I only brought that up because it was appropriate to include, due to the claim by another member that we'd all be flying these larger RJ's for peanuts.

I would consider it poor taste to rub another pilots nose in what money I might make while flying, especially if they do not. If it's a discussion about how YOU might want to make more without working more, then METHODS would be appropriate, but I see no point in him blabbering about his actual income.

Now HERE, in might be an acceptable topic, but only in direct response to correct erronous insight by another.

Agreed - it is very poor form to rub someone's nose in the money you make. I could care less how much that CA's I fly with make as I'm sure they could care less how much or little I make! I was in the JS and an AA Captain kept showing me pictures of his farm, his car, his bed on steel rails that rolls out onto the sleeping porch...blah blah blah. Yes, oooh you are so rich, gosh I'm really impressed let me tell you!

Now as for the METHODS of making more and not working more - I'm all ears. I would love to know some of those techniques. The only time I hit the money jackpot was once when I bid OT (before the furloughs), had it awarded and was ineligible to fly it. I was so new I didn't even know what I was doing except trying to get some flight time.

Question regarding the CRJ options.....once the economy turns around and Eagle can figure out some financing, how long will it be until something GOOD happens? I attended a career fair in October in ORD and they were pretty confident about and optomistic about the CRJ's.......

The 22 CRJ's are never coming to Eagle. The next new plane at Eagle is going to be 170/175, Q-400, or the new ATR.

Never say "never".

It's very possible these aircraft may come to Eagle, but it would require the financing geegee be found. The other aircraft (with the exception of a replacement plane for plane of the ATR's) will require the AA scope conundrum be solved and that will take another 1-2 years. If at least 15% financing can be found, these 22 70-seaters would be valuable, but more then likely they'd be replacements for the remainder of the E-135's and perhaps some 140's, so it's very likely that Eagle wouldn't see any growth because of it (or very little).

I think AMR is more concerned with making their feeder system more effecient and competitive which makes it more profitable, then expanding its overall size.

Gotta keep the bait dangling on the hook... those CRJ options have to be over 8 years old by now... has anybody else EVER heard of options being held for over 2 years? The fact is those options expired LONG long ago... which is why they would not show them to the APA back in 2007.

Actually, the options question was grieved recently and the result was that the arbitrator found that 22 of the 25 options were still active despite the fact that the written agreement expired. This was a stunning, and almost laughable, ruling considering that AMRs argument was that the options were still valid because they had a secret verbal agreement with Bombardier to extend the options. Further, the company was required to notify the APA about the secret deal, but did not. The arbitrator did not have a problem with that violation either.

This goes along with the ruling that the 7300 employed AA pilot floor trigger for the commuter clause of the scope contract is not valid because the arbitrator ruled that furloughed pilots count as "employed" pilots. This ruling means that AA could furlough every single AA pilot yet not trigger the minimum pilot floor for continuing the commuter exception to scope. Also, a stunningly biased finding from a supposed neutral arbitrator.

One only has to use common sense and the obvious intent of the contract language to come to the conclusion that it really didn't matter what the contract said. Draw your own conclusions.

Here's one of my conclusions; It's interesting you highlight " stunning" and "laughable" arbitration results that coincidentally go against the APA and FOR AMR, yet you steadfastly believe something will be different down the road with scope.

Should an arbitrator (or judge) end up ruling on scope, it's my opinion you can add "devistating" to the above two descriptions of previous arbitrations. That is why I believe it's in the best interest for the APA (and most AA pilots) to swallow hard and accept a more reasonable stance that has already been adopted by AA's competitors as opposed to a mythical idea that even the APA cannot define.

Agreed. If I were APA I would want to keep everything far from reach of arbitration. It never turns out well for the pilots. At least if you negotiate you can get some sort of benefit in return. Arbitration gets you a squat.

Im thinking the CRJ options hinge on what happens with APA scope. If APA grants exceptions for E170s (to Eagle or any other carrier) then those CRJ options will be gone (and probably the existing CRJs @ Eagle as well). If APA plays hardball and doesn't want to grant exceptions to scope then look for the CRJ options to be exercised.

ATR's outta DFW by the end of the yr. More displacements to come.:(

If the ATR's are "out" then something will be brought "in". Travel is indeed down, but there will still be a need to run those military contracts (SPS,LAW,GRK).

Talked to CP, no truth whatsoever. He seems to think another furlough though. He admits it is just an inkling though. He said he has heard nothing to support it.

RJ's. Thats the reason for the 15 DCE vacancies. More to follow.

Stunning, yes, but the consequence of one of the parties ticking off the arbitrator by telling him "We demand an answer NOW!!!"

There is precedence for counting furloughed pilots as employees, but I thought the APA would win the case. Just goes to show that grandstanding can cause more problems than it solves and that patience is, indeed, a virtue.

Agreed. Since it is unlikely Eagle will make a large purchase of aircraft, even turboprops, until the APA contract is signed, I don't see any major changes at least a year or so. Anything is possible, but the status quo seems to be the best option for now.

I heard the other day that the number may be as high as 230 projected additional furloughs...Who knows.

If Eagle decides to park the ATR, maybe. No need to stress yourself out with the "I heard" crap.

Why run this latest displacement bid then ?

If this were so, you'd think they'd wait to make it part of a larger reduction. As it stands now, they'd be paying people for training who might need re-training on new equipment. Of course, it still would be POSSIBLE as it would take a month or two before any of these would likely go into a long term event, but I'd be surprised ig they were THIS shortsighted.

Captnem is a furloughed guy. My guess is he heard the rumor that was started on EL.

I'm a furloughed guy and have been hearing from folks still at eagle that they will recall by next January...

I don't think that is the case but unless AA does something extreme in terms of capacity I think this furlough thing is just a little paranoia.

I don't think that the company can afford to have 300 pilots on the streets. The staffing would be a nightmare. Again I think a massive fleet reduction would only warrant that kind of furlough.

I'll believe it when I see it...

Oh and have the 50 or so bottom guys actually gone of to training yet for the ATR...how's that whole thing panning out?

Haha, this furlough talk is freaking me out a little. I looked up age requirements for Navy OCS.

Just have Tiny eat the furloughed pilots. There's a lot in there to live off of before the recall. Hound Dog kill anyone, literally, lately?

Looking at the flowplan, it looks like they had ATR classdates from Mid-may until Jun-22. They should all be online by the end of august/beginning of sept.

If things don't improve in DFW within the next few months then they could drag a few of the E-135s out of the desert to cover some routes. I haven't heard any rumor or talk about doing this, so it is all just wild speculation.

I personally think the DFW ATR ops will stick around and by the fall everything will be running smoother than it is now. MTX will get used to the aircraft and so will the crews.

Those 135's are a waste. They pretty much lose money on every flight.

Really? Perhaps you can share some of your valuable insight into this area with the rest of us....

Except when you call it a "Legacy" and charge people $5000/hr to rent it.

It costs about $1500 an hour to operate in typical airline service... do the math on that.

Throw in an FO and it goes up to $1501 to operate.:D

I remember reading an earnings report stating the NY-DCA flights (using 135's) were some of the most profitable routes at AMR. Anyone have a copy of that?

I wonder how they come up with number. It has to cost more than that. Any insight?

There used to be a way to see how much it cost the company to operate an Eagle flight by looking at the bottom of the station copy of the release, between the flight plan portion and the fuel breakdown. That line of numbers with the max t/o weight, payload, etc. Anyone remember how to decode it?

yeah its the number next to either "d" or "q" i forget.... its usually around $2000

Im surprised we stopped the LGA-DCA flights, since they would serve as slot holders for both airports, and it was such a short flight. I know that the BOS-JFK route is consistently one of the most profitable in the AMR system due to connect revenue it bring in with the overseas flights.

From the BOS-JFK flt 4662 today:

$1068 to run the flight, not too shabby!

It doesn't. It used to be on the release forms that listed the costs of the flight. if you watched it, it averaged about 1500 an hour. Sounds about right too... hourly costs are typically lower when there is a high untilization. I'm not surprised by it, our old flight school had the same issues. There were fixed costs, aircraft mortage, insurance and things like that, and some costs that were variable costs based on hours of use such as; fuel, oil, scheduled mx... and other costs like unscheduled mx, unscheduled repairs or replacements, engine overhaul.... etc.... Basically, the more the planes flew, the less it cost to own them on an hourly basis.

So, I'm not at all surprised that a 25 million jet, can be operated for 1500 per hour.... if the same aircraft were in private or corp use getting 1/3 the use it would run 4,500 per hour. So, when you see Legacy's being chartered for about 5,000 per hour (which they are), it tends to validate the principle as fairly accurate.

I'm sure it was a matter of aircraft aquisition costs, including averaged mx costs, together with costs per hour for crew, fuel, taxes, fees, and the prorated portions per hour of all ground people involved....

If I knew the full story, I'd be running the airline instead of sitting behind the windscreen.... but, I do know that long ago I had inquired what the item on the release meant, and a station manager flat out told me it was the cost to the airline to run that flight...

Since then, I am told the numbers no longer appear on the release.... However, being that gas is back around where it was, and nobody has obtained any real meaningful pay or benefit increases... I would say the numbers are still pretty close...

enough insight for ya?

The 1500 included ALL costs associated with the flight... pro-rated rampers and gate agents included.

As a side note... and not to drift tooo far off topic... but,

I find it interesting to note that the typical ERJ top step Captain is getting between 90 and 105 per hour to fly a 35-50 seat jet.... that works out to at best over 2 dollars per seat.....

comparing that to mainline payscales.... I see that their Captains are getting around 1 dollar per seat.... so;

Who is it that is really bringing the industry down ?

they are still on there. give it a look next time