HotMamaPilot

assumptions assumptions. Did I ever say that RJ's were the reason the industry is in disaray? I just think that they should be limited to just what they are defined as....regional jets. My hubbie is furlough USAIR and flies for Rep. They fly PHL-MSP, PHL-IAH, PHL-DFW...are these "regional" routes?....um no. So the bigger "RJ's" are a lot of what is wrong with the industry.

saab2000

I fly out of PHL and also fly PHL-MSP, PHL-MCI, PHL-STL, CLT-MCI, DCA-ORD, etc.......

I agree 100% that these are NOT so-called "regional routes"!!!

I think we agree that this has gotten out of hand regarding what is and what is not 'regional'.

HotMamaPilot

you AWAC? I didn't realize that you guys flew those routes. Well, at least you are doing them in a 50 seater. Guys at RAH are gettin' excited about rumors of 190's coming on board for DAL flying. Unless they want to work there(a regional) for the rest of their life, this is not a good thing. Taking flying away from mainline is just making slim a rj drivers chances of advancing to the big leagues. Now rep is getting 86 seaters in JAN(that's a done deal): How this is not a scope violation, I don't know. The guys at USAIR ***** about RJ's, but they are the ones allowing this to happen. PS, I see nothing wrong with 50 seat RJ's FEEDING the mainlines(i.e. BMI-ORD or ALB-PHL etc etc), but more than 50 seats is BS. preaching to the choir? maybe, but newbies need to know the facts and this is an epidemic. I am wondering when we (cargo) are gonna start letting our feeders fly airbuses and start taking over our routes? Who says it can't happen?

saab2000

I agree that so called 'regional' planes should feed the larger routes, or bring pax to their final destination. Or do point to point which is not financially viable for a larger aircraft.

You are also right that the pilot groups are allowing it to happen, but I think that will eventually turn.

Like I say, 50 seats max. Maybe 69 for the 70-seat versions of the same aircraft (CRJ-700 for example). But 86 seat "Regional Jets" which fly 2/3 of the way across the country? For peanut pay? I think not.

Yes, I am AWAC and I miss ORD and my midwest flying.......... Not feeling the warm fuzzies for PHL. BTW, I have flown each of those routes I mentioned.

Oh, and it was worse out of IAD for United Express as far as "replacement jet" flying goes. We went IAD-ATL, BOS, LGA, JFK, MCI,....... Hardly puddlejumping flights feeding mainline. Those were pure and simple replacements. The pax knew it and hated it.

shackone

How do you think 'pilot groups' are going to influence 'what is happening'?

Longer range 'RJ' aircraft such as the EMB-170 series have brought a sea change to airline ops...and the outcome for pilots in terms of pay and benefits has not been good.

That's life. Things seldom stay the same, and we need to accept that and try to stay ahead of the wave instead of letting it pass us by. What was is likely to never be again.

Unfortunately, there is what seems to be an inexhaustible supply of pilots to fill airline hiring quotas. These folks are willing to work for the going pay rate. Like it or not, that is a reality.

As for the pax...they are quite happy with aircraft like the 170.

HotMamaPilot

shack:
I've read most of your posts and consider you a voice of reason, so to speak. You've "stuck it" to skyhigh by going "toe to toe" with him and winning(IMHO). I am, however, let down by your most recent post. I respect who you are: ex-TWA, AA "retiree", and now EMB170 instructor down in STL(andy?). Is it because you are done with the 121 flying that you so easily accept things for the way they are? we cannot just sit back and bury our head in the sand and accept the "changing of the industry". So, what if brian bedford were to buy a fleet of A320's to "feed" USAirways? Would that be something to accept as "Stuff happens"?

shackone

Not a bit.

I asked what was it that some thought 'pilot groups' could do with regard to this situation. It was a question, not a challenge.

I don't like what has happened any more than anyone else...and no...it doesn't affect me anymore, other than my concern for the many friends I have who are still in the game. And the many more friends I make as a result of my job.

It's an unfortunate fact of life that a business owner can do whatever he wants with his company (as long as it is legal). Us TWA folks understand that as well as anyone. It's not about what is right or fair or equitable. It's only about what is 'legal'...and that often boils down to who has the best lawyers and the deepest pockets. Too often that is the owner.

Our capitalist system is set up to favor the owners and shareholders...not the workers. That's just the way it is. Sometimes that works out in everyone's favor (Southwest) and too often it doesn't (TWA, Eastern, PAA, etc).

As workers, our influence stops with the contract. Past that, we have little leverage. As a rule, the public isn't sympathetic to our cause. ALPA would just as soon screw you as look at you.

I don't have any solutions to this situation other than this. Life will be easier when looked at as a 'glass half full' than the opposite. When chatting about this with our students, I suggest making the best out of the existing situation rather than only thinking about what should be or ought to be. We don't have an infinite quantity of time...despite what the young may think (vbg)...and I think we all are better served by maximizing what we have now than by worrying about what we don't have.

Our ability to steer this RJ phenomenon in a way that is best for our interest is minimal. Usually this runs counter to what management wants...and management is the long pole in the tent.

Not to be preachy or corny or both...but my experience in this industry has led me to find this well known saying to be of much benefit:

"Grant me serenity to accept what I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference".

Skygirl

I really don't understand how the airlines schedule the RJ's either. A few days ago, my 22 year-old son decides to go visit my family in Cincy. I didn't book his trip, but nonetheless, I drive him to SFO and he gets on a 767 to DEN, where he is to connect on an RJ to CVG (I still can't grasp what is regional about DEN-CVG) He calls me at work, "mom, I'm stuck in Denver, my flight, (the RJ) was cancelled. We get him on a triple 7 to ORD, and then a connecting (737) flight to CVG. The night before he left, I help him and his girlfriend pick their seats - according to the info I had at hand, the flight was almost full. I flew the same route a couple of months earlier, and the RJ flight went on to CVG. I don't have anything against regional jets, if they are truly flying "regional", but can someone explain to me how DEN-CVG is regional? I realize that CVG is one of the most expensive airports to fly in and out of, and that DAL has it sewn up, so could that be the reason why?

I went to a post-wedding party tonight in the city, which was heavily attended by some Boeing engineers, who were down from Seattle, and they had some interesting things to say.

saab2000

A couple thoughts. Shackone is largely right. There is not much we can do actually. But I also think that there is not really an inexaustible supply of young pilots willing to work for nothing.

The so-called 'regional' airlines are having to lower the bar a lot to get qualified applicants now. If the majors have a hiring wave (which I think they will) the regional airlines will be sucked dry. The pendulum will swing in favor of labor again, at least a bit.

The engineers at Boeing may indeed have some interesting things to say, but they are a bit like us, pawns in a game played by those with money and the power. Right now Labor has neither.

shackone

Probably something along the lines of AMR is going to regret the day they got rid of those TWA 717s.