slowplay

Here is what Smisek actually wrote:

I’m sure by now you know that Delta and its pilots’ union recently announced a tentative agreement which, among other things, provides significant pay increases, along with efficiencies for the carrier and scope changes permitting expanded use of larger regional jets. The new Delta TA raises the market pay for commercial airline pilots, and effectively sets a new competitive standard for pilot pay. We will be responsive to the impact of the new Delta TA in our negotiations and will need to adjust our current contract proposal to be competitive with the Delta TA. Our proposal will include significant pay rate increases that are competitive with the new Delta TA, as well as scope and work rules that are competitive with the new Delta TA and permit us to remain competitive in the airline business.

Where do you see gloating? I see a guy who admits he has to revise his position to put more money (about $700 million per year) on the table (The new Delta TA...sets a new competitive standard for pilot pay). UCAL would have to hire about 400 pilots if they were to operate their network with our TA workrules (CAL is way more efficient than us). He's saying that for pay and work rules similar to ours he wants scope similar to ours.

Oh, and he doesn't mention APA scope, or their agreement with USAirways to outsource 308 81 seat jets and 352 up to 70 seat jets.

newKnow

So, you are saying there is a cost associated with the TA for the company. Do you have an idea of what it is?

80ktsClamp

Scope is the major sticking point of their contract, and we are allowing more jumbo RJs. He is absolutely rubbing that in their faces.

Agreed that it is a major pay bump for them to come up to our level, as well as a significant staffing increase for the CO side to staff for our work rules.


As far as APA scope, I have never seen any sort of details on the terms of how those jets are allowed. Care to provide? The devil is always in the details.

Bill Lumberg

Smisek already has 70 seaters (actually 64 or 67 seaters with their first class added) flying through all of their hubs, even the FCAL hubs, when the CAL pilots swore that wouldn't happen. I'm not happy about that, but they were out smarted. Now they have a huge amount if ASA (ex Expressjet) E145s and ASA/SKW CRJs that are inefficient with high oil. So, they have major problems on the scope side, and the efficiency side (too many 50 seaters).

The UA/CAL contracts are a lot worse than DL's, in pay and work rules. It will cost Smisek an UNBELIEVABLE amount of money to bring that huge group up to our rates in this TA, and to change the work rules to ours in the TA. Huge. They have 100 "super premium" widebodies (70 777s and maybe 30 744s). Think of all of those Capts and FOs getting our TA pay? That would be great, but very very expensive. My friend over there flies the 320 in his 15th year as an FO and makes $94 an hour. What percentage raise would he have to get to get our TA's pay for 12th year 320 FO? Huge. I don't think Smisek is really smiling about a few extra seats on 100 or more RJs. They won't be able to pay for a monumentally huge pay increase for just one of their employee groups.

Elvis90

"These productivity enhancements combined with the ability to restructure our domestic network and retire inefficient 50-seat aircraft, add 717s and 76 seaters, provide significant value to Delta to cover the costs of our employee investments.” Richard Anderson – Delta CEO

"The fleet changes provided by this agreement, coupled with the productivity and profit sharing changes, cover the investments in our employees.” Mike Campbell – Delta EVP

"This is a cost neutral contract for the company and a lost opportunity for Delta pilots.” Tom Tucker Council 20

Elvis90

Regional jets crowd skies, squeeze fliers - USATODAY.com

Regional jets crowd skies, squeeze fliers
By Bill McGee, special for USA TODAY Updated 13h 18m ago

Of all the changes that have overtaken the airline industry in recent years, one of the most dramatic has been the rapid transition to regional carriers, as "mainline" airlines outsource more and more flying to their regional "partners." You may be surprised to learn that 53 percent of all commercial airline departures in the United States today are operated by regional airlines.

Confusion persists

The number of passengers carried by U.S. regional airlines nearly doubled between 2000 and 2010, reaching 159 million at the end of the decade. Despite a slight downturn recently, the Federal Aviation Administration predicts passenger enplanements on regionals will rise by 3.5 percent through 2031.

Regional service grew as the airline industry's hub-and-spoke model expanded, with smaller commuter carriers operating on "thin" routes, often to small and rural communities. In fact, regional airlines provide the only air service at 484 airports nationwide. But today, regional aircraft also operate on some of the nation's densest routes and clog some of the most congested airports.

At the U.S. Department of Transportation's Future of Aviation Advisory Committee meetings in 2010, I raised the issue of booking transparency. That's because I hear constantly from readers who are confused over which airline they've booked, and many don't realize when they're buying tickets on the majors' partners and not on the majors. Last year the DOT responded by tightening rules that provide transparency for code-sharing flights, particularly with regional affiliates.

What I learned serving on the government's 'Future of Aviation' panel
Unfortunately, as regional flights become more ubiquitous, consumer confusion increases. Every day, tens of thousands of passengers book flights branded by major airlines but operated by regional partners. And even seasoned travelers are sometimes surprised by the differences.

Far from seamless

Major airlines insist there are no significant disparities when passengers fly on regional rather than mainline aircraft. But a brief rundown of some of the most pressing issues casts some doubt on such claims:

•Safety. In recent years the U.S. airline industry has posted a strong safety record. But while the industry notes there hasn't been a fatal "major" airline accident since 2001, there have been five fatal crashes of regional carriers operating on behalf of five different majors since then, resulting in 135 deaths:

•2003: Air Midwest doing business as (dba) US Airways Express
•2004: Pinnacle Airlines dba Northwest Airlink
•2004: Corporate Airlines dba AmericanConnection
•2006: Comair dba Delta Connection
•2009: Colgan Air dba Continental Connection

In the wake of the Colgan Air accident near Buffalo, the Airline Safety Act was passed to strengthen pilot hiring and training standards for regionals and to provide one level of safety among mainline carriers and regional partners. Yet a recent Senate hearing underscored that problems remain, with the Inspector General of the DOT testifying that the FAA "has not met timelines for raising pilot training standards, implementing mentoring programs, providing enhanced leadership skills to captains and increasing minimum pilot qualifications."

•Service/Comfort. Cabins are smaller on regional jets than on larger aircraft, and so are the seats. Also, many regional jets don't offer adqeuate overhead bins, galleys or premium seating. Some smaller planes are not even jetbridge-compatible, necessitating outdoor boarding and deplaning. When business or first classes are provided, often they don't consist of considerably larger seats, hot meals or any number of entertainment products offered by the same airlines on larger planes. What's more, access for the handicapped and compatibility of child-restraint systems can be much more difficult.

•Reliability. According to the DOT's most recent annual rankings, regionals were dead last among the 16 domestic carriers rated for mishandled baggage, and dead last with the most canceled flights. Several regionals also ranked at the bottom for involuntarily bumping passengers. Furthermore, making sense of the DOT's monthly Air Travel Consumer Reports can be difficult because regional operators are broken out separately from the mainline airline partners they represent. This can be particularly confusing because a mainline airline can contract with as many as eight different regionals, while a single regional carrier can contract with multiple mainlines; therefore their service rankings are a muddled mess.

•Environment. As I learned while researching this topic, examining commercial aviation's carbon footprint is a complex undertaking. But while we all await further technological advancements, the most controllable way to reduce the nation's airborne pollutants is the controversial solution of reexamining how airlines schedule their aircraft. For example, the Regional Airline Association notes that every morning regionals operate 30 of the 35 nonstop departures between Washington and New York, hardly a "thin" route between small markets. Clogging gates, taxiways, runways, and airways with smaller airplanes rather than consolidating such flights with larger aircraft is a big-picture problem that has been left to the airline industry to address—ineffectively. An even more sensible solution is to reexamine where and when alternative transportation modes such as rail should be considered.

Buyer beware

The best advice when you book ANY flight through ANY booking channel—online or offline, through an airline or through a third-party ticket seller—is to ensure you're clear on which carrier is actually operating the flight. If you have doubts, don't book until you're satisfied.

SailorJerry

So why didn't that guy add to his article that one major carrier was shifting capacity from its regional feed to its mainline carrier?

Oh that's right because if you get your way there won't be any reason for us to do so. Got it.

Elvis90

My way would be to fly additional 76-seaters or greater at mainline.

johnso29

That got shot down in negotiations. We will have to shoot this TA down for another shot at that.

Elvis90

I plan to do my part.