending on schedule) and sober.
2) I do my job in a very thorough manner, and double and triple check some things that I might not worry about in my own cessna.
3) I will divert or cancel if in doubt, even though the company (and the pax) will be ****ed off about it.

My duties to the public DO NOT extend to the point of working for a single nickel less than I can squeeze out of the company...I am a dedicated professional, not a charity! Look at doctors, architects, and civil engineers...they are pretty meticulous about their work, but they don't come cheap.

It's interesting you feel that way. If you would ask 80%-90% of the pax, they would say they are traveling on United/US Air/Northwest etc.

Just yesterday some guy gets on "we've had a really bad experience with this airline all day!" he exclaims. "Oh really, which airline?" "US AIR!!" he screams as he's getting onto an Air Wisconsin flight.

Personally, while it is disclosed, the traveling public is inherently 'stupid' when in comes to subcontractors. They only know of the mainline carrier. Yes, some do know about the "regionals" but larger and larger aircraft (think Republics 170 mishap in IAD, remember the news reports? "United airplane blah blah blah...") and jet aircraft are blending mainline and feeder.

VERY, VERY well said!

If that is your desire, start your own business. Never outside of the airline industry have I heard employees who felt it was their right to run the company. If you are capable of running a business then do it. But when you seek employment at the door of another man, then let that man decide how and where to make the profits.[/QUOTE]

Well, obviously Harvard educated lawyers can't run an airline. Besides raking in huge golden pararchutes, it appears they are great of running airlines into the ground! :cool:

Rick Air For President!

the largest breakdown in scope was when america west allowed freedom (owned by mesa air group) to operate the CRJ900. True, it is a profitable airplane but mesa has $21/hour FOs operating it. This is why the company is making money.

the 70 seat barrier hasnt been broken at many companies, but it has for US Airways. Either way, it HAS to stop here. The E190 is a mainline aircraft- and oh by the way Embraer calls is a E-190 not a ERJ-190.

Regional Pilots:
STICK TO YOUR PAYRATES, AND DO NOT ACCEPT ANYTHING LARGER THAN THE CRJ900. If you do, you will be shooting yourself in the foot and slowing advancement for everyone.

IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS, YOU REALLY REALLY NEED TO. Mainline QOL and pay is much better, and regionals don't deserve to fly mainline aircraft. SJS folks need to have patience.

I will strike for anything larger than 90 seats coming on regional property. ALPA NATIONAL NEEDS TO BACK THIS... ACROSS THE BOARD.

Questions?

Yes, ALPA needs to back it. . . BUT. . .they wont. They will flop over dead like they have already. I do wish you luck though.

A point to consider....Why are the RJ at the regional and not at mainline? I've read all of your post and you are all neglecting the big picture, i.e. you are taking everything from a pilot job/pay perspective. Consider this...... It is not whether or not the mainline guy would fly it for x and the rj still be profitable. Rather, it is the total operation. A CRJ can make money at the regional and not make money at a major. Why you ask?
ASA pays a flight attendant $18.00/hr Delta $53.00-ASA mechanic $20.00 Delta mechanic 59.00
ASA Gate agent $9.00 Delta G/A 28.00 ASA ramper $8.00 Delta Ramper $20.00

Get the picture? Of course I'm guessing on a lot the numbers but you get the idea. In addition a regional pilots work rules allow for greater productivity than a mainline guy, again driving down the cost per block hour.

now an opinion,
the arguement seems to be it would be better to as few aircraft as possible at the regionals and as many as possible at the major pressumably because you believe it would be a better job. My answer to this is simply a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush.
Until you have ten years at the regionals and have lived through massive change in the industry. The road to a "major airline job" is paved with pilots who didn't make the big show. And you know what? It had nothing to do with who they were or how good a pilot they were. This is a cyclical industry. My crew lounge is full of guys that would have all gotten great jobs had the winds of fortune blown the other way.

Don't judge a man until you've walked a mile (of the picket line) in his shoes.