Personally I could give a rat's patootie about airplane size. I'm more interested in having a job I like that pays well and a good schedule. I've jumpseated in a lot of aircraft and to me they are all the same (except for actual seat dimensions). They pretty much fly the same, land the same, have the same buttons, etc. etc. And while having a lot of room up in the cockpit is nice, it doesn't matter to me. The ATR is plenty big for me. I don't want to be flying 100 pax planes for 19 pax pay.

 

well thats what i'm saying. i agree completely with you. get more airplanes to mainline, and you have more higher paying jobs available. so why is there a thread wanting bigger planes at eagle?

 

I think many don't necessarily want BIGGER planes to fly, but with any RJ less then 70 seats become economically obsolete, they just want SOME viable aircraft to replace them. Naturally that means more 70-seaters.

Virtually every significant regional feeding a mainline carrier has 70-seaters...........and lots of them. Eagle only has 25 and would like to exchage most for 70-seaters. The APA will have to at the very least allow AMR the ability to match others regionals with cost effective aircraft. That means they will HAVE to allow a substantial number of 70-seaters. As far as larger then that, it's understandable (and likely) those aircraft will not show up at AA feeders.

70 seat RJ's have (and always will be) RJ's. They will always be flown by regional carriers. This crap about moving those over to mainline carriers with their cost structure is an unworkable fantasy. It's a good goal in principle, but completely unrealistic.

 

I'm pretty sure APA hates Eagle, but I could be wrong. They will do whatever it takes to protect AA, even if it means doing their best to see AE goes away.

Yeah, we could use some bigger aircraft in regards to economics. It makes sense. Either that or more props. But mainline sees bigger aircraft as a way to take away their jobs. I don't think mainline guys would want to fly our aircraft. I'd love to see the expression on the face of some 757 pilot when you offered him an ATR with the full seat configuration in it...the ones we can't have because of scope. "Alright Captain, here's your new plane!".

I don't pretend to understand this industry. I'm pretty certain I never will figure it out...but I'm also pretty certain I'm not alone. I think even management can join me on the ignorance train!

 

The APA isn't stupid. They know AA (and their jobs) depend on an effective feeder system. It's a necessity. That being said, as far as scope, they don't want any further erosions in what they've lost. Until they get an acceptable contract (or one not so good that's forced on them in arbitration - at least for those who stay after that), Eagle and our aircraft problems are simply one of the hostages until soemthing allows change.

It WILL happen within the next 18 months. AMR will get more 70-seaters for at least two feeders (one being the current Eagle, though smaller), but the overall feeder size may be smaller than current or no larger.

 

It would be SUPER cost effective to have Eagle fly 737's for regional pay. Boeing could just market it as the BRJ. Or maybe APA will agree to let Eagle fly the CRJ2500 whenever it comes out. 2.5 times as long as a CRJ1000 and flown by regional pilots because it says RJ in the name.

Where do we draw the line? Obviously APA and CALALPA have done what they can to preserve the line where they want it (and where it should be) There is no motivation to give flying away.

Feeder system, huh? PIT - MIA is a feeder route? TSA is packing full planes for 3 hr legs and Eagles packing people from XNA to LAX in a regional aircraft. Giving up scope at the majors does not allow for a more effective feeder, it allows mgmt to give jobs to the regionals.

 

I'm not arguing the moral points of this, just the realistic ones. It's too late for 70-seaters as the horse has not only left the barn, it's jumped the fence and bounded out of the corral never to be seen again. The fact of the matter is that 70-seaters are THE RJ of use now and dominate the market everywhere but at AA and CAL.

Yes, "feeder routes" no longer applies as these aircraft do plenty of long thinner routes as stand alone flying (but many of these pax still DO connect to mainline). Many of these routes can only be served by the "regional" aircraft (the XNA-LAX you admit to) and these aircraft can never be operated competitively at mainline, so it's either abandon the route (market share and profit) to others who DO have this capability or fly it with an aircraft economically viable (which includes labor costs).

That means AMR and CAL will eventually need the ability to operate these aircraft profitably to compete with the ENTIRE industry who's already there. AMR could add 2 737's daily (the minimum required) to compete against competitors on these routes, but couldn't offer the frequency most travelers demand and thus would still lose business to others, hurting profitability even more. If they abandon many of these routes, then AA would have to shrink to insure a better chance at profitability with less revenue...........that means a smaller airline and less jobs and advancement. As the final option, AA management could place their pilot needs first and just take over most of Eagle's flying with 737's or EMB-190's and lose their shirts to their competitors substantially lower cost structure and just end up in BK.

No easy answers are there ?

This is the byproduct of ALPA's faliure to see the RJ for what it has become (50% of the domestic market and like it or not........growing) and failing to insure a closer control of these aircraft (and their pilots) from the beginning when Comair first put them into service. When the RJ came to Eagle, the APA fumbled the ball in two ways by not learning from ALPA's philisophical blunder. The came up with weak scope language that AMR easily shuttle passed around the left side (for a touchdown) and they pushed Eagle pilots FARTHER away instead of drawing them closer in for THEIR (AA pilots) benefit.

Several years ago Eagle ALPA saw that it would be best to work together rather then remain adversaries. They started talking with the APA on mutual interests and billboards started appearing around DFW projecting pictures of the two groups smiling and cozy. Sadly, that collapsed as it became known that the APA was secretly negotiating with AMR to get the 70-seaters over to AA while still publicly representing a cooperative collaboration with Eagle ALPA and not saying anything to Eagle ALPA about their behind the scenes activities. This sucker punch was another classic example of not working TOGETHER to solve a problem and backfired.

AMR WILL get their feeder system (or short/medium range domestic ops, if that sounds better) to be competitive with UAL, DAL and U. When and how is the only question.

 

You mean the same 70 seaters that are suddenly big enough for a mainline company to furlough just about all their pilots and subcontract to the regional that will fly for less in somebody elses colors? Yeah, just more proof of why we don't want bigger planes at Eagle

It means no such thing. If the average load is down to 30-35 pax, how is it more efficient to run a 70 seater than a 37 seater... stop drinking the bigger airplane koolaid.

The Eagle scope, APA scope, and prior arbitrations have pretty much assured that there will be no additional outside contracting to subcontractors unless the situation is that Eagle and AA are unable to grow fast enough to meed AMR demand

The APA floor on pilots is 7300 and does not include any pilot from merged companies such as Reno or TWA. APA says the number has been reached, the company says no it hasn't. In any event, if it has, the contract requires AMR to stop ALL commuter flying, not just Eagle. Will it happen, no... but it is a huge bargaining chip...

Really? Try telling that to all the Midwest guys that just lost their jobs because a 70 seater was large enough to cover "most" flying...

AA flew the F100... they are flown at regional carriers, because regional pilots will do it for less money...

It worked very well at many mainline carriers, until managements realized they could get regional pilots into small jets, then larger jets, and then even larger jets... the 70+ seaters belong at mainline companies.
As long as you keep claiming it is unrealistic they will continue to slowly give regionals larger and larger jets eventually replacing every single good pilot job with crappy regional paying jobs. So, you go on keep saying it is unrealistic... when will you draw the line? when your flying a 73 for regional pay and work rules?

 

Gee.........I wasn't arguing the moral points, just the realistic ones. AMR WILL add more 70-seaters to their feeder system. It's not about what I want or believe in, it's just that those whose interests DO matter are the ones that want this and will ultimately get it.

I think you need to chill out bud................spend some more time in MSN and relax a bit !

 

Why can't that feeder system in itself be Mainline?? I'm with Flyinaway on this one...lets hope for smaller aircraft at the regional level -- maybe even :gasp: props -- putting Jets where they should be.