On that note then.............puff, puff, give. :rolleyes:

I will wager what ever you like. Cats out of the bag my friend. Let's just not let it get worse. Hold the line on scope.

I guess time only time will tell. Neither you nor anyone else know. Our management at DAL gave us 319/320 payrates much better then AWA, UsAir, JB, VA, & Sprirt. Does that make them certified idiots? DAL seems to be making $$$ just fine. Maybe you should just stick to flying airplanes, like me. ;)

No thanks. I quit the stuff years ago. :D

I along with many of my other colleagues are trying to do better then just 'hold the line'. If no one tries, then it definitely won't get done.

I really hope that you guys do try to take it back. But with the AA bankruptcy, things will be headed in the other direction. 70 seat scope there will be blown wide open and 90 seats most likely will be as well. Then delta is going to try to talk all about scope parity. I'm not saying it won't happen but I'm saying it will be a hell of an uphill battle. Guys will probably have to give up some pay, work rules, etc. to take it back and I hope there's a lot more than just a few people out there willing to do it. Best of luck.

Trading 50 seaters for 70 seaters is like trading in your H1 Hummer for the newer and more improved H2 Hummer. Goes from 9mpg to 11mpg.

All games no sense.

Well, they gave you rates competitive at the time. Will that last ?

Yes, time will only tell. The driving force on that is the competitive landscape and unfortunately for us all, that seems about to change. I certainly bid you no ill future and hope the bar can stay as high as possible, but I stand by my beliefs about new-hire RJ F/O's at $56/hour by ANYONE and the economic smarts of anyone who'd do that in this competitive reality, let alone the likely future.

As far as your admonition that I "stick to flying airplanes", you do more then just that, no ? Don't you post opinion here as well that many might disagree with ? In fact, with 6,000 additional posts in only 2 more years of forum presence then myself, I'd say that's one who is quite active in forum discussion and the conveyence of personal opinion and not just moderation duties. Implying I should refrain from considering the potential unpleasant realities of the near future simply because you may disagree with them, well........that smacks of self-superiority and gives the impression you apparently believe your opinions here are somehow more worthy and valid then those you may disagree with as apparently I should keep quiet, vacate the forum and just go back to my job, yet you suggest no such limitations to continue posting your own hypothisis and opinion.

I get the message.

My point is that instead of hopelessly chasing larger and larger RJ's, AA MAY be about to pole-vault over that and go straight to the regional scale mainline-sized Airbus (A319Neo) or Boeing (737Max) and reap the reward of an additional 30-50 seats of revenue with almost all of it being pure profit over that of the typical mixed-class 90-seater at 76-82 seats.

That dynamic could change the entire domestic landscape.

Yep, but going to 125 seats from 50, 70 (64 mixed-class) or even 90 (76-82 mixed-class), might indeed make sense. The key is to get glorified regional labor costs with slightly higher hourly wages then RJ's but basically regional scheduling and work rules and 401(k)'s.

The first hogs to do that will snort their way back to the trough on the backs of pilots once again. AA may be about to make that happen and be the first (and thus fattest) hogs in that trough. Certain other hogs will envy the glottonous ravaging they witness and will be snorting and carrying on until they too can bury their snouts as deep as possible and gorge themselves to the bursting point.

It's going to be a fabulous decade to be a hog in the airline business. Not so good to be a pilot though.

So you're suggesting a B scale for the 319s will come about? With just worse pay? Or worse work rules, 401k, etc? I would hope that all pilots would push back against such nonsense. But with the seemingly diminished capacity of ALPA, anything seems possible.

Oh PLEASE may I get to fly a plane with four times the pax of a Saab for a ten percent pay increase???? I mean, it is so shiny.... and that auto-fly-by-wire-push-button-side-stick flying is so cool!!!

If only there was a place I could pay say $30,000 to get 200 hours on it then I could go anywhere and make a zillion dollars flying four legs per month with hot Pan Am type Stewardesses.

Dude! I got it all figured out!

Johnso,
First of all, this is not an attack (your posts are level headed and not inflamatory), but just my opinions as to why mgmt will fight tooth and nail to keep flying seperated.
1. We tend to forget that the real culprit is the DOT changing the rules back in the early 80's (all part of the rush to deregulate and let the market rule) that allowed Joe's airline to fly for Bob's airline using Bob's name and paint. This amazing gift to airline mgmt., allowing them to move flying from one airline to another while still presenting themselves to the public as one seamless operator, started all this. Beware theorists bearing gifts of less regulatory intrusion.
2. While possibly originally meant to be a de-regulatory gift to certain commuter airlines,
( a regional airline then was Ozark, North Central, etc), as we now know, it proved to be a great deal for trunk airlines to put the screws to their employees. Southern airlines used to fly MetroLiners. Ozark, F-27's, Noth Central CV-580's, etc. It didn't take long for all Turbo prop flying at long established 121 carriers to disappear. Step 1.
3.All the long established regional airlines, operating DC-9's and such, were absorbed by a "legacy". The only exception was Allegheny who merged/grew themselves into a main line legacy, but while still outsourcing any small aircraft flying.
4. The arrival of the CRJ. No longer was the outsourced feed restricted to roughly a 300 mile leg. Also, Bob's airline could do hub raiding. Non-stop service to medium size point to point markets. Great idea. Except Tom, Dick, and Harry all came up with the same thought, much to ATC's dismay. Now even more RJ's, soon to be rolled back into hub feed as fuel went up.
5. ALPA chose to represent both regional pilots and mainline pilots leading to a situation which a growth oriented contract at a regional hurts the careers of a mainline pilot and a regional growth (scope) restricting contract at the major hurts the career of the regional pilot. An obvious paradox that ALPA hasn't yet figured out an answer for.
(please, for all those that will immediately shout that it isn't a harm to the regional pilot as it will open up more mainline jobs, it would take me too long, but the School of Chicago economic theories can't work for most, and they wouldn't work for a large number of the RJ guys and gals)
6.The majors started signing up multiple Regional partners. JACKPOT!
They just checkmated ALPA's (and labor unions in general) strategy of pattern bargaining. Any regional that makes any significant gains in compensation (pay, work rules, whatever) will eventually lose their flying to someone else. Ask any ComAir pilot.
(as an aside, they did, and are doing, the same thing with small station ops. First they replaced all the long time mainline agents with regional X. Now they just give the ground handling contract to a different regional every 5 years or so. Longevity, vacation, sick leave all back to zero. Oh yeah, 6 month wait for health insurance. The shareholders and Wall Street are well pleased).
So,(if you are still reading), Delta, or anyone else, isn't about to give any flying back to one pilot group unless they have a gun to their head. As it stands now they can always shift any small aircraft flying to a different operator who will do it for less. If they give it all to mainline, they lose that power.
I have some thoughts as to some things "we" can do to fight back, but they are radical, would take legislation that is unlikely in our conservative leaning society, and would require great unity amongst ALL airline pilots. Won't happen soon.
I've already been too long winded, maybe that's another post on another day.

So to summarize, we are basically screwed anyway you slice the cheese unless drastic and unified changes occur; which will not because of the battle cry of aviation is and will always be "it's all about me"?

When you say "the DOT changed the rules back in the early 80's", are you actually talking about deregulation which happened in 1978?

Agreed...that's at least half of it

Paid,
No, but I would assume that the loosening of regulatory oversight was all part of the changing philosophy of the country at large. Deregulation wouldn't have happened without it, and neither would the new rules, or more accurately, the lack thereof.
Prior to this time the FAA would not allow a company to present themselves to the traveling public as a different carrier. Joe couldn't pretend to be Bob.It reflected the wishes of the executive branch to reduce the regulatory burden on corporations to allow such a change.
It was once thought of as part of the governments job to protect the public from such dishonest practices.No more. This has been a profound change, just in my working life time, as to what the govt responsiblities to the public and to workers is. In industry after industry (not just aviation) the agencies who were set up to oversee a particular segment of the economy/society have become advocates for that industry, or at least the few biggest players in said industry. You see the results in your paycheck, in what health insurance costs, and how insecure your job is. The only reason that we as pilots haven't suffered as much as society at large is that we have specialized skills that take a little more ingenuity to replace. But even with those advantages, our position has suffered greatly.
With that bit of good cheer, may you and any other reader have a very Happy New Year.(we could all use one!)

Well said, Max Q. There might just be hope yet, with guys like you in the industry. Here's hoping that more make themselves known to the powers that be. Happy New Year.

If you could find a place to get 200 hours for 30 grand and then go make a zillion dollars I'd say thats a good return on investment. The pan annies would just be a bonus.

It's that sort of logic that kept a certain south Florida based Beech operator supplied with dripping wet Commercial pilots willing to buy a "job".

Im fairly certain that most if not all of the Gulf pilots at 9E made Captain before the integration and a nice % of those are in a good position to move on. I know of many that are at majors now as well. So, in that line of logic it was a good return on investment. Without a 4 year that limit themselves anyways but a large chunk will get it with online classes. I dont understand how gulfstream pilots are brought into every thread, the 5 years ive been in 121 they've always been brought up. When will it die? They made a good choice, turned out to be a good investment when they made it. Move on. They paid for their jobs? Whats so different between them and atp guys and riddle or und guys? Or part 61 for that matter. Are you saying thay just because they "paid" for their jobs they will vote for the 5% cut? Thats asenine.

I know the 76 seat cap has been reached. Can't Delta park 50 seaters and replace them 1 to 1 with 69 seaters?

No on jets, yes on props. Big loophole that hopefully will be closed.



40. “Permitted aircraft type” means:
25 a. a propeller-driven aircraft configured with 70 or fewer passenger seats and with a
26 maximum certificated gross takeoff weight in the United States of 70,000 or fewer
27 pounds, and
28 b. a jet aircraft certificated for operation in the United States for 50 or fewer passenger
29 seats and with a maximum certificated gross takeoff weight in the United States of
30 65,000 or fewer pounds, and
31 c. one of up to 255 jet aircraft configured with 51-70 passenger seats and certificated in
32 the United States with a maximum gross takeoff weight of 86,000 pounds or less
33 (“70-seat jets”), and
34 d. one of up to 120 jet aircraft configured with 71-76 passenger seats and certificated in
35 the United States with a maximum gross takeoff weight of 86,000 pounds or less
36 (“76-seat jets”). The number of 76-seat jets may be increased above 120 by three
37 76-seat jets for each aircraft above the number of aircraft in the baseline fleet
38 operated by the Company (in service, undergoing maintenance and operational
39 spares) as of October 30, 2008. The baseline fleet number will be 440+N, in which
40 N is the number of aircraft (in service, undergoing maintenance and operational
41 spares but not including permitted aircraft types) added to the Company’s baseline
42 fleet from NWA. The number and type of all aircraft in the Company’s fleet on
43 October 30, 2008 will be provided to the Association. The number of 70-seat jets
44 plus 76-seat jets permitted by Section 1 B. 40. may not exceed 255.

Colgan used to be pay to play

a Zillion dollars? A more realistic scenario would be "Pay 30 grand to go work for another regional"

Yeah...good investment...

A hypothetical response to an obviously sarcastic post... pump the brakes

:confused: I agree that these big flight programs are fleecing obscene amounts of money, but at Gulfstream, wasn't there something like 19 paying pax in the back? But there are skeletons in all kinds of closets...even at mainline, like Continental playing dumb about what was happening at Colgan. Come on!

Noted and retracted. On a side note, isn't our illustrious VP of Group 3B in ALPA a Gulfstream Grad? Just what we need running the union:rolleyes:

So have the number of 70/76 seaters reached 255? Unless Delta is going bring turbo props back into the fold, it seems they will have to increase the number of jets with greater than 50 seats. I am not sure how they will do that...I have a hard time believing more flying will be done by mainline out of the goodness of mgt's heart. And there are sooo many CRJ 200s out there. That is a lot of seat capacity that will go away in a few years.

In the 90's many of the regionals were "pay to play" or had some kind of training agreement.
Look people were getting into that with Great Lakes of all places.

Delta is shedding 50 seaters without the scope to increase it anywhere else. Which is what I find funny about articles that say colgan should just shed all of it's 50 seaters in BK and replace them all with 70 seaters. Up to this point, a lot of the 50 seat feed that has been cut has been from CVG. Perhaps MEM might be next.