Scope
10-01-2014, 09:29 PM
#91
Banned
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: EMB 145 CPT
Posts: 2,934
It's not the pilots' concern to worry about how the aircraft will be staffed. That's the company's problem. Unless you want to fix that problem for them by giving up scope. Scope everything in and economics will take care of the rest as far as what the company will be required to staff their aircraft versus what would be profitable. And if it's not profitable, oh well, I guess the company will not staff the aircraft. It's still their problem.
10-02-2014, 04:33 AM
#92
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,775
It's not the pilots' concern to worry about how the aircraft will be staffed. That's the company's problem. Unless you want to fix that problem for them by giving up scope. Scope everything in and economics will take care of the rest as far as what the company will be required to staff their aircraft versus what would be profitable. And if it's not profitable, oh well, I guess the company will not staff the aircraft. It's still their problem.
10-02-2014, 10:42 AM
#93
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
It's not the pilots' concern to worry about how the aircraft will be staffed. That's the company's problem. Unless you want to fix that problem for them by giving up scope. Scope everything in and economics will take care of the rest as far as what the company will be required to staff their aircraft versus what would be profitable. And if it's not profitable, oh well, I guess the company will not staff the aircraft. It's still their problem.
I don't follow your message as it relates to what you quoted from me. Anyway, I don't support giving relief on scope, not even 5 seats. There is a reason Kirby did the crew news dance. My temp APA reps say they don't support it either.
10-16-2014, 09:20 AM
#95
"Yinzer an'at"
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Position: Sittin at the puter
Posts: 186
This conversation was reported to have taken place in a pilot meeting in MIA where Scott Kirby was present.
He went on to state that to expand the flying we need to feed the base - the preference is always to use mainline - but some routes require something smaller than a 319. When slot constraints are an issue, or in LA case, facility constraints, it is "a stupid decision to leave 5 seats in the hangar, just as it was a stupid decision to leave 4 seats flat on the 737".
Someone asked why we can't fly them at group 1 rates; interesting unique reply:
With the contract they're prepared to offer, they don't want new hires flying small jets, and arriving at the narrow body fleet already with 4,8 ,16 year's seniority and pay scale.
So, Kirby has stated that the reason he doesn't want to put large RJ's on mainline is because the offer is going to be so good that we will all jump at it. NOT this pilot. I will settle for industry standard, which includes the existing scope.
He went on to state that to expand the flying we need to feed the base - the preference is always to use mainline - but some routes require something smaller than a 319. When slot constraints are an issue, or in LA case, facility constraints, it is "a stupid decision to leave 5 seats in the hangar, just as it was a stupid decision to leave 4 seats flat on the 737".
Someone asked why we can't fly them at group 1 rates; interesting unique reply:
With the contract they're prepared to offer, they don't want new hires flying small jets, and arriving at the narrow body fleet already with 4,8 ,16 year's seniority and pay scale.
So, Kirby has stated that the reason he doesn't want to put large RJ's on mainline is because the offer is going to be so good that we will all jump at it. NOT this pilot. I will settle for industry standard, which includes the existing scope.
10-16-2014, 10:01 AM
#97
Banned
Joined APC: Aug 2014
Position: A320 F/O
Posts: 442
This conversation was reported to have taken place in a pilot meeting in MIA where Scott Kirby was present.
He went on to state that to expand the flying we need to feed the base - the preference is always to use mainline - but some routes require something smaller than a 319. When slot constraints are an issue, or in LA case, facility constraints, it is "a stupid decision to leave 5 seats in the hangar, just as it was a stupid decision to leave 4 seats flat on the 737".
Someone asked why we can't fly them at group 1 rates; interesting unique reply:
With the contract they're prepared to offer, they don't want new hires flying small jets, and arriving at the narrow body fleet already with 4,8 ,16 year's seniority and pay scale.
So, Kirby has stated that the reason he doesn't want to put large RJ's on mainline is because the offer is going to be so good that we will all jump at it. NOT this pilot. I will settle for industry standard, which includes the existing scope.
He went on to state that to expand the flying we need to feed the base - the preference is always to use mainline - but some routes require something smaller than a 319. When slot constraints are an issue, or in LA case, facility constraints, it is "a stupid decision to leave 5 seats in the hangar, just as it was a stupid decision to leave 4 seats flat on the 737".
Someone asked why we can't fly them at group 1 rates; interesting unique reply:
With the contract they're prepared to offer, they don't want new hires flying small jets, and arriving at the narrow body fleet already with 4,8 ,16 year's seniority and pay scale.
So, Kirby has stated that the reason he doesn't want to put large RJ's on mainline is because the offer is going to be so good that we will all jump at it. NOT this pilot. I will settle for industry standard, which includes the existing scope.
At least management is admitting it now.
10-16-2014, 12:11 PM
#98
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Position: B737
Posts: 1,204
RAH is supposedly buying 130-seat CS300s. Where are those things going? If management wants something smaller than an A319 flying a route, why not add more E190s or buy some of those CS200/300s to the fleet? Problem solved, including their upcoming staffing problems at the regional level.
10-16-2014, 01:51 PM
#99
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jun 2014
Posts: 53
RAH is supposedly buying 130-seat CS300s. Where are those things going? If management wants something smaller than an A319 flying a route, why not add more E190s or buy some of those CS200/300s to the fleet? Problem solved, including their upcoming staffing problems at the regional level.
Just saying... Lol. Fleet commonality, same for MX too...
10-16-2014, 01:58 PM
#100
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Position: B737
Posts: 1,204
I'd say if we want to expand the low-100 seat fleet, lets add E190s or maybe E195s. We've already got those aircraft, we have a training program for it, and a logistics chain for it.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
