fisherman

I'm neither, just an Eagle pilot hoping to not see all hope of a decent future career vanish.

Here's my take on it: if AAG determines that certain markets are best served by an 81 seat jet, that's cool. Nothing in your current scope prevents AA/US pilots from flying that aircraft. If AAG needs a market served by an 81 seat aircraft, that aircraft should be flown by an AA/US pilot. Period.

AAG pretends that additional growth can only be achieved by relaxing scope; that's not true. AAG could easily add growth at the mainline level. They would just prefer to grow the "regionals" because they get to pay "regional" pilots a lot less.

Also, in my opinion, AAG provides a higher quality, more consistent product at the mainline level than by all the various, lowest-bidder, whipsawed "regionals."

R57 relay

As an Eagle pilot I absolutely understand where you are coming from and as the Dad of a prospective airline pilot, I agree. I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm trying to bring the reality of the situation to light. We can all say we want it, but it will come down to are we willing to pay for it, because with the process we are in, we will have to pay if we want it.

I personally think that code share has been the biggest scam ever perpetuated on the traveling public. If it says American on the side, it should be flown by American pilots, period. But the reality is that pilots let that horse out of the barn years ago, and if Delta does it, we will too.

You've seen the whipsaw first hand. You see how good they are at it. I just don't think you will see anything smaller than the 190 at the mainline, because I don't think we can afford the price the company would want, if they would even entertain it.

Good luck.

CamYZ125

NO more scope relaxation!! Not ONE more seat! I'd rather let the jcba go to arbitration than give up a single seat.

R57 relay

I think that might be the best and/or only answer. Not just for scope but all the sections. This bunch is good at getting what they want, for very little in return. I just wonder how the group at large feels. We'll see. Good luck to us all.

Night Hawk 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by AUpilot1 View Post
Looking at the latest info from the company. Scot Kirby said they have asked for 81 seat scope. So I guess that makes it official and not rumor. He said that more regional flying = more mainline flying. He said they want to add 5 seats to the current 76 seaters and the ones they have on order. No additional aircraft though. He said ORD and CLT are examples of hubs that would not exist with out RJ's.

Wow! This is the same message RLC used in the 1980's to get APA to accept Eagle flying. Come on guys please look at your history. This old saw has been around for over 3 decades yet we still have pilots who will drink this Kool-Aid. Pilots are indeed their own worst enemy. Return to the original scope: "If it flies and brings revenue to AMR(?) a pilot from the APA seniority list will perform the flying." This is all the scope clause needed by any and all pilot groups.
(Copied from my own post on another thread.)

inline five

First I somewhat agree with Kirby, it's stupid that we are contracting out flying and not taking full advantage of it. If the aircraft can hold 81 seats why is it not operating at that amount? Doing so is just wasting resources.

The flip side is that if the 175 is maxed out at 81, there is a solid chance the 190 will be gone - poof - away for good. That is what, 200-250 guys at the bottom that, of course won't get furloughed, but will remain at the bottom of the list as hiring is stopped for 6 months to a year.

Kirby spins off the 175 flying as "feed" yet they use them on lots of larger city pairs as well, we're not talking AVL-CLT routes, stuff like PHL-DTW is being flown on these things.

The question remains, would the APA entertain giving up XYZ to get 175s on property? Could they even get it? It's highly doubtful the company would even consider it at this point, let alone they are stuck in long term contracts that they have just signed. The time to put 175's on property was in the MOU. And what about the -700/-900? Giving up a substantial amount in return for E175 aircraft means more -700 and -900s would be flown at the commuter level.

My guess is the 81 seat limit will be implemented, but hopefully the APA can get substantial increases for it.

fisherman

At one time it was "just turboprops." Then it was "just 50-seat jets." Then it was "just 70-seat jets." Then it was "just 76-seat jets." Now it's "just 81 seat jets."

See a pattern? Each time they just chip a little away at a time. When 50 seat jet scope was given up, did anyone ever suspect we would one day be discussing giving up 81 seat scope? I realize much of the scope relaxation was due to bankruptcies and financial hardships; however right now is a time of RECORD profits.

I'm just as young guy employed at a lowly "regional," but in my opinion, any further scope relaxation with further accelerate the demise of this career.

APA has so much more leverage than any "regional" pilot group. If scope is relaxed, the "regionals" will scramble to become the new lowest bidder, and these pilots won't have any leverage/courage to stand up to their respective managements, because their managements will say, "If you guys don't vote in pay cuts/work rules cuts/etc. to fly these larger airplanes, we will shut down this company, you'll lose your jobs, someone else will get the flying, and you'll start over as an FO at another regional making $21,0000/year." The pilots who have a backbone will be punished, and the pushover pilots will take the pay cuts and be rewarded with more airplanes.

Please don't help this nightmare to continue.

R57 relay

What if we say no way on the 5 seat increase and push for the 175s on the mainline. We all agree that is something we would like to see, but don't think we should have to "pay" for it. What if the company said "Okay. We want the 5 more seats, so we will put them on the mainline if you agree to the same rate for E175-195." We take it, and then the company goes and gets 50 E195 and parks 50 older 319s(they don't like the 319 now). Would that being in the best interest?

Again it's not a simple as it seems.I'm skeptical that 777 and 330 captains will give up on $270 an hour to hold the line on 5 seats.

On that note, do we get a vote on the JCBA, or will the APA decide for us?

Hueypilot

If they want 81 seats, grow the 190 fleet and as mentioned, retire the oldest 319s. Give Group I guys a respectable increase to keep the fleet staffed and move on.

inline five

I'm of the mindset that the company should do what it can to take full advantage of any airplane they can as long as we are flying them. If the company wanted to get rid of 319's in place of 195's, couldn't they do that today? What is stopping them?

By 2018 Group I pay is close to where Group II is today. CAs will be around $160 and F/Os around $110.

If the 319 is a money losing airplane get rid of it. It's in our best interests to have a healthy company that has flexibility in their fleet. IMO.

Equalizing pay across the bands is another discussion that personally I am for but with so many older guys on the list, this is not the time for it.

On a side note, jetBlue seems to have found a use for them quite successfully. With higher rates than we have currently. And they don't have any regional feed (they use the 190's).