UA/CO merger effect on regionals
05-01-2010 | 06:30 PM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
From: pilot
Ignoring the labor issues (company and union) with that, it makes little sense from an equipment standpoint. The 50 seat RJ isn't obsolete, but there are far too many deployed right now. In fact many of the routes probably should be back in turboprops from an economic standpoint. Why would a mainline carrier that doesn't presently share the cost of owning those airplanes outside of the length of their FPD deal want to assume the cost of owning/disposing of those birds. While they're better than the 50's, you have to imagine that the same would be true of many of the 70 seaters. If the regionals were merged into mainline eliminating those scope issues, you'd have to think that the majors would trend towards 100 seat E-Jets and the upcoming C-Series so why take on the cost of getting rid of 70's as well? If a major became interested in doing this, I think they'd just put them on mainline with their pilots. They'd probably try and recoup the cost of breaking any FPD agreement through a combination of getting labor to accept lower payrates/worse workrules on the planes and by getting the manufacturers to agree to significantly lower prices for a large mainline order. The threat of displaced feed going to a competitor and hurting you has been dramatically reduced in recent years.
You are correct in your statement. I said it would be really nice if mainlines merged with their regional partners not necessarily feasible. You also need to consider that many CPA contracts require the mainline to share the financial burden of fleet reduction at the regional if the contract is canceled or not renewed. So depending on the CPA language there is already some shared risk with the mainline. Merging would obviously increase this burden substantially, one of the many reasons this situation would never happen. It would still be nice.
05-03-2010 | 05:47 AM
#54
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,832
Likes: 5
From: 737 Left
Scope or pay?
Is the question here really scope or pay? If The pay rates for 100 seat jets something like JetBlue's rates for 100 seat, same pay rate minus 5 bucks an hour for 70 seat, same pay rate minus 10 bucks an hour for 50 seat, and same rate minus 15 bucks an hour for anything smaller, would this solve most of the problem? Or is it not really about pay?
Personal opinion: If it says Delta, Continental, American, etc... on the outside, it should be Delta, Continental, American, etc... owned and operated period. This is not for the benefit of the pilot group, although it would benefit the pilot group. This is for the benefit of the flying public, who thinks that when they buy a ticket on United, the actually fly on United, and the flying public is the only reason we are here. If mainline doesn't want to fly to a particular destination, then they should have some sort of connection agreement with another airline who is willing to fly there.
Personal opinion: If it says Delta, Continental, American, etc... on the outside, it should be Delta, Continental, American, etc... owned and operated period. This is not for the benefit of the pilot group, although it would benefit the pilot group. This is for the benefit of the flying public, who thinks that when they buy a ticket on United, the actually fly on United, and the flying public is the only reason we are here. If mainline doesn't want to fly to a particular destination, then they should have some sort of connection agreement with another airline who is willing to fly there.
05-03-2010 | 05:53 AM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Is the question here really scope or pay? If The pay rates for 100 seat jets something like JetBlue's rates for 100 seat, same pay rate minus 5 bucks an hour for 70 seat, same pay rate minus 10 bucks an hour for 50 seat, and same rate minus 15 bucks an hour for anything smaller, would this solve most of the problem? Or is it not really about pay?
Personal opinion: If it says Delta, Continental, American, etc... on the outside, it should be Delta, Continental, American, etc... owned and operated period. This is not for the benefit of the pilot group, although it would benefit the pilot group. This is for the benefit of the flying public, who thinks that when they buy a ticket on United, the actually fly on United, and the flying public is the only reason we are here. If mainline doesn't want to fly to a particular destination, then they should have some sort of connection agreement with another airline who is willing to fly there.
Personal opinion: If it says Delta, Continental, American, etc... on the outside, it should be Delta, Continental, American, etc... owned and operated period. This is not for the benefit of the pilot group, although it would benefit the pilot group. This is for the benefit of the flying public, who thinks that when they buy a ticket on United, the actually fly on United, and the flying public is the only reason we are here. If mainline doesn't want to fly to a particular destination, then they should have some sort of connection agreement with another airline who is willing to fly there.
That's right brother.....preach it!!!!
05-03-2010 | 07:41 AM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Any airplane is economical at any fuel price. The difference is if the tickets can support it. If this new merger allows for some price control then the ticket price will go up to reflect the cost of operating the flight. The past decade has shown that even with 777s flying around with relatively cheap fuel you can't make money with no price control. So at what point do we just stop flying all together? I seriously doubt people will stop flying even when tickets cost $1000 to go from LA-NY. They did it in the 1950s, they can do it today.
05-03-2010 | 07:53 AM
#60
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,127
Likes: 796
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
Let me get this straight... keeping 50 seat scope would "destroy" the new UAL? From my perspective, 70+ seat scope is what ruined the current UAL. Just think, after the CAL/UAL merger, the new UAL will be nearly as large as it was 10 years ago.
I value your right to free speech... but seriously, do you THINK that the new UAL will maintain 70 seat scope, or do you HOPE that the new UAL will maintain 70 seat scope? There's a huge difference between the 2.
I value your right to free speech... but seriously, do you THINK that the new UAL will maintain 70 seat scope, or do you HOPE that the new UAL will maintain 70 seat scope? There's a huge difference between the 2.
The managers would have a real battle on their hands if they tried to further erode scope.
But by the same token, the pilots would be hard pressed to roll back UAL's 70 seaters, slappy is right in that the 70's are a key anchor of their current business model.
I would imagine the path of least resistance is status quo, keep what they have but no more large RJ's. The only way UCAL is going to get more 70's is by taking another quick trip through the BK drive through.
Alternatively, the pilots could bring all of the 70's back in house, but only if they are willing to fly them for near-regional rates.
But even adopting a regional pay scale might not be enough...competitive regionals not only have low rates, they are very low on the longevity scale. After 5-8 years, they are routinely replaced by startup or growth regionals with 1st. year FO's and 2-3 year CA's.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
skypest
Mergers and Acquisitions
38
04-20-2010 08:58 AM
newKnow
Mergers and Acquisitions
20
10-30-2008 09:01 AM
