They don't need us like we think they do
09-06-2014 | 09:44 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
They don't need us like we think they do
I have a slightly different perspective on the way mainline is treating the regional carriers the past few years. In my opinion, and I don't like saying it, they don't need us nearly as much as we'd like to believe they do. Look at the following numbers. This is a list of all the 50 seat and smaller aircraft that regional carriers currently fly:
Whiskey 71 200s
Commutair 21 Qs
Great Lakes 31 B1900/Emb
PSA 35 200s
Silver 34 Saabs and B1900
Endeavor 100 200s
Mesa 2 200s
Piedmont 43 Dash
Transtates 25 145s
Envoy 177 145s
Republic 70 145s
Expressjet 106 200s
250 145s
Skywest 155 200s
45 120s
Total 1165
10 Pilots per plane = +/-12,000 Pilots
Does anyone believe that nearly 1,200 50 seat and smaller planes will be flying for regional carriers in the next 5-10 years? If not, how many are currently being parked, and how many will be parked in the near future? One of the reasons mainline is more than willing and able to come to regionals for concessions (and threaten a very real shut down) is because they are fully aware of the fact that the regional model as we know it is on its way out.
Sure, they are bringing in larger 76 seat jets to replace these smaller planes, but not at the rate and quantity that they plan on parking the smaller ones. And sure, they need pilots in the short term to fill seats as they transition to larger jets and take the flying back in house to mainline, but they surely don't need 12,000 pilots flying around in 50 seaters, Saabs, and DHC's.
Prime example, look at Endeavor. They are getting 40 900's yes. But they are losing 140+ 200's. Does Delta really want to keep Endeavor around? Does Delta really care that Endeavor can't fill classes and their attrition is sky high? No. Because they know that they only need Endeavor around to provide cheap lift while they get the 717s fully up and running. They don't care if 2 people or 20 people show up to class. They don't care if 10 or 100 people leave this month. They are going to park the 200's regardless. They may feel a small pinch momentarily as they juggle the routes and accommodate for higher attrition, but in the long term they only need 900-1000 pilots there anyway to fly 81 900s.
In order to staff mainline operations, management knows that the regional level has to shrink. We are their largest source of pilots from which to draw, and the only way mainline can keep staffing for the next 10+ years is to pull from the 20,000 pilots at the regional level. So what is their plan to accommodate for this? Let the regionals shrink. Replace 1,200 50 seat and smaller aircraft with a much smaller fleet 76 seat aircraft, and the attrition that occurs at the regional level will be countered by the shrinking need for pilots there due to a smaller number of aircraft needed end state.
Some will say "Hold the line. Stand strong. They need us. The shortage is coming!" Sure, a shortage is coming, but mainline's plan for it is in full swing: consolidate and reduce the regional market to compensate for the shortage. They need us at mainline, not at the regionals. They are more than happy to slowly chip away at the regionals, and the latest rounds of contract negotiations and concessionary deals are just management's way of deciding who to chip at first and fastest.
This is why Pinnacle/Endeavor voted yes (the threat of shutdown was very real). This is why PSA voted yes (same reason). This is why Piedmont will most likely vote yes (same reason). You can see what is happening at Envoy by them voting no (slow wind down, unfortunately). Mainline doesn't need us nearly as bad as we'd like to believe and they are more than willing to let heads roll in the short term because they have a very well thought out long term plan.
Sorry for the lengthy post, but had to offer a different perspective. Take it for what it's worth.
Whiskey 71 200s
Commutair 21 Qs
Great Lakes 31 B1900/Emb
PSA 35 200s
Silver 34 Saabs and B1900
Endeavor 100 200s
Mesa 2 200s
Piedmont 43 Dash
Transtates 25 145s
Envoy 177 145s
Republic 70 145s
Expressjet 106 200s
250 145s
Skywest 155 200s
45 120s
Total 1165
10 Pilots per plane = +/-12,000 Pilots
Does anyone believe that nearly 1,200 50 seat and smaller planes will be flying for regional carriers in the next 5-10 years? If not, how many are currently being parked, and how many will be parked in the near future? One of the reasons mainline is more than willing and able to come to regionals for concessions (and threaten a very real shut down) is because they are fully aware of the fact that the regional model as we know it is on its way out.
Sure, they are bringing in larger 76 seat jets to replace these smaller planes, but not at the rate and quantity that they plan on parking the smaller ones. And sure, they need pilots in the short term to fill seats as they transition to larger jets and take the flying back in house to mainline, but they surely don't need 12,000 pilots flying around in 50 seaters, Saabs, and DHC's.
Prime example, look at Endeavor. They are getting 40 900's yes. But they are losing 140+ 200's. Does Delta really want to keep Endeavor around? Does Delta really care that Endeavor can't fill classes and their attrition is sky high? No. Because they know that they only need Endeavor around to provide cheap lift while they get the 717s fully up and running. They don't care if 2 people or 20 people show up to class. They don't care if 10 or 100 people leave this month. They are going to park the 200's regardless. They may feel a small pinch momentarily as they juggle the routes and accommodate for higher attrition, but in the long term they only need 900-1000 pilots there anyway to fly 81 900s.
In order to staff mainline operations, management knows that the regional level has to shrink. We are their largest source of pilots from which to draw, and the only way mainline can keep staffing for the next 10+ years is to pull from the 20,000 pilots at the regional level. So what is their plan to accommodate for this? Let the regionals shrink. Replace 1,200 50 seat and smaller aircraft with a much smaller fleet 76 seat aircraft, and the attrition that occurs at the regional level will be countered by the shrinking need for pilots there due to a smaller number of aircraft needed end state.
Some will say "Hold the line. Stand strong. They need us. The shortage is coming!" Sure, a shortage is coming, but mainline's plan for it is in full swing: consolidate and reduce the regional market to compensate for the shortage. They need us at mainline, not at the regionals. They are more than happy to slowly chip away at the regionals, and the latest rounds of contract negotiations and concessionary deals are just management's way of deciding who to chip at first and fastest.
This is why Pinnacle/Endeavor voted yes (the threat of shutdown was very real). This is why PSA voted yes (same reason). This is why Piedmont will most likely vote yes (same reason). You can see what is happening at Envoy by them voting no (slow wind down, unfortunately). Mainline doesn't need us nearly as bad as we'd like to believe and they are more than willing to let heads roll in the short term because they have a very well thought out long term plan.
Sorry for the lengthy post, but had to offer a different perspective. Take it for what it's worth.
09-06-2014 | 10:36 AM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
From: DAL A320 CA
I have a slightly different perspective on the way mainline is treating the regional carriers the past few years. In my opinion, and I don't like saying it, they don't need us nearly as much as we'd like to believe they do. Look at the following numbers. This is a list of all the 50 seat and smaller aircraft that regional carriers currently fly:
Whiskey 71 200s
Commutair 21 Qs
Great Lakes 31 B1900/Emb
PSA 35 200s
Silver 34 Saabs and B1900
Endeavor 100 200s
Mesa 2 200s
Piedmont 43 Dash
Transtates 25 145s
Envoy 177 145s
Republic 70 145s
Expressjet 106 200s
250 145s
Skywest 155 200s
45 120s
Total 1165
10 Pilots per plane = +/-12,000 Pilots
Does anyone believe that nearly 1,200 50 seat and smaller planes will be flying for regional carriers in the next 5-10 years? If not, how many are currently being parked, and how many will be parked in the near future? One of the reasons mainline is more than willing and able to come to regionals for concessions (and threaten a very real shut down) is because they are fully aware of the fact that the regional model as we know it is on its way out.
Sure, they are bringing in larger 76 seat jets to replace these smaller planes, but not at the rate and quantity that they plan on parking the smaller ones. And sure, they need pilots in the short term to fill seats as they transition to larger jets and take the flying back in house to mainline, but they surely don't need 12,000 pilots flying around in 50 seaters, Saabs, and DHC's.
Prime example, look at Endeavor. They are getting 40 900's yes. But they are losing 140+ 200's. Does Delta really want to keep Endeavor around? Does Delta really care that Endeavor can't fill classes and their attrition is sky high? No. Because they know that they only need Endeavor around to provide cheap lift while they get the 717s fully up and running. They don't care if 2 people or 20 people show up to class. They don't care if 10 or 100 people leave this month. They are going to park the 200's regardless. They may feel a small pinch momentarily as they juggle the routes and accommodate for higher attrition, but in the long term they only need 900-1000 pilots there anyway to fly 81 900s.
In order to staff mainline operations, management knows that the regional level has to shrink. We are their largest source of pilots from which to draw, and the only way mainline can keep staffing for the next 10+ years is to pull from the 20,000 pilots at the regional level. So what is their plan to accommodate for this? Let the regionals shrink. Replace 1,200 50 seat and smaller aircraft with a much smaller fleet 76 seat aircraft, and the attrition that occurs at the regional level will be countered by the shrinking need for pilots there due to a smaller number of aircraft needed end state.
Some will say "Hold the line. Stand strong. They need us. The shortage is coming!" Sure, a shortage is coming, but mainline's plan for it is in full swing: consolidate and reduce the regional market to compensate for the shortage. They need us at mainline, not at the regionals. They are more than happy to slowly chip away at the regionals, and the latest rounds of contract negotiations and concessionary deals are just management's way of deciding who to chip at first and fastest.
This is why Pinnacle/Endeavor voted yes (the threat of shutdown was very real). This is why PSA voted yes (same reason). This is why Piedmont will most likely vote yes (same reason). You can see what is happening at Envoy by them voting no (slow wind down, unfortunately). Mainline doesn't need us nearly as bad as we'd like to believe and they are more than willing to let heads roll in the short term because they have a very well thought out long term plan.
Sorry for the lengthy post, but had to offer a different perspective. Take it for what it's worth.
Whiskey 71 200s
Commutair 21 Qs
Great Lakes 31 B1900/Emb
PSA 35 200s
Silver 34 Saabs and B1900
Endeavor 100 200s
Mesa 2 200s
Piedmont 43 Dash
Transtates 25 145s
Envoy 177 145s
Republic 70 145s
Expressjet 106 200s
250 145s
Skywest 155 200s
45 120s
Total 1165
10 Pilots per plane = +/-12,000 Pilots
Does anyone believe that nearly 1,200 50 seat and smaller planes will be flying for regional carriers in the next 5-10 years? If not, how many are currently being parked, and how many will be parked in the near future? One of the reasons mainline is more than willing and able to come to regionals for concessions (and threaten a very real shut down) is because they are fully aware of the fact that the regional model as we know it is on its way out.
Sure, they are bringing in larger 76 seat jets to replace these smaller planes, but not at the rate and quantity that they plan on parking the smaller ones. And sure, they need pilots in the short term to fill seats as they transition to larger jets and take the flying back in house to mainline, but they surely don't need 12,000 pilots flying around in 50 seaters, Saabs, and DHC's.
Prime example, look at Endeavor. They are getting 40 900's yes. But they are losing 140+ 200's. Does Delta really want to keep Endeavor around? Does Delta really care that Endeavor can't fill classes and their attrition is sky high? No. Because they know that they only need Endeavor around to provide cheap lift while they get the 717s fully up and running. They don't care if 2 people or 20 people show up to class. They don't care if 10 or 100 people leave this month. They are going to park the 200's regardless. They may feel a small pinch momentarily as they juggle the routes and accommodate for higher attrition, but in the long term they only need 900-1000 pilots there anyway to fly 81 900s.
In order to staff mainline operations, management knows that the regional level has to shrink. We are their largest source of pilots from which to draw, and the only way mainline can keep staffing for the next 10+ years is to pull from the 20,000 pilots at the regional level. So what is their plan to accommodate for this? Let the regionals shrink. Replace 1,200 50 seat and smaller aircraft with a much smaller fleet 76 seat aircraft, and the attrition that occurs at the regional level will be countered by the shrinking need for pilots there due to a smaller number of aircraft needed end state.
Some will say "Hold the line. Stand strong. They need us. The shortage is coming!" Sure, a shortage is coming, but mainline's plan for it is in full swing: consolidate and reduce the regional market to compensate for the shortage. They need us at mainline, not at the regionals. They are more than happy to slowly chip away at the regionals, and the latest rounds of contract negotiations and concessionary deals are just management's way of deciding who to chip at first and fastest.
This is why Pinnacle/Endeavor voted yes (the threat of shutdown was very real). This is why PSA voted yes (same reason). This is why Piedmont will most likely vote yes (same reason). You can see what is happening at Envoy by them voting no (slow wind down, unfortunately). Mainline doesn't need us nearly as bad as we'd like to believe and they are more than willing to let heads roll in the short term because they have a very well thought out long term plan.
Sorry for the lengthy post, but had to offer a different perspective. Take it for what it's worth.
Excellent synopsis...in fact, I think your scenario will accelerate over the next few years barring another 9/11 or Ebola epidemic as legacy carrier's bring all their flying back to mainline.
The good news is that most RJ pilots have amassed 1000's of TMEL and experience over the last decade. As the legacy/LCC/major's work thru their stack of 11k apps, they're eventually gonna be hiring quality RJ FO's off the street without any TPIC time..jmho.
Unfortunately, those hoping that the current pilot shortage forces legacy carriers to merge/staple their respective connection carriers to the bottom of their lists and/or raise pay with so many RJ providers struggling to survive are going to be disappointed.
The trick is going to be surviving until the next interview or opportunity becomes available, just like those of us who were furloughed had to survive until we were recalled..which was 10 yrs in some cases.
Hopefully, there's room for everyone to move on to the aviation career goal of their choice in the next few years.
Fly safe,
CG
Last edited by CGfalconHerc; 09-06-2014 at 11:02 AM.
09-06-2014 | 11:45 AM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,578
Likes: 76
None of us know how useful all those airplanes are to the companies that operate them. Obviously at one time they served a purpose and there is a reason they are still flying. That lift can't just disappear overnight. There is still a market for small jets, if there wasn't they wouldn't be flying. There are still some highly profitable routes being flown by 50 seaters.
Taking your argument to the extreme, why don't the airlines just fly two 777's from JFK to LAX a day? They can get rid of all the smaller airplanes and cut costs. They can also just fly one 747 a week from Toronto to Detroit and be done with all regional jets on that route and many routes just like it.
Taking your argument to the extreme, why don't the airlines just fly two 777's from JFK to LAX a day? They can get rid of all the smaller airplanes and cut costs. They can also just fly one 747 a week from Toronto to Detroit and be done with all regional jets on that route and many routes just like it.
09-06-2014 | 11:45 AM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,707
Likes: 0
highly doubt mainlines will be moving flying back, if so it would be minuscule and temporary. Mainline management wont give that type of control or power to there mainline pilots. it is called a wet dream and when you wake up you wont feel good.
09-06-2014 | 11:56 AM
#7
On Reserve
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Explain DAL purchasing 717's
09-06-2014 | 12:34 PM
#8
:-)
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Likes: 1
09-06-2014 | 12:43 PM
#9
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
None of us know how useful all those airplanes are to the companies that operate them. Obviously at one time they served a purpose and there is a reason they are still flying. That lift can't just disappear overnight. There is still a market for small jets, if there wasn't they wouldn't be flying. There are still some highly profitable routes being flown by 50 seaters.
Taking your argument to the extreme, why don't the airlines just fly two 777's from JFK to LAX a day? They can get rid of all the smaller airplanes and cut costs. They can also just fly one 747 a week from Toronto to Detroit and be done with all regional jets on that route and many routes just like it.
Taking your argument to the extreme, why don't the airlines just fly two 777's from JFK to LAX a day? They can get rid of all the smaller airplanes and cut costs. They can also just fly one 747 a week from Toronto to Detroit and be done with all regional jets on that route and many routes just like it.
Also, any argument taken to the extreme falls apart. That's why I did not take mine to the extreme but merely suggested that mainline does not need nearly the amount of small regional planes flying around that they currently have. Again, if you read the original post again you will see my point.
09-06-2014 | 12:48 PM
#10
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Thank you for the highly sexualized addition to the discussion. My argument does not stand or fall based on how much flying mainline does or does not take back. Rather, the point is that they need pilots at mainline over the next 10 years much more than they need them at regionals. Hence their lack of concern for pay, benefits, security and fair negotiations at the regional level.
