Just the sense I've developed after almost 30 years in the military and 20 in aviation. It's by no means some vast conspiracy, it's just that it would be a big cultural shift...that alone has been reason to resist change, let alone actively promote change.

Also from the ,management perspective it would be harder to attract ex-military pilots if they had to start over at regional wages...many would just go get a real job (which most are qualified to do).

All things considered, bringing regional flying in-house would cost more...probably a lot more.

 

This is why it's only beneficial to the majors. The only way the regionals are absorbed into their mainline partners is if the regional shortage gets so bad that the majors are forced to do so.

 

And then beware the "Revenge of the B-scalers". It might happen anyway, but mainline pilots fear that it could happen faster if a B-scale gets inside the house.

 

AMR pioneered the model we have today. They did that in 1982 and others followed. They also started the infamous B scale at the same time. Most pilots that voted to approve those contracts are likely retired already or are about to. Tom, I'd love to see the problem fixed but be careful with statements like you just made. My point is, the can of worms was opened years ago. Maybe approach the issue like we have a case of outsourced labor resulting in reduced service, reliability and even safety. Taking the stand that major pilot's benefit is the wrong approach. Work together, not against. I don't think that major pilots benefit (maybe they did initially, but IMHO no longer) from it but I do think the regional pilot does get shafted.

In 1982, I was in Jr High. I have been on both sides (used to fly pax for both reg and major) and I have always advocated one pay scale and flying for one group but don't rob Peter to pay Paul, it isn't necessary. Secure the flying first under the major current pay and negotiate next. Someone will always feel slighted in the process, they always do.

I have also flown turbo-props to 747. The fact that I made a pittance to fly a 19 pax Regional prop was ridiculous and embarrassing. I always thought it must be that killing only 19 lives justified the pay (sarcasm...). I enjoyed flying turboprops much more than the 747 I fly today. Airlines can afford to raise pay at the bottom, period. If they raise it and go out of business, so be it.

Rickair7777 has a very good point about the military argument in that it negates the avenue from military to airline bringing a lot of experience to the table. I have heard it before but believe it just continues the pit against groups, just a different group. One argument that someone posed is to give them credit for service and allow them to bid a higher group of a/c. Something to ponder but inevitably someone gets the feeling of being shafted. Depending where you are at in the food chain, your mileage may vary.

 

this is why i voted yes. Companies like Cape Air come to mind

 

It's funny how many people seem to ignore this little FACT.

Trying to extract the productivity that an RJ is capable of from a legacy contract would get VERY EXPENSIVE. Considering the rigs, min day credits, monthly credit caps etc. Compile that with what 117 has done to regional sector.

The simple answer? Well, simply reinvent the B-scale, AGAIN. Bring the RJ's in house, under better rates, but under a different set of work rules that would allow the extraction of those efficiencies without the pesky legacy work rules (labor costs) getting in the way...........

It simply turns into a self defeating concept that you explained. Who wants to go to work at a legacy if they have to start on small paying equipment with crappy work rules? Again, basically a B-scale.

Now, that all too easy retort to that is "well, with the pilot shortage, a pilot won't be on the that B-scale very long". Sure, right. Another terrorist attack, another economic collapse, another massive oil price spike, whatever. A pilot could be stuck there for a loooooooong time. Ask a junior USAir/UAL Airbus pilot how happy they were to be on reserve, under that crappy concessionary contract, under crappy work rules, for damn near 10 years

If it was cheaper to bring the regional feed in house, it would have happened A LONG TIME AGO.

The way Delta is running right now, if they could find a way to make it cheaper bring the regional feed in house, they would have done it.

 

I've always thought what you said would be an interesting concept. However, what would they do for civilians that worked for 5-10-15+ years, then they get furloughed or the company goes under and they have to start at the bottom again?

It's a rhetorical question. But it presents an interesting problem none the less.

 

I don't know the history of all the regionals, but in the case of the original ExpressJet, it was Continental Express before being spun off through an IPO. Pilots accepted low pay, because they flew turboprops AND they had a Continental seniority number. "The internship mentality". These pilots had about 2000 hrs of flight time when hired and MANY HAD TO PAY FOR TRAINING in the '90s.

Pilots at CAL Express would flow over to CAL and were treated exactly the same in terms of flight benefits and many other operational matters. This was the vaunted "pathway" that the RAA is bandying about now. Then 9/11 occurred. CAL pilots flowed back to CAL Express as part of the flow agreement, but after they went back to CAL, CAL mgmt. rescinded the flow-up

CAL spun off CAL express and created ExpressJet--and it's been downhill ever since. IF the majors do bring regional flying in house, what is to prevent the same thing from happening again?

 

I think 'backflow' is the cost of having a mainline seniority number upon hire at the regional. Although undesirable, I think its fair.

 

And before that, it was composed of various "commuters". Bar Harbor, Britt, Rocky Mountain, etc. Just like AE was Simmons, Nashville Eagle, Wings West, etc.

That concept existed long before the concept of the flow.

There's more (A LOT MORE) to that than simply what management did. The previous union and ALPA had a hand in it as well. Believe it or not, there was a time where it was on the verge of a single list.

However, your points about it going downhill are valid. But mostly apply to the COEX/XJT of old. There's a whole slew of other regional providers that went through a crap ton of suck long before CORX/XJT as part of the outsourced business model. XJT simply got to be "insulated" by the IPO/spinoff stock pump and dump for a brief period of time. AE is going through a similar issue.

In the words of the character in your avatar;

"What did we learn?"

I'm in agreement with you. There are plenty that cry that a FTA doesn't work. Well, I guess that would depend on how it's structured, wouldn't it?

In the case of the COEX/CAL flow, it worked pretty friggin' good. On the way up, as well as when they flowed down BACK to their seat/seniority/pay.

The structure of the ORIGINAL NWA/New Co/"across the table" agreement wasn't too bad either. Although it was born for different reasons.