"Earnings Live"
01-24-2018, 07:34 PM
#62
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,159
Kirby's comments on scope were just a bait and switch. Not once did ALPA or any union talk about "being burned" in markets.
Kirby's talking points on scope are an attempt to change the management narrative on scope. ALPA's narrative on scope is to "protect the profession" by insuring that mainline pilots do mainline flying at mainline pay.
The insertion of the RJ, and larger RJ's and still larger RJ's with more range are a marginalization of mainline careers and career expectations. Larger RJ's are a threat to the profession, unless they are flown by mainline pilots at mainline wages.
We don't care about being "burned" by management. We care about the profession and the integrity of career progression. If management chooses to down-guage a market and put a smaller jet on it, it does so without consideration of pilot wages.
I say again...Pilot wages should never be a factor. If it is flown by a jet with sufficient capacity to be considered a mainline jet, then get this, management should plan on paying mainline wages for that route. We don't have to worry about being burned because our scope clause is pretty tight.
Scope is not for sale, or on the table, unless it is to be tightened or strengthened.
Kirby's talking points on scope are an attempt to change the management narrative on scope. ALPA's narrative on scope is to "protect the profession" by insuring that mainline pilots do mainline flying at mainline pay.
The insertion of the RJ, and larger RJ's and still larger RJ's with more range are a marginalization of mainline careers and career expectations. Larger RJ's are a threat to the profession, unless they are flown by mainline pilots at mainline wages.
We don't care about being "burned" by management. We care about the profession and the integrity of career progression. If management chooses to down-guage a market and put a smaller jet on it, it does so without consideration of pilot wages.
I say again...Pilot wages should never be a factor. If it is flown by a jet with sufficient capacity to be considered a mainline jet, then get this, management should plan on paying mainline wages for that route. We don't have to worry about being burned because our scope clause is pretty tight.
Scope is not for sale, or on the table, unless it is to be tightened or strengthened.
01-24-2018, 08:21 PM
#63
Banned
Joined APC: May 2017
Posts: 64
Kirby's comments on scope were just a bait and switch. Not once did ALPA or any union talk about "being burned" in markets.
Kirby's talking points on scope are an attempt to change the management narrative on scope. ALPA's narrative on scope is to "protect the profession" by insuring that mainline pilots do mainline flying at mainline pay.
The insertion of the RJ, and larger RJ's and still larger RJ's with more range are a marginalization of mainline careers and career expectations. Larger RJ's are a threat to the profession, unless they are flown by mainline pilots at mainline wages.
We don't care about being "burned" by management. We care about the profession and the integrity of career progression. If management chooses to down-guage a market and put a smaller jet on it, it does so without consideration of pilot wages.
I say again...Pilot wages should never be a factor. If it is flown by a jet with sufficient capacity to be considered a mainline jet, then get this, management should plan on paying mainline wages for that route. We don't have to worry about being burned because our scope clause is pretty tight.
Scope is not for sale, or on the table, unless it is to be tightened or strengthened.
Kirby's talking points on scope are an attempt to change the management narrative on scope. ALPA's narrative on scope is to "protect the profession" by insuring that mainline pilots do mainline flying at mainline pay.
The insertion of the RJ, and larger RJ's and still larger RJ's with more range are a marginalization of mainline careers and career expectations. Larger RJ's are a threat to the profession, unless they are flown by mainline pilots at mainline wages.
We don't care about being "burned" by management. We care about the profession and the integrity of career progression. If management chooses to down-guage a market and put a smaller jet on it, it does so without consideration of pilot wages.
I say again...Pilot wages should never be a factor. If it is flown by a jet with sufficient capacity to be considered a mainline jet, then get this, management should plan on paying mainline wages for that route. We don't have to worry about being burned because our scope clause is pretty tight.
Scope is not for sale, or on the table, unless it is to be tightened or strengthened.
01-24-2018, 08:29 PM
#64
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2017
Posts: 348
Google B scales and Bob Crandall and come back and say that statement with a straight face.
Too bad you’re at Skywest and not a union shop with mentors.
Go home junior.
01-24-2018, 09:07 PM
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: guppy CA
Posts: 5,171
Since 2011, United has been reducing regional ASMs while upgauging their regional fleet. Even with all of the shrinkage and consolidation at regionals, they have schedule reliability issues due to short staffing.
RJs have two problems.
1) RJs are expensive to operate. The flight crews could be paid nothing and it would still be more expensive per seat mile to fly an RJ than an A319 or 737-700.
2) the number of qualified pilots is shrinking while demand is increasing.
Tell you what, let's revisit this topic in five years and you can tell everyone your opinion of the future of RJs at that time.
01-25-2018, 07:36 AM
#68
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2016
Posts: 131
You sound like taxicab drivers who fail to recognize that their days are numbered.
Since 2011, United has been reducing regional ASMs while upgauging their regional fleet. Even with all of the shrinkage and consolidation at regionals, they have schedule reliability issues due to short staffing.
RJs have two problems.
1) RJs are expensive to operate. The flight crews could be paid nothing and it would still be more expensive per seat mile to fly an RJ than an A319 or 737-700.
2) the number of qualified pilots is shrinking while demand is increasing.
Tell you what, let's revisit this topic in five years and you can tell everyone your opinion of the future of RJs at that time.
Since 2011, United has been reducing regional ASMs while upgauging their regional fleet. Even with all of the shrinkage and consolidation at regionals, they have schedule reliability issues due to short staffing.
RJs have two problems.
1) RJs are expensive to operate. The flight crews could be paid nothing and it would still be more expensive per seat mile to fly an RJ than an A319 or 737-700.
2) the number of qualified pilots is shrinking while demand is increasing.
Tell you what, let's revisit this topic in five years and you can tell everyone your opinion of the future of RJs at that time.
01-25-2018, 07:58 AM
#69
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2016
Posts: 131
Assuming Sky is a millenial, I hope he is not representative of the majority.
EDIT: and add "Truthanator" to the above comment
EDIT EDIT: actually looking over Truth's posting history I see he is an ole timer at the regionals and not a millenial so disregard that, but Truth I only looked at 2 or 3 of your posts and all I can say is: Life will be a LOT nicer for you if you would be nicer in life. Now go ahead and feel free to slug at me because I am sure that will make you feel better.
EDIT: and add "Truthanator" to the above comment
EDIT EDIT: actually looking over Truth's posting history I see he is an ole timer at the regionals and not a millenial so disregard that, but Truth I only looked at 2 or 3 of your posts and all I can say is: Life will be a LOT nicer for you if you would be nicer in life. Now go ahead and feel free to slug at me because I am sure that will make you feel better.
It's laughable to think that there will ever be a time when regional feed is not necessary, much less all of it taken back to legacy.
I have no reason to slug at you!
01-25-2018, 08:28 AM
#70
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: guppy CA
Posts: 5,171
In the case of air travel, RJs have the highest CASM. It is inefficient. It is only done to add frequency to smaller cities. That whole 'regional feed is necessary' line is bovine excrement - the hubs can be fed with mainline aircraft flying to outstations with a bit less daily frequency than RJs currently provide.
Let's examine DEN-TUS. When I lived in TUS a few years ago, it was 5 RJs (RJ only) per day service. I just pulled up next Monday's schedule. It's 4 Rjs and one A319.
This could easily go to 4 A319s per day, losing one flight per day, and still have more seats available than is currently offered. Or 3 A320s/737s per day.
In addition to increased travel demand, there are fewer new pilots entering the industry than are leaving it (retiring/medical). If you think that the highest cost, most inefficient portion of air travel will survive the dual pressures of increased travel demand and decreased supply (of pilots), that's awesome. I'm sure there are some taxi cab drivers who are also expecting their niche to recover. Times change. Living in the past is a poor life strategy.
