Shootinstr8

I tried to ask this question and got some responses earlier but I guess they got lost in the system migration. All of us have a dog in this race, so once again (seriously) What would be the major beef in sitting down as three pilot groups and working out an agreement that would benefit all three pilot groups? I don't need the typical "it will never happen" responses but some thoughtful insight. We all have families and obligations. I feel we are looking at the beginning of a huge transformational period in the industry. A period of "Mega Regionals" serving many partner legacy airlines for feed. With the reduction in domestic travel coupled with high fuel cost Majors will shed their domestic lift for lucrative international routes. This would force regionals to serve that domestic carriage. From 50-mega 100+ seat aircraft would replace gas guzzling older 737s, DC-9s and MD-88s. Most Majors have indicated they do not want to invest heavily in airframes for the short jet segments, leaving lower costing Mega regional to fill the void. Now if this is a period of major change, why can't we all sit down in good faith and work out a great contract/agreement that benefits all three groups equally. Rickair, Jetjock and Tony W all of you have been very vocal on this board, I like to hear how we could work this out. Lets say you were king for a day, how would you craft this 7800 pilot Mega Regional to prevent going backwards but move forward on pay and QOL. Lets be serious there is a lot riding on our decisions.

SabreDriver

A couple of questions...

1. What three groups are you talking about?

2. Explain how a "regional," mega or otherwise, will "force" a legacy company to do anything, and how will your explanation square with Delta's method of dealing with Freedom (Mesa).

3. Explain how a "Mega Regional" could possibly be lower cost using the 50-100 seat aircraft, in terms of CASM, unless of course labor (that's us) is willing to work for less than they are already (not me). Under the fee for departure scheme you currently have, about the only thing you can do is duck when the next whipsaw comes by.

4. Just what decision do you/we get to make in this process, other than just coming to work when you are supposed to.

Shootinstr8

By working together as one unified pilot group (union or not) we could be in a better negotiating position when the inevitable.. "either you take this offer or we'll have to give it to the other pilots."

Justdoinmyjob

Most of the domestic lift is already being provided by regionals. That is why we are seeing the turmoil in the regional sector. This is where the reductions are. Plus, how do you propose getting around the scope clauses which keep the regionals from operating over 76 seats? It is cheaper for the majors to just cut back the regional lift in a market and replace it with one or two flights a day on larger gauge.

If you really want to see some carnage in the regional market, wait til the majors quit paying for the gas and make the regional pay ifor it instead.

I do agree though that the SKWY and ASA pilots need to work together to keep management from playing both groups.

Shootinstr8

Just.. I agree that vast amount of lift is being provided by regional carriers. I also believe we are witnessing a truly Transformation Period within the industry. The smaller carriers are finding more difficult to deal with the rising cost and are trimming or outright quitting and going out of business. This is a normal reaction to our current economic condition, but small to medium markets will still need to get serviced. This not to say that the "Big Six" will not just cut capacity or reduce frequency, but those big shiny 777s and A330s won't just fill themselves. They are feverishly looking for ways to accomplish both. But in the end I believe that eventually the domestic lift will be provided more by regional companies and those companies will be fewer and larger...ie economies of scale argument. It would be nice though to have a labor force that was not forced to continuously concede pay and QOL in order to pay "stakeholders". I don't see the airlines asking the paying public to pay a fair price for services rendered or asking the fuel companies to lower their cost to help the bottom line. I just think that not being able to play one pilot group against the other serves all of well.

tpersuit

I don't see for the life of me why I hear some Skywest guys state a "merged list will never happen", since if our BOD and SKW decide to make the deal anyways, then our scope clause would have to be enforced. I can't imagine operating all three of us separate will ever bring us any good, but low wages. Just ask RAH, I'm sure those guys couldn't be happier they combined their lists. Also I think QOL would be the greatest with one list since we would have much more bases and the ability to move around a lot easier.

But if a merged list won't happen, I know most of the pilots at XJT will have a huge issue then.

Justdoinmyjob

I see it a different way. As the costs of doing business with regionals increases, the pendulum swings back to just flying the routes with mainline crews. So, how are the costs increasing you ask?

1. Fuel. As the cost of fuel increases, the pass trough costs increase to the legacy carrier. At some point, it crosses over to the mainline being more cost efficient. As capacity decreases, larger gauge will be required to fill the void.

2. Customer Satisfaction. As the pass through costs increase, the mainline will put pressure on the regional to lower their costs. This translates into pressure on employees through pay cuts etc. This leads to disgruntled employees and poor operational performance. Freedom is being kicked to the curb by Delta. As this happens to more regionals, it is easier to control the quality of the product if it's your own people doing the work. (Not saying that mainline is all shiney, happy people either though.)

What I see is a change in the regional market, where a few large regionals provide contracted lift to numerous mainline partners, (to mitigate their exposure,) in the 76 seat and below market on thin margin routes, and the mainline operating 80+ seats and above at the mainline. Don't look for any scope relaxation. The pilot demographic at the legacies is now heavily populated by X-regional pilots, and they will be the last to vote away seats and the first to be willing to operate 90-100 seats at the mainline.

Just my view as a 12 year veteran of the airline game as both a regional and mainline pilot.

HercDriver130

Just because we have a merged list at RAH doesnt mean we can bid across certificates or aircraft at will. As an FO you are locked to your certificate until upgrade and can only bid bases within your certificate. I.e. an RW 170 FO based in PHL cant decide they want to bid ATL on the S5 certificate. BECAUSE we are three airlines its considered new hire training when you move from one cert to the other and the company doesnt want to pay for lots of guys just moving around the system. On the CA side FO's can upgrade to any certificate they can hold... and CA's can only bid for a seat if the pay is greater than what they are making now..... i.e. a 170 ATL S5 CA can bid down to a CHQ 145 CA slot because the commute is easier......

Yes.. there are advantages to us being one list..... but the above are some of the pitfalls.

Boomer

Once upon a time, long before Freedom, GOjet, or ShuttleAmerica, Delta used/owned two regionals- Comair and ASA. Then one day the Comair pilots refused to fly for sub-par wages and closed down CVG and MCO for 68 days.

Fast forward 6 years and Delta has countless regionals, sold off ASA, and frequently threatens to close the doors on Comair, which has already been shrunk 30%, ate drastic paycuts in bankruptcy, and had the MCO base closed. Twice.

The big six don't want to deal with powerful "Mega regionals", which is exactly why regional pilots should be pondering it.

HercDriver130

I dont think they care how big a regional is.... I just dont think they want HUGE amounts of their flying all with one company........