Why are B scales so bad?
08-17-2017, 08:31 AM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2014
Posts: 273
Originally Posted by da42pilot
Hello guys,
I'm a new hire at a regional trying to learn more about the industry. I keep hearing negative things about a B scale, but all things considered, it seems to me it would be better than the current situation.
With that said, I'm a newbie, so can someone explain to me exactly what a B scale is and why it's not worth pursuing?
Thanks!
I'm a new hire at a regional trying to learn more about the industry. I keep hearing negative things about a B scale, but all things considered, it seems to me it would be better than the current situation.
With that said, I'm a newbie, so can someone explain to me exactly what a B scale is and why it's not worth pursuing?
Thanks!
We are beyond B scale. Today it's C scale flying 86,000 lb GTOW AC as a "Regional" airline flying halfway across the country. Welcome to the industry!
08-17-2017, 09:16 AM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2017
Posts: 559
Originally Posted by BeechPilot33
We are beyond B scale. Today it's C scale flying 86,000 lb GTOW AC as a "Regional" airline flying halfway across the country. Welcome to the industry!
So what's it gonna take to bring regional jets into mainline? That's what I'd like to fix. Even if you keep the regional pay scale as is but inside mainline, there are huge benefits to pilots, particularly the regional pilot but also mainline.
Ps: Boiler I will look those up. Thanks!
08-17-2017, 10:14 AM
#14
The NeverEnding Story
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,512
Originally Posted by da42pilot
I agree, it's even worse than a B scale.
So what's it gonna take to bring regional jets into mainline?
So what's it gonna take to bring regional jets into mainline?
2. More negotiating capital than mainline pilots would be willing to expend
The thing about contract lift is those airframes aren't on the mainline partner's books; the liability for "large small jet" leases or debt service falls on the contract lift provider meaning that capital can be used elsewhere.
The flip side to that are certain large small jet airframes owned by mainline partners (Delta does this some, not sure of others), which lead to constant whipsaw in the contract lift ranks - the mainline partner can pull those jets from one airline and give them to another (see: XJT CRJs moving to Endeavor).
08-17-2017, 11:29 AM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,803
Originally Posted by da42pilot
I agree, it's even worse than a B scale.
So what's it gonna take to bring regional jets into mainline? That's what I'd like to fix. Even if you keep the regional pay scale as is but inside mainline, there are huge benefits to pilots, particularly the regional pilot but also mainline.
So what's it gonna take to bring regional jets into mainline? That's what I'd like to fix. Even if you keep the regional pay scale as is but inside mainline, there are huge benefits to pilots, particularly the regional pilot but also mainline.
Let's say that everyone agreed to bring pilot labor under one tent. The owners of regional airlines are going to want to get paid, where does that money come from? Mainline pilots? Nope. Regional pilots? Nope.
That's reality.
The only practical way to bring an end to the so-called c-scale is for adequate numbers of prospective new hire regional pilots to stop showing up for class. When mainline operations are severely impacted for a sustained period, only then will outsourcing be viewed as a bad idea by airline management.
08-17-2017, 01:58 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2017
Posts: 559
Perhaps we can give airline management and investors something they'd like in exchange for bringing us in house-- say, offer them to raise scope to maybe 99 seats as long as the flying is done in-house on the same seniority list. Outside the seniority list, the old scope clauses apply.
Or perhaps that's something major airline management should propose to their pilots.
Or perhaps that's something major airline management should propose to their pilots.
08-17-2017, 03:43 PM
#17
The NeverEnding Story
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,512
Originally Posted by da42pilot
Perhaps we can give airline management and investors something they'd like in exchange for bringing us in house-- say, offer them to raise scope to maybe 99 seats as long as the flying is done in-house on the same seniority list.
Mainline pilot scope clauses limit the size airframe a subcontractor can fly, not the size of airframe the mainline can fly.
There's zero reason for pilots to "raise scope to maybe 99 seats as long as the flying is done in-house on the same seniority list" - legacy airline management can already fly those airframes in-house with legacy pilots, they simply have chosen to not do so.
08-17-2017, 04:10 PM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2017
Posts: 559
Originally Posted by BoilerUP
Respectfully, this sentence shows that you don't truly understand the concept of scope and how it relates to subcontractors.
Mainline pilot scope clauses limit the size airframe a subcontractor can fly, not the size of airframe the mainline can fly.
There's zero reason for pilots to "raise scope to maybe 99 seats as long as the flying is done in-house on the same seniority list" - legacy airline management can already fly those airframes in-house with legacy pilots, they simply have chosen to not do so.
Mainline pilot scope clauses limit the size airframe a subcontractor can fly, not the size of airframe the mainline can fly.
There's zero reason for pilots to "raise scope to maybe 99 seats as long as the flying is done in-house on the same seniority list" - legacy airline management can already fly those airframes in-house with legacy pilots, they simply have chosen to not do so.
That opens up the 76-99 seat market for management and gets a lot of pilots out of the "C scale".
Now, since this is a B scale, I think scope would be necessary to prevent management from growing the B scale at the expense of the A scale. That's why I mentioned scope.
08-17-2017, 09:49 PM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,803
Originally Posted by da42pilot
Perhaps we can give airline management........
There's zero benefit for pilots to relax scope going forward, and the sting of last 30 years to remind us why it's a bad idea to begin with.
08-18-2017, 01:24 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2017
Posts: 559
Originally Posted by awax
There's zero benefit for pilots to relax scope going forward, and the sting of last 30 years to remind us why it's a bad idea to begin with.
Why the viceral reaction? We have to learn from the past, but we need not block anything that resembles it, either. Especially if they can be redesigned to create benefits to all parties involved.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
