We need a Dude Thread.

 

Kirby's comments on scope were just a bait and switch. Not once did ALPA or any union talk about "being burned" in markets.

Kirby's talking points on scope are an attempt to change the management narrative on scope. ALPA's narrative on scope is to "protect the profession" by insuring that mainline pilots do mainline flying at mainline pay.

The insertion of the RJ, and larger RJ's and still larger RJ's with more range are a marginalization of mainline careers and career expectations. Larger RJ's are a threat to the profession, unless they are flown by mainline pilots at mainline wages.

We don't care about being "burned" by management. We care about the profession and the integrity of career progression. If management chooses to down-guage a market and put a smaller jet on it, it does so without consideration of pilot wages.

I say again...Pilot wages should never be a factor. If it is flown by a jet with sufficient capacity to be considered a mainline jet, then get this, management should plan on paying mainline wages for that route. We don't have to worry about being burned because our scope clause is pretty tight.

Scope is not for sale, or on the table, unless it is to be tightened or strengthened.

 

If ALPA regional unions had real flow through agreements, scope never would have been an issue. But, Kirby will get scope relief and you’ll never see less than 76 seat aircraft at United. We might not like it, but that’s how it works.

 

This is so far off I don’t even know where to start.
Google B scales and Bob Crandall and come back and say that statement with a straight face.
Too bad you’re at Skywest and not a union shop with mentors.
Go home junior.

 

Why is anyone even wasting time on this guy?

 

You sound like taxicab drivers who fail to recognize that their days are numbered.

Since 2011, United has been reducing regional ASMs while upgauging their regional fleet. Even with all of the shrinkage and consolidation at regionals, they have schedule reliability issues due to short staffing.

RJs have two problems.
1) RJs are expensive to operate. The flight crews could be paid nothing and it would still be more expensive per seat mile to fly an RJ than an A319 or 737-700.
2) the number of qualified pilots is shrinking while demand is increasing.

Tell you what, let's revisit this topic in five years and you can tell everyone your opinion of the future of RJs at that time.

 

Reading this thread, I almost miss Staller.

 

 

You're close, but no cigar. And I am fully in the MAJORity of those that wish regional flying did not become what it is today. It did though, and we are all responsible, top to bottom.
It's laughable to think that there will ever be a time when regional feed is not necessary, much less all of it taken back to legacy.
I have no reason to slug at you!

 

10 years ago, it was inconceivable that taxi cabs would not be necessary. Today, not so much.

In the case of air travel, RJs have the highest CASM. It is inefficient. It is only done to add frequency to smaller cities. That whole 'regional feed is necessary' line is bovine excrement - the hubs can be fed with mainline aircraft flying to outstations with a bit less daily frequency than RJs currently provide.

Let's examine DEN-TUS. When I lived in TUS a few years ago, it was 5 RJs (RJ only) per day service. I just pulled up next Monday's schedule. It's 4 Rjs and one A319.
This could easily go to 4 A319s per day, losing one flight per day, and still have more seats available than is currently offered. Or 3 A320s/737s per day.

In addition to increased travel demand, there are fewer new pilots entering the industry than are leaving it (retiring/medical). If you think that the highest cost, most inefficient portion of air travel will survive the dual pressures of increased travel demand and decreased supply (of pilots), that's awesome. I'm sure there are some taxi cab drivers who are also expecting their niche to recover. Times change. Living in the past is a poor life strategy.