"Replacement Aircraft"
 

I came up with this question through another thread. Is the EMB175 or EMB190 a regional aircraft or a "replacement aircraft?" Should regional airlines be flying these aircraft, or should the mainline companies be operating them? Another question: What should the difference in pay be for a FO/Captain flying a 40/50 seat jet and a 70/90 seat jet? How much is enough and what is fair?

My opinion is that it is a fine line. Where do you draw the line between what is a "regional airliner" and what is a "mainline aircraft." Also, if your opinion is that these are indeed replacement aircraft, would it be acceptable for regionals to operate them if the pilots were paid substancially higher (whatever that means) than say a 40 seat jet pilot? I don't have the answers, thats why I was curious to hear what everyone thought.

UNDGUY

I think the industry is in a big change, I think the definition of mainline and regional is going to change and become more blured.

For the next two or three years I think you might see a pretty even mix between regional and mainline carriers using the 175's and 190's

As for the pay, I cannot really say, I think that pay is going to be pretty level in comparsion to what it is now.

If I had to guess, managment is basing pay somewhat on complexity of the jets, so maybe more automation equals easier to fly which equals less pay.

I am almost certian someone is going to blow holes through my thoughts.

If that were the case, the guys flying turboprops would be making way more than us lowly RJ drivers...

I just thought about that right after I hit post.

that makes my whole statement not make sense

I got nothing

haha

If it's a jet it should be flown at main line carriers no matter what they call it.

The 190 (and the 175 with 82+ seats) are narrowbody replacements. They will replace DC9s, MD80s, and to a lesser extent, 737s. They fit perfectly in 100-seat market gap that used to be owned by the F28/70/100, DC9-10/30, 727 & 737-200. The same can also be said of the CRJ-705/900, equipped with 76 thru 86 seats.

The large E-Jets are true "replacement jets", not 50 seat RJs. How they are scoped is a direct threat to every airline pilot's career aspirations. They need to be mainline airplanes, flown by mainline pilots on the mainline seniority list.

The very top end of RAH's 190 CA payscale (which their 175s will be flown under due to number of seats) is slightly better than AWAC's concessionary payscale at the top for the BAe-146, and both are lower than Comair's 70 seat jet rate (pre-concessions).

In a perfect world the E175/E190 would absolutely not be flown for less than US Airways current E190 CA rates, with FO pay tied to 60% of CA pay. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world from a labor perspective - far from it. Unfortunatley, I think the best that can be hoped for is a push to get E175/E190 rates close to NWA's current book for the DC-9.

According to this website, RAH's payscales for the 175 and 190 are competitive with US Airways for captains. RAH's top pay actually exceeds that of US Airways. Pay is much less for FO's at Republic, but that is because it doesn't take 10 years to upgrade at Republic like it does at US Airways. There isn't anyone still in the left seat after ten years at RAH.

Republic: 10 year FO $36 10 year CA $88 Tops CA $114

US Airways: 10 year FO $52 10 year CA $95 Tops CA $95

I just don't see what is wrong with someone sticking with a company like RAH to fly larger aircraft if they are compensated appropriately. I for one would rather have a great seniority number at RAH as opposed to starting over again at a major and risk being junior for 10 years or worse get furloughed.

Does it mater that the legecy carries are buying the larger aircraft that call haul more people further faster.

like 777 787 757 and others.

Could there be any truth that they are giving up some of the domestic flying to the regionals

There are a few very senior folks at RAH who are under the age of 35 that agree with you, but that begs the question - Why??? You are looking at the question from a myopic here-and-now perspective, instead of 10, 20, 30+ years down the road. There isn't anybody currently on property at US Airways that was hired after 1988.

I am 23 years old. My hope is to be at the "job of my dreams" by the time I am 30, and I think that's a very realistic, conservative estimate. So lets say I get hired at Age 30 and have a 30 year career in front of me (assuming Age 60 won't change, which I'm sure it will). Even if furloughed, time is on my side and I stand to gain MUCH more in compensation across my career from making the jump, compared to if I had stayed at my current employer.

The bottom line is you have to take a risk in order to achieve a reward...and working for any contract carrier is not a guaranteed safe bet until retirement these days. Witness ACA/FlyI, Comair, Mesaba, AWAC, etc.

I for one would MUCH rather be at the bottom of a mainline seniority list as furlough fodder than in the top 15% at any regional. In my opinion and at my age, the potential reward far outweighs the potential risk.

Boiler makes a good point. It is all relative to your situation. Age plays a big role. I tell guys a lot that are 20 years old and flying Turbo-props to go to the jet and sit in the right seat there till 23. A forty year old FO at a regional might be best suited for the regional for the rest of his/her career.