|
Why number of seats and not seating capacity?
Hi folks,
Not an airline pilot yet, but I've been reading up on the Republic E190's. I've noticed a lot of discussion about the number of seats on board the aircraft. More than one post deals with the fact that the plane may be configured for under 99 seats. From what I understand, the management is getting the upper hand by configuring the plane just inside of what the contract allows. Why are contracts drafted based on the number of seats installed on the aircraft? Why not make the contract based on the maximum seating capacity of the plane to prevent this type of thing? Surely the manufacturer and the FAA can come to some agreement on the maximum number of seats for each aircraft type, so why not use that value? What's to prevent a mainline carrier putting 50 business class seats in a 757 and giving that flying to a regional? I'm not trying to start an argument, but I'm just curious why contracts use seats and not seating capacity. |
Originally Posted by Senior Skipper
(Post 623089)
From what I understand, the management is getting the upper hand by configuring the plane just inside of what the contract allows.
Even if it's temporarily cost-prohibitive, they'll do it just to get the bigger plane flying cheaper, then cry-uncle to loosen the scope. As to why we don't start to write capacity into scope clauses rather than seat number, I think that can be chalked up to precedence... |
Originally Posted by matlok
(Post 623098)
As to why we don't start to write capacity into scope clauses rather than seat number, I think that can be chalked up to precedence...
Well now that Republic has set this precedent, I hope other carriers will start to use seating capacity in their contract negotiations. It really is sad. |
The scope at UAL uses seating capacity, along with MGTOW.
|
Majors usually use certified seat capacity & MGTOW.
Regionals have not always been that savvy. In fact bombardier created a "CRJ 705" specifically to get around somebody's scope (I can't recall who). It is basically a 900, but certified for 70 seats. With smaller RJ's, it's all about seats. But as airplanes get larger, cargo revenue becomes more and more significant...you need to account for that as well as pax revenue. |
Seats were first determined by regulation.
29 pax for INTRAstate, 19 pax for INTERstate travel do not require a flight attendant. That is why Brazilias, Jetstreams, B1900s, etc. were built for 19 or 29 pax. With scope and the "that's how we always did it" mentality, seats continue to be the yardstick. |
That and in 2003 CHQ which is all there was at Republic Airways Holdings didn't have anything larger than 50 seats.
Management of course has used this to their advantage by loading up larger jets in the interm before they have to pay higher rates. |
Originally Posted by Senior Skipper
(Post 623089)
Hi folks,
Not an airline pilot yet, but I've been reading up on the Republic E190's. I've noticed a lot of discussion about the number of seats on board the aircraft. More than one post deals with the fact that the plane may be configured for under 99 seats. From what I understand, the management is getting the upper hand by configuring the plane just inside of what the contract allows. Why are contracts drafted based on the number of seats installed on the aircraft? Why not make the contract based on the maximum seating capacity of the plane to prevent this type of thing? Surely the manufacturer and the FAA can come to some agreement on the maximum number of seats for each aircraft type, so why not use that value? What's to prevent a mainline carrier putting 50 business class seats in a 757 and giving that flying to a regional? I'm not trying to start an argument, but I'm just curious why contracts use seats and not seating capacity. As a comparison: ExpressJet has pay assigned by the model i.e. EMB145 Republic has pay assigned by the seating configuration i.e. 50-59 seats Its all about how you set up the working in your contract. |
I bet this Republic fiasco will push all regionals if they have a seat number in their contract to change to a type or type groupings. Since we all can see just how BAD management can be in manipulating contracts, this is why you need a good union and smart lawyers to close big gaping loopholes.
This loophole situation goes well beyond Republic, to all airlines, check out your contract, close the holes! This way this sort of thing isn't likely to happen again. |
Originally Posted by powrful1
(Post 623220)
That and in 2003 CHQ which is all there was at Republic Airways Holdings didn't have anything larger than 50 seats.
Management of course has used this to their advantage by loading up larger jets in the interm before they have to pay higher rates. In 2003? The CRJ 900's were entering service and the E-170 was around the corner. The E-190 was in development. Ignorance is not an excuse. Maybe alpa should get an Aviation Week subscription for key leadership personnel :rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by Senior Skipper
(Post 623089)
Surely the manufacturer and the FAA can come to some agreement on the maximum number of seats for each aircraft type,.
|
RAH is one of the few airlines to base pay solely on the number of seats installed. Why would someone use such a pay criteria? Here are a few reasons and other facts to keep in mind:
When RAH (then strictly CHQ) signed this current contract, all aircraft they operated were configured for all coach, high density seating. The Saab sat 30 (A-model), the 135 sat 35, the 140 sat 44, and the 145 sat 50. At the time, there had not been a situation where the aircraft might have less than maximum seating. To the pilots who ratified this contract, pay based on seats seemed to be adequate. The E170, not on property but rumored to be coming in 2003, appeared as though it would seat 70. But even at 76 seats, the aircraft would fall under the same pay rate. Since the 170 would realistically pay the same rate no matter the configuration, negotiating (and possibly giving up something in return) for pay criteria beyond seats alone did not seem worthwhile. It is unknown for sure, but it is likely that management favors/favored the seats installed criteria because of business simplicity: each seat generates revenue. Pay is subtracted from revenue. In order to maintain a stable "profit", pay should be linked directly to revenue earned. More seats equals more pay. Theoretical/certified seating means little when setting a reimbursement rate with a customer airline. Gross weight means little when setting reimbursement rates (under a fee-per-departure agreement). Good judgment comes from good experience. Good experience comes from bad judgment. The pilots who ratified the current RAH contract felt that this contract was a worthwhile improvement over the previous CBA, but experience has shown that the pilots and negotiating committee were short sighted in many areas. I would be very surprised to see a continuation of a strictly seats-installed pay scale in the upcoming RAH contract. We have seen how management can abuse the system. We have 175's being flown for Delta that pay captains $8/hr less that the captains of our US Airways 175's because of the seats installed system. Same plane with two levels of pay. Also, we have seen the error of having a single pay scale for F/O's that has no basis in aircraft size. The contract was ratified when most FO's were flying 30 seat props, and some were flying 50 seat jets. We still have that 30 seat pay but now we have 94 seat jets. Of course, this is why contracts become amendable. |
Originally Posted by Rightseat Ballast
(Post 623384)
RAH is one of the few airlines to base pay solely on the number of seats installed. Why would someone use such a pay criteria? Here are a few reasons and other facts to keep in mind:
When RAH (then strictly CHQ) signed this current contract, all aircraft they operated were configured for all coach, high density seating. The Saab sat 30 (A-model), the 135 sat 35, the 140 sat 44, and the 145 sat 50. At the time, there had not been a situation where the aircraft might have less than maximum seating. To the pilots who ratified this contract, pay based on seats seemed to be adequate. The E170, not on property but rumored to be coming in 2003, appeared as though it would seat 70. But even at 76 seats, the aircraft would fall under the same pay rate. Since the 170 would realistically pay the same rate no matter the configuration, negotiating (and possibly giving up something in return) for pay criteria beyond seats alone did not seem worthwhile. It is unknown for sure, but it is likely that management favors/favored the seats installed criteria because of business simplicity: each seat generates revenue. Pay is subtracted from revenue. In order to maintain a stable "profit", pay should be linked directly to revenue earned. More seats equals more pay. Theoretical/certified seating means little when setting a reimbursement rate with a customer airline. Gross weight means little when setting reimbursement rates (under a fee-per-departure agreement). Good judgment comes from good experience. Good experience comes from bad judgment. The pilots who ratified the current RAH contract felt that this contract was a worthwhile improvement over the previous CBA, but experience has shown that the pilots and negotiating committee were short sighted in many areas. I would be very surprised to see a continuation of a strictly seats-installed pay scale in the upcoming RAH contract. We have seen how management can abuse the system. We have 175's being flown for Delta that pay captains $8/hr less that the captains of our US Airways 175's because of the seats installed system. Same plane with two levels of pay. Also, we have seen the error of having a single pay scale for F/O's that has no basis in aircraft size. The contract was ratified when most FO's were flying 30 seat props, and some were flying 50 seat jets. We still have that 30 seat pay but now we have 94 seat jets. Of course, this is why contracts become amendable. So, in retrospect, how good an idea do you, as a RAH pilot, think negotiating rates for 100 seat jets at a regional airline was? |
EMJ140 aka The Scope Buster!
|
Well there's such thing as an EMB/ERJ 140, but no EMJ 140. How is it a scope buster? RAH isn't the only operator of the 140...
Mason32, there is no 100 seat pay rate. If you're gonna hate, at least get it right... |
He's right, you know. No 100 seat payrate. 99 seat payrate, yes. 100, no.
Get it straight.:rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by 145Driver
(Post 623530)
Well there's such thing as an EMB/ERJ 140, but no EMJ 140. How is it a scope buster? RAH isn't the only operator of the 140...
135-(something), not an actual "140". So for someone preaching to "get it right" you seemed to miss that one all the way around... :rolleyes: 50 seat jets were the "original" scope-busters... in the not so distant past, mainline carriers were insistent that any JET aircraft would be mainline only. Scope has slipped a LOT... |
Originally Posted by matlok
(Post 623750)
... in the not so distant past, mainline carriers were insistent that any JET aircraft would be mainline only. Scope has slipped a LOT...
In the beginning, certain airframes were worthy and others were not. The inch was given, the miles are being taken. The legacy pilots, through their hubris allowed, the creation and establishment of the B-scale airlines, saying " This one is not good enough for real pilots. You fly it for a while, sonny-boy, then we'll see if we'll let you join the 'real pilot' club." The jobs were created and were taken in hope of graduation into the hallowed ranks. Yet now the creators of the jobs curse the very people who took them. Had the market not been created in the first place, nobody would have even heard of a "regional airline" and not even BE1900's would have the word "express" painted on them. This is the monster that was created. The legacy's have reaped what they have sowed. And it is a bitter harvest indeed. However, when the finger is pointed, it should not be pointed at the fruit of the labor, but at those responsible for planting the seeds. |
Originally Posted by Mason32
(Post 623443)
So, in retrospect, how good an idea do you, as a RAH pilot, think negotiating rates for 100 seat jets at a regional airline was?
But, to answer your question: I see no problem with negotiating pay scales for 100, 150, or 200 seat aircraft. In principle, it makes sense to put as much thought into a contract as possible, and cover all contingencies in advance. It saves a lot of work and headache down the road. That said, I do feel that the people directly responsible for the current contract's negotiations, and the pilots who ratified it, sold themselves short. I feel that the pay-by-seats criteria left too much room for abuse. I feel that the divisions in the pay-by-seats scale are too broad. I feel that negotiating committee should have made it more cost prohibitive to expand into these larger airframes. 70 seaters were essentially a reality at the regionals in 2003, though they were not on property yet at RAH. I understand and accept that those pilots on property chose to settle for average pay rates that were competitive for 70 seat aircraft. However, no one was flying 78-99 seat aircraft then, and I feel the union had nothing to lose by pursuing pay rates for that class of airplane that would either prevent the company from getting them, or greatly reward the pilots who flew them. Granted, they did get about $8/hr more for that pay class, but of course that is still inadequate. Yes, I saw the pay before I came to RAH. The 70 seat pay was competitive. I was fine with that. I had worked worse places, and I had been laid off from better places. Starting at the middle of the road was acceptable to me. The FO pay scale obviously needs overhauled. That is why contracts become amendable. |
Originally Posted by Rightseat Ballast
(Post 624242)
. . . I see no problem with negotiating pay scales for 100, 150, or 200 seat aircraft. . . . .
By placing this kind of wording in the contract you strongly imply to management that you're ok with your/other regional airlines moving this direction. Bad idea. If I misread your post I apologize, but if I didn't, then: It is this kind of reasoning that accelerates the "race to the bottom" on so many levels I don't know where to start. This may not be true of you, but this statement implies that you must not ever be planning on advancing to a major, you don't care about those that are, and you don't mind the pay being dragged down across the board at every airline (and ultimately the transfer of jobs from major to regional) with every rung you climb up at yours.:confused::( |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:06 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands