Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Regional
50 seat RJ gones by 2013. Whats to come of this? >

50 seat RJ gones by 2013. Whats to come of this?

Search

Notices
Regional Regional Airlines

50 seat RJ gones by 2013. Whats to come of this?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 05-23-2008, 12:28 PM
  #41  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,597
Default

Originally Posted by TonyWilliams
I wonder why we never hear from the major / legacy pilot groups clamoring to do ALL their company flying ?

If company XXX has a need for a 19 / 30 / 50 / 70 / 76 seat aircraft on any route, why doesn't that pilot group demand that it be done by company pilots in company planes ?
APA has.
http://www.apanegotiations.com/LinkC...bid=65&mid=448

"All flying performed by or on behalf of the Company or an Affiliate shall be performed by pilots on the American Airlines Seniority List"

I am rooting for them. They seem to be a good union who is fighting for what they deserve.




Thankfully there is an arbitrary number (50 for CAL, 70 for AMR/UAL, and 76 for DAL/NWA) to prevent companies from placing 80, 100, 120, 150 seat jets at regional airlines. Regionals are not career destinations, they are just stepping stones. That does not mean your time at a regional should be awful (eg. Mesa, GoJet, TSA), you should fight for good pay/QOL/workrules, you just don't want to have more aircraft at regionals (and thus fewer at majors). 76 seat aircraft replace mainline jets. 70 seat aircraft replace mainline jets. To some extend, many 50 seat aircraft replace mainline jets. So pilots at major airlines (like AA) are trying to lower the size/number of RJ's at regionals, thus allowing for more aircraft to be flown at the mainline level.
iahflyr is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 02:21 PM
  #42  
Gets Weekends Off
 
sargeanb's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: E170 CA
Posts: 200
Default

I wonder what fuel prices embraer used when they came up with this: http://www.embraercommercialjets.com...tela=economics

I think it's a bit flawed. Im flying mostly E135's out of CVG, which I know will be gone by the end of the year. And at least for our company, we're supposed to be getting rid of all the 50 seaters in 5 or 6 years, as per mainline's wishes. The lower frequency of flights accompanying the use of the 70+seaters will mean less pilots will be needed, so the belt tightening will continue...
sargeanb is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 04:05 PM
  #43  
Gets Weekends Off
 
TonyWilliams's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: Self employed
Posts: 3,048
Default

Originally Posted by iahflyr
APA has.
http://www.apanegotiations.com/LinkC...bid=65&mid=448

"All flying performed by or on behalf of the Company or an Affiliate shall be performed by pilots on the American Airlines Seniority List"

I believe SWAPA had something similar in their current (maybe now former?) contract, but have since let that go to open the door to us (or whoever).
TonyWilliams is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 06:31 PM
  #44  
Gets Weekends Off
 
blastoff's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: A320 CA
Posts: 1,531
Default

Originally Posted by TonyWilliams
I believe SWAPA had something similar in their current (maybe now former?) contract, but have since let that go to open the door to us (or whoever).
Not yet...if you guys get any flying for them, their pilots will have to cave on scope.
blastoff is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 06:40 PM
  #45  
Gets Weekends Off
 
blastoff's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: A320 CA
Posts: 1,531
Default

Originally Posted by TonyWilliams

Why is there a floating (and arbitrary) line of how many seats to be flown by company pilots ?
Since much of the airline pilot profession, especially Legacies, is dominated by ex-military guys, some would consider it sacrilege to force a new-hire to go from F-15 to a Beech 1900.

As far as RJ's...maybe they're afraid management, in an effort to maintain CASM would make mainline guys take a payscale to fly RJ's that resembles the "industry leading" and precedent-setting 70/90-seat scale negotiated by a certain airline.
blastoff is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 11:01 PM
  #46  
Gets Weekends Off
 
B727DRVR's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Standing in front of the tank with a shopping bag
Posts: 926
Thumbs up "Real" Airline pilots flying turboprops? That's just for the other guy..

Hey Herc and Blastoff,

That was just the argument in my Dad's copy of the APA magazine from the late '80's......... Some guy felt that it would be beneath his squadron buddies to come fly the SA-227 Metros, SF-340's, and the Casa's that the "Eagles" flew then. They also said that the "Eagles" were mostly unqualified civilians that weren't worthy of being represented by the APA. My Dad said that there used to be the same attitudes towards the prop guys from the jet guys at AA in the 60's. It really pi33ed him off the way that it happened to the Eagle guys, too.

Those attitudes from the 80's helped to seal all our fates in aviation. If Eagle had been on AA's seniority list, and Comair on Delta's, etc., our lives would all be very different now. At least that military vs. civilian v. military attitude seems to have died out.

We need to stick together, now, more than ever!

In Unity,

B727DRVR
B727DRVR is offline  
Old 05-24-2008, 06:27 AM
  #47  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Maddog FO
Posts: 653
Default

That's what pride will do to you. I wonder how they felt watching their airline stagnate/shrink while the regionals grew exponentially. I wish we were all on one list as well. Oh well, lesson learned. Lets hope that the legacies do not cave on any more scope language.
Roper92 is offline  
Old 05-24-2008, 08:59 AM
  #48  
Line Holder
 
madman moe's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: whichever one makes you more angry
Posts: 67
Default

Originally Posted by Roper92
That's what pride will do to you. I wonder how they felt watching their airline stagnate/shrink while the regionals grew exponentially. I wish we were all on one list as well. Oh well, lesson learned. Lets hope that the legacies do not cave on any more scope language.
Yes and let's also hope that we all remember to stay true to this ideal when we (hopefully) make the jump sometime in the distant future.
madman moe is offline  
Old 05-24-2008, 01:33 PM
  #49  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Maddog FO
Posts: 653
Default

You got it!
Roper92 is offline  
Old 05-24-2008, 09:24 PM
  #50  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: AMR Big one
Posts: 177
Default

Originally Posted by Airsupport
not to big a deal. instead of flying 200's we will all be flying 900's. 900's can go into the same places that the 200 can go so nothing will really change. the kicker will be how many seats they put on those 900's and 170's

Other than USAIR who's mainline scope will allow RJs with >76 seats?
JiffyLube is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
CRJ1000
Regional
16
04-20-2008 06:23 PM
vagabond
Hangar Talk
1
02-01-2008 07:56 PM
Stork
Cargo
3
01-02-2008 10:30 PM
DLax85
Cargo
13
11-28-2007 12:32 PM
Delta102
Hangar Talk
1
11-18-2005 08:30 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices