Oscar out Kirby in
12-07-2019, 09:22 PM
#71
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2019
Posts: 442
You just answered your own question. MGMT is willing to do all that because it is NOT profitable to do it here. Period. End of story. And no it's not just compensation.
We can do it, but we will not be profitable at it.
The guys beating their chest over bringing back 76 seater flying are living in a dream world. I would LOVE to see this flying here, are you kidding me? It would be incredible. But that ship sailed long ago. I've moved onto hoping we can work with what we have and protect our jobs in the current, real world environment. Not some fantasy world.
We can do it, but we will not be profitable at it.
The guys beating their chest over bringing back 76 seater flying are living in a dream world. I would LOVE to see this flying here, are you kidding me? It would be incredible. But that ship sailed long ago. I've moved onto hoping we can work with what we have and protect our jobs in the current, real world environment. Not some fantasy world.
RJDio,
I guess I can't give you what you want. You're right, I suppose we could make money to some degree with us taking back flying all the 76 seaters. I'd love to see it. I just don't see how. I based my opinion on the way the industry is currently structured.
I'll just have to trust our MEC.
I guess I can't give you what you want. You're right, I suppose we could make money to some degree with us taking back flying all the 76 seaters. I'd love to see it. I just don't see how. I based my opinion on the way the industry is currently structured.
I'll just have to trust our MEC.
The E175-E2 is stretched over the E175-E1 and holds 80 seats in a 2 class config. Adding 4 more pax than a 76 seat E175 (or 10 more than a 70 seat E170/175), and subtracting the saved fuel for the given fuel savings of the E2 (over 10%, likely higher), would likely more than offset the additional crew costs. Insourcing also brings its own efficiencies (albeit with some additional costs like labor, longevity on pay scales, medical, etc.). I just don't buy the argument that mainline can't turn a profit flying 80-84 seat E175-E2s, especially if a CRJ-700 (probably about the same operating costs as an E175-E2) with 50 seats can be flown at a profit by a regional.
But why would mgmt insource when pilots are ok with it being outsourced and mgmt can keep pushing for more? I still maintain the legacy pilot scope mantra (in '19/'20, with the last several years of massive profitability) should be to insource, not just protect from further outsourcing. But pilots have been so beat down with scope they think maintaining status quo (that allows more outsourcing) is a win. UAX can still add more large RJs (and unlimited small RJs)? How crazy is that? And nobody is even trying to stop that...just maintain it? To Kirby, maintaining status quo RJ scope is a loss to him in negotiations. Obviously he wants more/larger RJs and doesn't want to pay for new SNB to unlock them. But his "loss" is still a win. He can still continue to grow your RJ fleet even if he doesn't get any scope gives. What if pilots/ALPA had that same kind of outlook but the other direction? That maintaining your current book large RJ outsourcing is a negotiation loss, and that only by stopping future outsourcing and taking back flying and large RJs would be a win?
Why does management get to ask for more RJs, but you guys don't even try to ask for eliminating the avenue to additional large RJs with a new SNB...never mind trying to take some large RJs back? Seems bananas given the times. It's a massively defeatist outlook that has been normalized and just accepted. While the RJ problem has the appearance of being somewhat self-correcting with the regional pilot shortage, more should be done to fix it. And to whomever will respond with "but they provide us feed so it helps us grow!"...feed yourself with your own 76/80/100 seaters.
12-07-2019, 10:14 PM
#72
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: SFO Guppy CA
Posts: 1,112
That ship may have sailed...go get it and turn it back around and bring it back. Stop letting Kirby et al keep driving it away.
The E175-E2 is stretched over the E175-E1 and holds 80 seats in a 2 class config. Adding 4 more pax than a 76 seat E175 (or 10 more than a 70 seat E170/175), and subtracting the saved fuel for the given fuel savings of the E2 (over 10%, likely higher), would likely more than offset the additional crew costs. Insourcing also brings its own efficiencies (albeit with some additional costs like labor, longevity on pay scales, medical, etc.). I just don't buy the argument that mainline can't turn a profit flying 80-84 seat E175-E2s, especially if a CRJ-700 (probably about the same operating costs as an E175-E2) with 50 seats can be flown at a profit by a regional.
But why would mgmt insource when pilots are ok with it being outsourced and mgmt can keep pushing for more? I still maintain the legacy pilot scope mantra (in '19/'20, with the last several years of massive profitability) should be to insource, not just protect from further outsourcing. But pilots have been so beat down with scope they think maintaining status quo (that allows more outsourcing) is a win. UAX can still add more large RJs (and unlimited small RJs)? How crazy is that? And nobody is even trying to stop that...just maintain it? To Kirby, maintaining status quo RJ scope is a loss to him in negotiations. Obviously he wants more/larger RJs and doesn't want to pay for new SNB to unlock them. But his "loss" is still a win. He can still continue to grow your RJ fleet even if he doesn't get any scope gives. What if pilots/ALPA had that same kind of outlook but the other direction? That maintaining your current book large RJ outsourcing is a negotiation loss, and that only by stopping future outsourcing and taking back flying and large RJs would be a win?
Why does management get to ask for more RJs, but you guys don't even try to ask for eliminating the avenue to additional large RJs with a new SNB...never mind trying to take some large RJs back? Seems bananas given the times. It's a massively defeatist outlook that has been normalized and just accepted. While the RJ problem has the appearance of being somewhat self-correcting with the regional pilot shortage, more should be done to fix it. And to whomever will respond with "but they provide us feed so it helps us grow!"...feed yourself with your own 76/80/100 seaters.
The E175-E2 is stretched over the E175-E1 and holds 80 seats in a 2 class config. Adding 4 more pax than a 76 seat E175 (or 10 more than a 70 seat E170/175), and subtracting the saved fuel for the given fuel savings of the E2 (over 10%, likely higher), would likely more than offset the additional crew costs. Insourcing also brings its own efficiencies (albeit with some additional costs like labor, longevity on pay scales, medical, etc.). I just don't buy the argument that mainline can't turn a profit flying 80-84 seat E175-E2s, especially if a CRJ-700 (probably about the same operating costs as an E175-E2) with 50 seats can be flown at a profit by a regional.
But why would mgmt insource when pilots are ok with it being outsourced and mgmt can keep pushing for more? I still maintain the legacy pilot scope mantra (in '19/'20, with the last several years of massive profitability) should be to insource, not just protect from further outsourcing. But pilots have been so beat down with scope they think maintaining status quo (that allows more outsourcing) is a win. UAX can still add more large RJs (and unlimited small RJs)? How crazy is that? And nobody is even trying to stop that...just maintain it? To Kirby, maintaining status quo RJ scope is a loss to him in negotiations. Obviously he wants more/larger RJs and doesn't want to pay for new SNB to unlock them. But his "loss" is still a win. He can still continue to grow your RJ fleet even if he doesn't get any scope gives. What if pilots/ALPA had that same kind of outlook but the other direction? That maintaining your current book large RJ outsourcing is a negotiation loss, and that only by stopping future outsourcing and taking back flying and large RJs would be a win?
Why does management get to ask for more RJs, but you guys don't even try to ask for eliminating the avenue to additional large RJs with a new SNB...never mind trying to take some large RJs back? Seems bananas given the times. It's a massively defeatist outlook that has been normalized and just accepted. While the RJ problem has the appearance of being somewhat self-correcting with the regional pilot shortage, more should be done to fix it. And to whomever will respond with "but they provide us feed so it helps us grow!"...feed yourself with your own 76/80/100 seaters.
Having said all of that, I would love to see the Regional Airlines be abolished for good!!! Bring the flying to mainline. That’s a utopian thought. Reality is much different.
12-07-2019, 11:01 PM
#73
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,244
Instructor pilots and LCA's are suck-ups. I don't have a problem saying that, and if they were being honest they would tell you they are careful as to what they say in these LCA meetings and in front of management, and I've been doing this 30 years, and I've never seen one "rock the boat." Cooperate and graduate is how I see them. They keep saying..."we're doing X because this is what we're doing." Never challenge management.
OK, here's the deal. If Kirby wants to get a standing ovation from the pilots he's gonna have to say this: " I promise not to attempt to attack scope language." I know it's a sacred cow, and I am not going to try and sacrifice it, not on my watch." He says that, and I'll stand and clap.
If he won't protect my sacred cow, then I may not want to protect his.
OK, here's the deal. If Kirby wants to get a standing ovation from the pilots he's gonna have to say this: " I promise not to attempt to attack scope language." I know it's a sacred cow, and I am not going to try and sacrifice it, not on my watch." He says that, and I'll stand and clap.
If he won't protect my sacred cow, then I may not want to protect his.
The attack on LCAs is pretty low. I know quite a few that are in no way a representation of what you accuse... I’ve flown with far more line pilots who are.
12-08-2019, 04:18 AM
#74
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,159
He has said that. He’s said that he’s willing to build an iron clad agreement for mainline pilots that helps him build the feed he need.
The attack on LCAs is pretty low. I know quite a few that are in no way a representation of what you accuse... I’ve flown with far more line pilots who are.
The attack on LCAs is pretty low. I know quite a few that are in no way a representation of what you accuse... I’ve flown with far more line pilots who are.
I've had two Line Checks whereby the LCA was preaching scope relief from my jump seat. I asked why? He said they were briefed on management needs and they just brief what they are told.
You can consider it an attack if you like. I consider it an astute observation. Management has no business showing up to LCA meeetings and talking about their negotiating goals. It should just be about LCA stuff. Management doesn't need to show up. period dot.
12-08-2019, 04:22 AM
#75
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,159
It's called "negotiating directly with labor." ALPA should know about the tactic and stop it cold.
12-08-2019, 06:39 AM
#76
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Posts: 629
You call it unprofitable, I call it whipsaw. The MEC has stated they believe it is viable through their analysis (with no data from the company). Why is management so afraid to show them the data and prove the compelling argument that it’s unprofitable at mainline?
Again, I ask how do you come to that conclusion? is just because you and the company say so?
Again, I ask how do you come to that conclusion? is just because you and the company say so?
12-08-2019, 06:47 AM
#77
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2018
Posts: 1,358
I’m curious how you come to your conclusion?
I’ve asked someone on the MEC directly if the company has shared their data showing the RJ’s being unprofitable at mainline. Their answer was definitive No, and they have no plans of doing so in the future.
Second, we wouldn’t be flying 170’s. It would be 175’s in a higher density configuration than 76 seats.
Third, we buy most of the airplanes and pay for all the infrastructure express uses to operate in. So it comes down to compensation. Compensation at most express carriers is now only fractionally less than our book rates for 175’s/900’s. In the latest CPA with Skywest, our management has agreed to subsidize/absorb the increases in wages (outside of COLA) and bonuses to keep recruitment going.
Fourth, when one express carrier can’t fulfill their schedule, the block hours have to be covered by another express carrier at a premium (like our senior manning). How much is that costing on an annual level? Again, something the company is unwilling to share with the union to truly audit the cost of the RJ.
Lastly, what’s the true cost of helping support the 8 different: training departments, maintenance operations, dispatchers, etc?
I’ve asked someone on the MEC directly if the company has shared their data showing the RJ’s being unprofitable at mainline. Their answer was definitive No, and they have no plans of doing so in the future.
Second, we wouldn’t be flying 170’s. It would be 175’s in a higher density configuration than 76 seats.
Third, we buy most of the airplanes and pay for all the infrastructure express uses to operate in. So it comes down to compensation. Compensation at most express carriers is now only fractionally less than our book rates for 175’s/900’s. In the latest CPA with Skywest, our management has agreed to subsidize/absorb the increases in wages (outside of COLA) and bonuses to keep recruitment going.
Fourth, when one express carrier can’t fulfill their schedule, the block hours have to be covered by another express carrier at a premium (like our senior manning). How much is that costing on an annual level? Again, something the company is unwilling to share with the union to truly audit the cost of the RJ.
Lastly, what’s the true cost of helping support the 8 different: training departments, maintenance operations, dispatchers, etc?
12-08-2019, 07:03 AM
#78
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,639
That's not to say they have it at their finger tips in real time like management, but all that data is reported to the DOT and is publicly available to everybody, including every competitor. The DOT even publishes the data as an Excel spreadsheet.
Any competent analyst working for the union could make heads-and-tails of the entire situation when combined with publicly reported financial reports. This also is the exact reason that the company knows precisely how our competitors are performing in our hubs.
Of course, the union's definition of 'feasibility' and management's almost certainly don't agree.
12-08-2019, 07:11 AM
#79
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Posts: 629
Um, actually they do. That's all public data, even down to the city pair.
That's not to say they have it at their finger tips in real time like management, but all that data is reported to the DOT and is publicly available to everybody, including every competitor. The DOT even publishes the data as an Excel spreadsheet.
Any competent analyst working for the union could make heads-and-tails of the entire situation when combined with publicly reported financial reports. This also is the exact reason that the company knows precisely how our competitors are performing in our hubs.
Of course, the union's definition of 'feasibility' and management's might not agree.
That's not to say they have it at their finger tips in real time like management, but all that data is reported to the DOT and is publicly available to everybody, including every competitor. The DOT even publishes the data as an Excel spreadsheet.
Any competent analyst working for the union could make heads-and-tails of the entire situation when combined with publicly reported financial reports. This also is the exact reason that the company knows precisely how our competitors are performing in our hubs.
Of course, the union's definition of 'feasibility' and management's might not agree.
12-08-2019, 07:20 AM
#80
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,639
Granted, it's after the fact but it's totally usable information to determine the revenue generated on a route and then model the potential profitability of a specific aircraft on that route.
A few links to get you started down the rabbit hole....
https://www.transportation.gov/polic...airfare-report
https://www.bts.gov/air-fares
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
