"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.

I agree with you there.

But look at the here and in now, what the little jets are doing will have trickle down for the same peirod of time that you said.

What does compensation look like if it the industry decides to put you in furlough for a couple of years vs. flying for a regional in the top 15% and making money and flying a chunk of time every month.

How many furloughs can you take in that thirty year window before you saw that you could have broke even at something that was not mainline.

I am not saying that I want to spend my life in the regionals either. I would like to move on and I feel that I got nearly the same window that you do being that I am 27 now.

Another thought, I dont know if the industry will change a great deal from now if the mainlines keep filing for bankruptcy protection and not getting liquidated by their creditors. I think too sends a bitter message.

I am not trying to start a fight, just speaking out loud, and feel free to show where I am wrong, then I can learn more.

Reeves

Yeah, thats right! So where my six figures? We don't even have an auto pilot thats got to be worth at least another 10K;) Though I have to admit it would be nice to double my salary and make 30k. Guess I'll have to wait till I make Capt:rolleyes:

Reeves Quote:
What does compensation look like if it the industry decides to put you in furlough for a couple of years vs. flying for a regional in the top 15% and making money and flying a chunk of time every month.

How many furloughs can you take in that thirty year window before you saw that you could have broke even at something that was not mainline.

I could not agree with you more. That is exactly what my thinking is. Forget the B.S. and uncertainty that comes with a major. Have a good QOL and descent pay at the top of a regional, Make 30,000 less than you would at a major with much more stability and much less B.S.. I think I can make my financial situation work making 100,000 a year instead of 130,000 or even 150,000.

BoilerUp Quote:

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.

I know at least two professors at my school who would probably disagree. One is a 6 year furlough from northwest, the other is a 7 year furlough from northwest. Both have been "waiting it out" as they have been told year after year that they are coming back soon. Now neither of them have flown anything but warriors for the past 6/7 years and they are still waiting for that call. I bet they would have made more as a 7 year captain at any of the regionals then they made as a 7 year professor. I bet they would make a different decision if they could do it all over.

No. Larger aircraft are inherently more efficient as measured by cost per available seat mile (CASM). This is simple economy of scale. Regional jets only makes sense under these cirumstances:

1) A very low volume, but longer-distance route (too few pax to fill a 737/320 and too far for a t-prop) . Slow turbo-props are much more fuel efficient than jets, so they make more sense on shorter routes. On longer routes, they just take too long to get there!

2) Artificial economy due to low pay scales. This is what is driving the regional expansion today. Entry-level pilots used to get paid 19-seat turboprop wages to fly 19 seat turbo-props, and everybody was cool with that. Today entry-level pilots are getting paid 19 seat turboprop wages to fly 90 seat RJ's...management is taking advantage of the younger pilots who don't really know better.

The only fix for this is scope and/or a single pilot list for each brand. Regionals should be limited to 50 seat jets...the economic reality is that some 70/90 seaters would have to be grandfathered because they are already there, but the mainline guys (via alpa) need to grab hold of these 100 seaters while they still can, or we are all hosed...

The point about the pay is very true. Larger aircraft should equal more pay, that is a no-brainer. But why can't we have the larger airplanes along with more pay at a regional. I really like the idea of the single pilot list too. Are there any airlines that do this? Allow you to just move from a regional to a major when you have the seniority without changing jobs. Why do the majors even contract out the regional flying? Why don't they just operate all of their own routes? I think instead of using the regionals as a 4-5 year stepping stone it would be much more beneficial to the employees and the employer if they just raised the standards and quality at regionals and retained employees for the long-term. Turnover costs companies lots of money that could be saved and put into better pay.

The airlines enjoy the advantage of competition at the regional level to keep labor costs down. They don't WANT all those junior pilots on their list, they would be more organized in negotiations for small- airplane pay, and then that pay would only go up with longevity. The ideal situation for an airline would be to own and operate zero airplanes, and contract out ALL flying...this get's hard to do with the big airplanes because the older pilots are a lot wiser.

There is one and only one reason why regionals are not already on mainline's list: Military Pilots

How does a pilot get into the airlines? The current system has a 23 year old CFI starting at the regionals, working his way up for 6-12 years, then going to the majors. A military pilot has a ten year committment, so by the time he wants an airline job he is 30-something, with a wife, kids, and accustomed to earning $120K+

A single list would require EVERYONE to start at the bottom in the turboprop (or maybe 50 seat RJ), both the CFI and the military guy. The simple fact is that in the traditional military culture of the major airlines it is unthinkable to force that ex-fighter pilot to start at the bottom. The current seniority system allows him to bypass all the crap and go right to the 737/320.

This is understandable in terms of his experience level, but this system is costing the pilot groups dearly because it so conducive to whipsawing...regional vs. regional just to get the flying, forcing wages down. Then mainline pilots get pressured by the low cost of their own regionals!

Wow. I hate it to say but you are seriously ignorant of airline economics and history. Its a little embarrassing to hear this stuff coming from a UND guy...

Here is why you can't have larger aircraft with better pay at a regional: that is whats known as a mainline carrier. Why not just have the regionals fly 737s and 757s? Because then you start competing with the mainline carriers. Scope clauses were meant to prevent this from happening. In the end this is better for all of us. Don't fool yourself, the regionals would love to get larger aircraft on property especially when they can pay regional pilots regional pay to fly it. Put this in your pipe and smoke it: the first DC-9s held a maximum of 90 pax. We are now flying 90 seat RJs for a fraction of what a DC-9 driver makes. But for whatever reason the DC-9 is considered a "mainline" aircraft while the RJ is an RJ.

The single pilot list was tried at several companies, most notably American/Eagle, USAirways/Piedmont and Continental/ExpressJet. Used to be when you got hired with ExpressJet you were hired with a Continental seniority number. When your number came up, you went over to Continental. This is great until things start to slide the other way. Ask the Eagle guys how great a flow-through agreement is.

The majors contract out regional flying because it is cheaper (dollars and cents, not necessarily "sense"). It can get REAL cheap when you start whipsawing your regional partners against each other. When United came to ACA and AWAC and wanted it done cheaper, ACA and AWAC said "no, if we do it cheaper we will be out of business" so United turned to Mesa, TSA and RAH who were willing to do the flying for less. Worked great for United (as far as cost goes. Customer service is another issue). We all know how it went for ACA. AWAC gambled on USAirways and it paid off, at least for now. ExpressJet used to be part of Continental but was spun off to raise money and to help lower costs by allowing other regionals to compete for CALs flying in the future. From the standpoint of the majors, they can lower their labor costs if the guy that moves into the right seat of a 737 is a newhire starting at year 1 pay. If it was one list and people flowed from regional to mainline, you are going to have to pay that guy 5th or 6th year pay.

Although few like to admit it, yes it IS a replacement aircraft. Mainline SHOULD be operating them, but unfortunately it seems as though most of them will be operated by lower paying "regional" companies.

exactly. this is why RJ drivers should NOT get happy about their "airline" getting 190's. This is bad for everybody:mad:

FreezingFlyBoy
 

FreezingFlyBoy,

Thank you for educating me on the issue. There really is no need to start throwing insults at me. I asked the question because I didn't know what the answer was.

UNDGUY

Even Embraer admits the 170 and 190 is not a "Regional" aircraft. It's not a ERJ-170...it's an Embraer 170. They dropped the RJ at the 145, but regional airlines did not. However, CRJ still considers it's 70+ seat jets a "regional" jet. I beg to differ. I personally agree that regional airlines should not fly anything more than 50 seats, but even that line is muddled a little bit. Does that mean the ATR is a mainline aircraft with its 66 seats?

Regional pay will not improve at regional airlines. If a regional pilot group even attempted to get close to a mainline payscale they would immediately get hit with the "We have to stay competitive" argument. That's a tough one to break when the company tells you "We're going to lose all our flying" therefore putting you out of a job and a means to make it to that nifty mainline dream job.

Regarding that, I flew with a captain who has been with US Airways for 17 years. He has actually flown with them a total of 4 years, been furloughed the rest of the time. Yep, you're reading that right. I wish him nothing but the best of luck, but that put it into perspective for me.

I asked the question of "How much money is enough" in an earlier thread and my way of comparing a regional aircraft to a mainline aircraft was met with a great deal of cynacism. The fact still remains, where do you draw the line? How much should you get paid to fly a 70+ seat aircraft? I don't have any great expectations about any one pilot group answering this question satisfactorily. Truth of the matter is, pilots as a whole will never make what they used to make.

Every year that goes by, pilots take a pay cut due to inflation. I don't know about you but the 50 cent pay raise I got contractually will not overcome increase in living expense. That wouldn't even cover a 20 dollar increase in rent if you were living in an apartment.

I wish I could propose some great solution...but pilot apathy and logistics prevent it. Just my 2% of a dollar...

Lets not forget that even if unions tried to take action, the RLA more or less prevents it. And if it's not prevented by the RLA, some judge will just void the contract and then tell you that it's illegal to strike.

At this rate, there will be no domestic flying on "mainline" aircraft. Within a few years it's going to be handled completely by regionals. As the 90 seat aircraft become more commonplace we'll see fewer of the small mainline aircraft doing the flying.

(see above) almost forgot about those pesky laws that prevent you from quitting your job....

If the current airlines' woes regarding class sizes and FO retention are any indication, maybe us low-time guys are starting to get it.

Quick question: If mainline carriers want to stop almost all domestic flying with their mainline aircraft, then why is Continental ordering more 737s and why is US Airways ordering EMB-190s? Thats actually a serious question. It seems counterintuitive to me. If Continental wanted to do only coast-to-coast flying with their planes, they would be putting half of them in the desert, not ordering more. Could someone explain?

Not sure about CAL, but the EMB 190 is replacing the 737 at USAirways. The 170's and 175's that RAH is flying for Usairways are going to far outnumber the number of 190's that mainline will fly.

CAL is the exception. USAirways has been mentioned. Northwest is currently trying to get Compass up and running. Delta has a huge amount of it's domestic flying handled by regionals.

the sad, but very real truth. :(

No offense, I just think that it is funny when younger folk put an age agenda on their career goals(I did it too...guilty as charged). Not just in aviation. but in most, if not all, fields. I was flying for UPS in my early 30's( i guess that I must have missed my window):( lol. just kidding, But seriously, having goals is good, but why put ages on those goals? :) It will happen when it happens. You will see, young grasshopper, as you age...things will not really go as planned. As the old saying goes: life is what happens as you are making your plans.