"Replacement Aircraft"
11-14-2006, 12:51 PM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: ERJ FO
Posts: 1,276
Even Embraer admits the 170 and 190 is not a "Regional" aircraft. It's not a ERJ-170...it's an Embraer 170. They dropped the RJ at the 145, but regional airlines did not. However, CRJ still considers it's 70+ seat jets a "regional" jet. I beg to differ. I personally agree that regional airlines should not fly anything more than 50 seats, but even that line is muddled a little bit. Does that mean the ATR is a mainline aircraft with its 66 seats?
Regional pay will not improve at regional airlines. If a regional pilot group even attempted to get close to a mainline payscale they would immediately get hit with the "We have to stay competitive" argument. That's a tough one to break when the company tells you "We're going to lose all our flying" therefore putting you out of a job and a means to make it to that nifty mainline dream job.
Regarding that, I flew with a captain who has been with US Airways for 17 years. He has actually flown with them a total of 4 years, been furloughed the rest of the time. Yep, you're reading that right. I wish him nothing but the best of luck, but that put it into perspective for me.
I asked the question of "How much money is enough" in an earlier thread and my way of comparing a regional aircraft to a mainline aircraft was met with a great deal of cynacism. The fact still remains, where do you draw the line? How much should you get paid to fly a 70+ seat aircraft? I don't have any great expectations about any one pilot group answering this question satisfactorily. Truth of the matter is, pilots as a whole will never make what they used to make.
Every year that goes by, pilots take a pay cut due to inflation. I don't know about you but the 50 cent pay raise I got contractually will not overcome increase in living expense. That wouldn't even cover a 20 dollar increase in rent if you were living in an apartment.
I wish I could propose some great solution...but pilot apathy and logistics prevent it. Just my 2% of a dollar...
Regional pay will not improve at regional airlines. If a regional pilot group even attempted to get close to a mainline payscale they would immediately get hit with the "We have to stay competitive" argument. That's a tough one to break when the company tells you "We're going to lose all our flying" therefore putting you out of a job and a means to make it to that nifty mainline dream job.
Regarding that, I flew with a captain who has been with US Airways for 17 years. He has actually flown with them a total of 4 years, been furloughed the rest of the time. Yep, you're reading that right. I wish him nothing but the best of luck, but that put it into perspective for me.
I asked the question of "How much money is enough" in an earlier thread and my way of comparing a regional aircraft to a mainline aircraft was met with a great deal of cynacism. The fact still remains, where do you draw the line? How much should you get paid to fly a 70+ seat aircraft? I don't have any great expectations about any one pilot group answering this question satisfactorily. Truth of the matter is, pilots as a whole will never make what they used to make.
Every year that goes by, pilots take a pay cut due to inflation. I don't know about you but the 50 cent pay raise I got contractually will not overcome increase in living expense. That wouldn't even cover a 20 dollar increase in rent if you were living in an apartment.
I wish I could propose some great solution...but pilot apathy and logistics prevent it. Just my 2% of a dollar...
11-14-2006, 02:09 PM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2005
Position: Retired
Posts: 2,934
Lets not forget that even if unions tried to take action, the RLA more or less prevents it. And if it's not prevented by the RLA, some judge will just void the contract and then tell you that it's illegal to strike.
At this rate, there will be no domestic flying on "mainline" aircraft. Within a few years it's going to be handled completely by regionals. As the 90 seat aircraft become more commonplace we'll see fewer of the small mainline aircraft doing the flying.
At this rate, there will be no domestic flying on "mainline" aircraft. Within a few years it's going to be handled completely by regionals. As the 90 seat aircraft become more commonplace we'll see fewer of the small mainline aircraft doing the flying.
Last edited by Pilotpip; 11-14-2006 at 02:15 PM.
11-14-2006, 04:01 PM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Posts: 584
Quick question: If mainline carriers want to stop almost all domestic flying with their mainline aircraft, then why is Continental ordering more 737s and why is US Airways ordering EMB-190s? Thats actually a serious question. It seems counterintuitive to me. If Continental wanted to do only coast-to-coast flying with their planes, they would be putting half of them in the desert, not ordering more. Could someone explain?
11-14-2006, 04:32 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: FO - 757/767
Posts: 1,228
Quick question: If mainline carriers want to stop almost all domestic flying with their mainline aircraft, then why is Continental ordering more 737s and why is US Airways ordering EMB-190s? Thats actually a serious question. It seems counterintuitive to me. If Continental wanted to do only coast-to-coast flying with their planes, they would be putting half of them in the desert, not ordering more. Could someone explain?
11-14-2006, 04:45 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: FO - 757/767
Posts: 1,228
Lets not forget that even if unions tried to take action, the RLA more or less prevents it. And if it's not prevented by the RLA, some judge will just void the contract and then tell you that it's illegal to strike.
At this rate, there will be no domestic flying on "mainline" aircraft. Within a few years it's going to be handled completely by regionals. As the 90 seat aircraft become more commonplace we'll see fewer of the small mainline aircraft doing the flying.
At this rate, there will be no domestic flying on "mainline" aircraft. Within a few years it's going to be handled completely by regionals. As the 90 seat aircraft become more commonplace we'll see fewer of the small mainline aircraft doing the flying.
11-14-2006, 04:53 PM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: FO - 757/767
Posts: 1,228
There are a few very senior folks at RAH who are under the age of 35 that agree with you, but that begs the question - Why??? You are looking at the question from a myopic here-and-now perspective, instead of 10, 20, 30+ years down the road. There isn't anybody currently on property at US Airways that was hired after 1988.
I am 23 years old. My hope is to be at the "job of my dreams" by the time I am 30, and I think that's a very realistic, conservative estimate. .
I am 23 years old. My hope is to be at the "job of my dreams" by the time I am 30, and I think that's a very realistic, conservative estimate. .
lol. just kidding, But seriously, having goals is good, but why put ages on those goals? 
It will happen when it happens. You will see, young grasshopper, as you age...things will not really go as planned. As the old saying goes: life is what happens as you are making your plans.
