What regional will no longer exists in 3 yrs?
08-11-2016, 05:52 AM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2015
Position: Professional Eugoogoolizer at the Derek Zoolander Center For Kids Who Can’t Read Good
Posts: 1,191
Ha, no I dont have a death wish. I could be killed by anything from drunk drivers to brain eating amoebas. Its all about risk mitigation. Dont drive on new years eve (if possible), and snort lake water. That should take care of those risks.
To answer, there is no gold standard. Certainly not in the regionals. Again what I have seen in the airlines (my experiances), has made me all to aware of the fact that there are important safety issues. Not unresolvable.
So since Im typing, here is some of what I have seen. Oh and by the way, some of these things are factors for why I left one regional to another.
1. Deice faults on the Dash 8, mx told me it was okay for the deice pressure to be at zero, 5 or 6 of the aircraft would do that. Um no the deice must be 18 psi. Even single engine. Our own mx was signing off aircraft knowing they were unable to maintain adequete pressure. Does that sound safe? Legal? Reasonable? There is a reason I brought 3 of these ac to our mx base. Especially after I accumulated a significant amount of Ice and could not shed it off a segment.
2. MX conrol whipping an ac into service when there was a known fadec issue. Every page in the logbook had multiple writeups of the same thing, For Days. Hmmmm an ac gets written up for a serious safety issue and mx pulls some beakers, clears the faults and signs it off. Does that sound safe? Legal? Reasonable?
3. Had to divert because of a fuel leak. Created an imbalance and we were already ferrying the ac for inoperative aileron trim. Found out after I refused to ferry it with the leak that this ac had a problem for over a month! Again, safe? Legal? Reasonable?
Now, these were at two different regionals. Soooooo if you have not experienced stupid stuff on the line than either you are new, not paying attention, or do not know enough about your job to recognize these issues. 2 of 3 are dangerous prospects. Do not tell me that this BS doesnt occur at Your regional. Granted this isnt every day, it occures where it shouldnt. We are our own worst enemy with this stuff. IMHO this type of BS is unacceptable.
But everyone is free to believe what they want. If you want to believe that your regional is perfect and nothing bad ever happens than I envy you. But I do not want to ride on your ac. I have seen far to much unreasonable BS to accept that things can keep going the way they are.
That is all, carry on
To answer, there is no gold standard. Certainly not in the regionals. Again what I have seen in the airlines (my experiances), has made me all to aware of the fact that there are important safety issues. Not unresolvable.
So since Im typing, here is some of what I have seen. Oh and by the way, some of these things are factors for why I left one regional to another.
1. Deice faults on the Dash 8, mx told me it was okay for the deice pressure to be at zero, 5 or 6 of the aircraft would do that. Um no the deice must be 18 psi. Even single engine. Our own mx was signing off aircraft knowing they were unable to maintain adequete pressure. Does that sound safe? Legal? Reasonable? There is a reason I brought 3 of these ac to our mx base. Especially after I accumulated a significant amount of Ice and could not shed it off a segment.
2. MX conrol whipping an ac into service when there was a known fadec issue. Every page in the logbook had multiple writeups of the same thing, For Days. Hmmmm an ac gets written up for a serious safety issue and mx pulls some beakers, clears the faults and signs it off. Does that sound safe? Legal? Reasonable?
3. Had to divert because of a fuel leak. Created an imbalance and we were already ferrying the ac for inoperative aileron trim. Found out after I refused to ferry it with the leak that this ac had a problem for over a month! Again, safe? Legal? Reasonable?
Now, these were at two different regionals. Soooooo if you have not experienced stupid stuff on the line than either you are new, not paying attention, or do not know enough about your job to recognize these issues. 2 of 3 are dangerous prospects. Do not tell me that this BS doesnt occur at Your regional. Granted this isnt every day, it occures where it shouldnt. We are our own worst enemy with this stuff. IMHO this type of BS is unacceptable.
But everyone is free to believe what they want. If you want to believe that your regional is perfect and nothing bad ever happens than I envy you. But I do not want to ride on your ac. I have seen far to much unreasonable BS to accept that things can keep going the way they are.
That is all, carry on
Too often planes are not getting written up and are flown.
On the DCH8 deice press limitation is 18 +- 3 psi. This is a limitation we are required to memorize at my company and is an automatic no fly and a checklist item. The after start checklist requires this at my company.
Also our de ice check requires a observing a fluctuating in deice pressure prior to the first flight of the day in icing conditions and the last flight of the day. After the ATR accident and the buffalo q400 I can't imagin any operator pushing a crew with less than good boots. If not ASAP it, or call your FAA poi and report anomously. In our recurrent meeting I'm suprise do, we are given the number and email address of our poi and encouraged to call directly if the safety issue that much.
08-11-2016, 06:09 AM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Position: Guppy Gear Slinger
Posts: 2,000
08-11-2016, 06:11 AM
#56
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2012
Position: ERJ
Posts: 383
Exactly. Going from ORD to SFO on an E170 or CRJ 700 should be done only by mainline. How the heck is that even regional? Farming out flying of this ilk is only to reduce labor costs at mainline. We should all stand firmly against it.
08-11-2016, 06:15 AM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Posts: 714
How about we look at statistics for US carriers' accidents instead of just "fatal accidents in the US"...
Fatal hull losses:
09' Colgan 3407, Q400
09' Fedex 80, MD-11
10' UPS 6, 747-400
13' National Airlines 102, 747-400
13' UPS 1354, A300
Add to the above list of hull losses, but non fatal:
09' American flight 331, 737
11' TSA, DBA UX 3363, ERJ145
13' Southwest 345, 737
14' Delta 1086, MD-88
14' USAirways 1702, A320
So as you can see above, since Colgan 3407, there has been at least 9 hull losses by American Carriers and yet only 1 of them has been by a regional airline.
Fatal hull losses:
09' Colgan 3407, Q400
09' Fedex 80, MD-11
10' UPS 6, 747-400
13' National Airlines 102, 747-400
13' UPS 1354, A300
Add to the above list of hull losses, but non fatal:
09' American flight 331, 737
11' TSA, DBA UX 3363, ERJ145
13' Southwest 345, 737
14' Delta 1086, MD-88
14' USAirways 1702, A320
So as you can see above, since Colgan 3407, there has been at least 9 hull losses by American Carriers and yet only 1 of them has been by a regional airline.
08-11-2016, 06:40 AM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Posts: 132
08-11-2016, 09:38 AM
#59
With the Rebel Forces.
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Position: Observing
Posts: 289
>>>>>>>
I've said it on here at least a 100 times. Stop using the word "regional".
It's a derogatory term used to create a "C" scale major airline with "C" scale major airline pay and mis-treatment.
That business model has died.
Good riddance.
It's a derogatory term used to create a "C" scale major airline with "C" scale major airline pay and mis-treatment.
That business model has died.
Good riddance.
08-11-2016, 04:09 PM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Position: Guppy Gear Slinger
Posts: 2,000
So let's say that mainline carriers decide to take back all "regional" flying. Let's see exactly how that would play out:
1) Service to cities with airports that can't accommodate mainline aircraft...will disappear. This will then have the obvious effect of reducing available feed to the mainline hub airports, simply because some folks will choose to drive instead of fly, or not fly at all. (Let's say you live in Crescent City, California. Are you going to drive 6 hours to Sacramento just to fly to Portland? No, you won't. You'll just drive to Portland instead.)
The immediate effect? Mainline will lose revenue. Period. Now, moving on...
2) Mainline will have to replace (for example) five daily CRJ-700 flights with two daily 737-900 flights flown by mainline crews at mainline wages.
Now, when Joe Q. Public (or more importantly, John T. Executive) goes on Hotwire to book his ticket from FAT to JFK through SFO, or what have you, Mr. Executive sees that his usual airline (say, United) only offers 2 flights a day, meaning a five-hour layover in SFO instead of the usual hour. Then he notices that hey presto! Delta is now offering 4 flights a day FAT-LAX aboard a CRJ-900, allowing him to take a more convenient flight and spend only an hour sitting around LAX before hopping that 767 to JFK. Which carrier do you think John T. Executive is going to choose? Delta, of course. And he won't notice the fine print "operated by ____, a Delta Connection carrier."
Those who believe that the regionals are just going to 'go away' are ignoring the basic economic realities of the airline business. Those hub-to-hub widebody flights don't just carry residents of the local hub city, they absolutely depend on feed that 'regionals' currently provide. In some cases it's physically impossible to replace that feed with larger mainline aircraft. In other cases, while it's possible to replace the feed with mainline aircraft, doing so would dramatically reduce frequency, which is a huge selling point for business travelers.
OK, well, what about bringing regional aircraft to mainline and hiring mainline pilots to fly them? Ignoring for a moment the likely reluctance of mainline pilots to (gasp!) actually fly a CRJ-200 or a Dash, this move would instantly increase mainline's costs for that feed, simply because of the wage gap (as we all know). Mainline carriers have zero, repeat zero, incentive to make such a shift.
"But what about the pilot shortage?" you ask. "What happens if regional carriers can't hire enough pilots to keep the feed going?" Well, that is a possibility. But it's the only factor out there that could potentially influence a shift in flying from regionals to mainline. However, I think that before long, you'll see more mainline carriers staffing their regionals by offering more attractive flow programs, or – yikes – offering ab initio training along the lines of the UAL/LH deal or JB's Gateway Select program.
Bottom line, there are plenty of reasons that more than 50% of 121 airline daily departures in the US are now operated by 'regionals.' Those reasons aren't likely to go away anytime soon.
1) Service to cities with airports that can't accommodate mainline aircraft...will disappear. This will then have the obvious effect of reducing available feed to the mainline hub airports, simply because some folks will choose to drive instead of fly, or not fly at all. (Let's say you live in Crescent City, California. Are you going to drive 6 hours to Sacramento just to fly to Portland? No, you won't. You'll just drive to Portland instead.)
The immediate effect? Mainline will lose revenue. Period. Now, moving on...
2) Mainline will have to replace (for example) five daily CRJ-700 flights with two daily 737-900 flights flown by mainline crews at mainline wages.
Now, when Joe Q. Public (or more importantly, John T. Executive) goes on Hotwire to book his ticket from FAT to JFK through SFO, or what have you, Mr. Executive sees that his usual airline (say, United) only offers 2 flights a day, meaning a five-hour layover in SFO instead of the usual hour. Then he notices that hey presto! Delta is now offering 4 flights a day FAT-LAX aboard a CRJ-900, allowing him to take a more convenient flight and spend only an hour sitting around LAX before hopping that 767 to JFK. Which carrier do you think John T. Executive is going to choose? Delta, of course. And he won't notice the fine print "operated by ____, a Delta Connection carrier."
Those who believe that the regionals are just going to 'go away' are ignoring the basic economic realities of the airline business. Those hub-to-hub widebody flights don't just carry residents of the local hub city, they absolutely depend on feed that 'regionals' currently provide. In some cases it's physically impossible to replace that feed with larger mainline aircraft. In other cases, while it's possible to replace the feed with mainline aircraft, doing so would dramatically reduce frequency, which is a huge selling point for business travelers.
OK, well, what about bringing regional aircraft to mainline and hiring mainline pilots to fly them? Ignoring for a moment the likely reluctance of mainline pilots to (gasp!) actually fly a CRJ-200 or a Dash, this move would instantly increase mainline's costs for that feed, simply because of the wage gap (as we all know). Mainline carriers have zero, repeat zero, incentive to make such a shift.
"But what about the pilot shortage?" you ask. "What happens if regional carriers can't hire enough pilots to keep the feed going?" Well, that is a possibility. But it's the only factor out there that could potentially influence a shift in flying from regionals to mainline. However, I think that before long, you'll see more mainline carriers staffing their regionals by offering more attractive flow programs, or – yikes – offering ab initio training along the lines of the UAL/LH deal or JB's Gateway Select program.
Bottom line, there are plenty of reasons that more than 50% of 121 airline daily departures in the US are now operated by 'regionals.' Those reasons aren't likely to go away anytime soon.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
