Aviation Week reports that Embraer and Bombardier are delaying new-generation 70-ish seat aircraft due to scope clause seat and weight restrictions. Apparently some of these contracts at US carriers come up in 2018, and the manufacturers don't expect scope relief to allow these aircraft to be built.

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... 1b738e3ccd

More evidence of how scope clauses hurt consumers and communities, and why they should be eliminated. The 70-110 seat category is extremely important for smaller and mid-size communities, especially as the economics of 50-seaters are less and less sustainable. Newer-technology, more-efficient 70-80 seat RJs could likely help keep more routes sustainable. Airlines should not be obstructed in any way from offering them. If anyone says "let mainline pilots fly them," fine, but they have to do so at rates that do their part to help keep fares and routes economically sustainable.

Jim

DCA-ROCguy wrote:

Airlines should not be obstructed in any way from offering them. If anyone says "let mainline pilots fly them," fine, but they have to do so at rates that do their part to help keep fares and routes economically sustainable.

Jim

Airlines aren't obstructed. Airline management has decided that 'buying' scope relief isn't worth the price, and that U.S. mainline pilot/staff wages generally make something like an E95 unappealing.

As for pilots 'doing their part' do you have the government insisting you make too much and ought to take a big pay cut?

U.S. pilots have a right to union representation if they want it. Unions advocate for pay, work rules and job guarantees (seniority bidding and scope clauses, among other factors) for their members. Airline execs negotiate and set strategy accordingly. If Embraer, Bombardier, and Mitsubishi can't make a product at a price that U.S. carriers want to pay and that makes an acceptable ROI to manufacturers, they shouldn't proceed with the investments.

This though - does not as equally affect them both...

The C-Series operates in a category larger than the requirement - and has the capacity to grow in to the CS-500. How many outstanding CRJ orders are there? Would a CRJ-NEO in 5-10 years be feasible?
Embraer has the E175-E2, in the delicate position, of few orders and the remaining order - a dud.

I wonder how Mitsubishi will fare in this situation...

Wouldn't it make more sense to just rework the mainline contract to allow for a separate collectively bargained contract for pilots for those mid size regional birds? Something that offers the protections and benefits that are similar to mainline, but at a different wage scale? Perhaps as something like a feeder system for mainline pilots with provisions for more experienced left seaters to elect to transition to mainline status, but remain as a sort of advisory training pilot for new hires?

What is the scope clause trying to prevent that this won't address?

MIflyer12 wrote:

Airlines aren't obstructed. Airline management has decided that 'buying' scope relief isn't worth the price, and that U.S. mainline pilot/staff wages generally make something like an E95 unappealing. As for pilots 'doing their part' do you have the government insisting you make too much and ought to take a big pay cut? U.S. pilots have a right to union representation if they want it. Unions advocate for pay, work rules and job guarantees (seniority bidding and scope clauses, among other factors) for their members. Airline execs negotiate and set strategy accordingly. If Embraer, Bombardier, and Mitsubishi can't make a product at a price that U.S. carriers want to pay and that makes an acceptable ROI to manufacturers, they shouldn't proceed with the investments.

Big pay cuts? Been there, done that, like most people in the US economy. In my profession, it's called universities hiring mostly part-time adjunct professors at low pay, and stingily hiring only a few full-time professors with health benefits. Welcome to what the rest of us deal with.

Unions are double-edged swords. They nearly killed the US car industry in the 70's and early 80's, which I well remember (you didn't want to own a late 70's US car, which is why our family switched to Toyota). Scope is bad for airline passengers, who are the whole reason there's a passenger-carrier industry to begin with (and yes, I know how US carriers started as mail carriers, thank you, I know that history just fine).

If Embraer can develop a somewhat larger EMB-175 with new technology and better economics, airlines should be able to buy it, period, without artificial restrictions.

Jim

DCA-ROCguy wrote:

Big pay cuts? Been there, done that, like most people in the US economy. In my profession, it's called universities hiring mostly part-time adjunct professors at low pay, and stingily hiring only a few full-time professors with health benefits. Welcome to what the rest of us deal with.

Your workgroup could have organized and secured a CBA ensuring that all vacancies are staffed with full-time permanent employees, but for any number of reasons you chose not to. That is no reason to try to take down those who did try to secure their jobs' futures.

I don't understand why (or when, exactly) American culture went from "hey, he has that ... I want that too!!" to the current version of "well I don't have that, so let's take it away from him too."

Heavier use of adjuncts is relatively recent, and efforts to organize are relatively early. But, even if we do organize, it doesn't seem to me we're going to get everything our way. Like most things in life, the likely result will be compromise. Probably some of both. We'll both improve our situation, and do our part to keep college from being ridiculously expensive. Cutting back bloated administrations needs to be another component.

Air travel is a social or public good, which means that it should be provided at a cost that both makes money for investors, pays employees, and keeps fares reasonable. Right now the scales are tipped entirely in the favor of managements and unions. Unions restrict what kinds of aircraft can be flown, managements try to shut down competition. Both of these things are bad. Management certainly has its share of responsibility, but the fact that scope is a perpetual roadblock to scheduling flexibility in a crucial capacity segment, suggests that this one isn't on management. If the price was right, they'd sign off.

I'm just arguing for fairness for all, and right now the industry is tipped entirely against the consumer by consolidation and collective bargaining. Scope needs to go. Not "taking away" anything that is any shareholder's fair share of air travel.

Jim

what was the reason behind the difference in mainline vs subsidiaries airline pilot salary that caused the scope clause to be created? If someone establish a new airline with new staff that fly aircrafts larger and better than those permitted by scope clause while treating their staff in same way as regionals wouldn't that be a win?

DCA-ROCguy wrote:

Heavier use of adjuncts is relatively recent, and efforts to organize are relatively early. But, even if we do organize, it doesn't seem to me we're going to get everything our way. Like most things in life, the likely result will be compromise. Probably some of both. We'll both improve our situation, and do our part to keep college from being ridiculously expensive. Cutting back bloated administrations needs to be another component.

Air travel is a social or public good, which means that it should be provided at a cost that both makes money for investors, pays employees, and keeps fares reasonable. Right now the scales are tipped entirely in the favor of managements and unions. Unions restrict what kinds of aircraft can be flown, managements try to shut down competition. Both of these things are bad. Management certainly has its share of responsibility, but the fact that scope is a perpetual roadblock to scheduling flexibility in a crucial capacity segment, suggests that this one isn't on management. If the price was right, they'd sign off.

I'm just arguing for fairness for all, and right now the industry is tipped entirely against the consumer by consolidation and collective bargaining. Scope needs to go. Not "taking away" anything that is any shareholder's fair share of air travel.

Jim

The only direction scope needs to go is smaller. Anything larger than a 50 seater should be at mainline. Scope creep larger is over, all 3 of the majors have recent contracts where there was no push for larger RJ's. Larger scope or not doesn't address the fact that in 5 years there won't be pilots to staff half the RJ's currently operated.

DCA-ROCguy wrote:

I'm just arguing for fairness for all, and right now the industry is tipped entirely against the consumer by consolidation and collective bargaining. Scope needs to go. Not "taking away" anything that is any shareholder's fair share of air travel.

Jim

I believe you are bing over dramatic. Cheap airfare is a not a right, airlines are not a utility. It is an item that you have the freedom to purchase if you so desire. If you can't or don't want to pay the price to travel you are free to find other options. Air service to small communities is also not a guarantee. Perhaps I missed the "life, liberty and cheap air travel"

You say you are in the education field. Should a college education really cost over 200K? I think it should be a free or greatly reduced. But I accept that the cost of an education is market driven. Would you be willing to give up you job to assure cheap tuition?

Mcdu--your entire post is a caricature. I never said "cheap" airfare is a right, but reasonable airfare is, sorry. Air travel is an essential part of the modern economy and way of life, and it absolutely is a social or public good. History tells us that air travel is best privately provided, as government ownership generally has not worked out well. But airlines absolutely have a public trust, and yes, keeping its cost reasonable--not necessarily "cheap" in all circumstances--is part of the deal. If you don't agree, that's your decision, but your philosophy is bad.

Education should cost much less than it does. University administrations tend to be terribly bloated, and technology cost needs to be disciplined. The degree and extent of on-campus housing may need to be reconsidered, too; do college juniors and seniors need someone to cook and clean for them? In many cases, living off campus may be much cheaper. Also, because of the much-changed economy, college grads don't pull in the huge amounts of money they did more easily in the 90's and into the last decade.

Asking whether I would "give up my job" is a red herring. I haven't asked anyone to give up their job. Who they work for might be worked out in negotiation, but I haven't said anything about giving up jobs. As far as education goes, as I noted above, due to the much less favorable economics to pay for college, professors will probably wind up negotiating something in between the current adjunct-heavy situation and the old more-heavily full-time situation. We have to meet the economics of our students somewhere.

Jim

DCA-ROCguy wrote:

More evidence of how scope clauses hurt consumers and communities, and why they should be eliminated. The 70-110 seat category is extremely important for smaller and mid-size communities, especially as the economics of 50-seaters are less and less sustainable. Newer-technology, more-efficient 70-80 seat RJs could likely help keep more routes sustainable. Airlines should not be obstructed in any way from offering them. If anyone says "let mainline pilots fly them," fine, but they have to do so at rates that do their part to help keep fares and routes economically sustainable.

Jim

Scope clauses have nothing to do with a communities service. If a community can't fill a 50 seat jet or barely fills it, a 70 seat jet is not going to help the situation. That efficiency gain by spreading the coast out over more seats is only realized if the seats are filled. A 70 seater with 50 people in it will result in less profit than a filled 50 seater because of the increased cost to operate the 70 seater (its carrying dead structural weight). What these small cities should be getting is turbo prop service but the US population is too dumb to accept them.

70-110 seats is also not an "extremely important" aircraft size category. The only large brand name carrier operating that in that size is JetBlue with their E190's and 20 E190's at American from USAir. Most 70-76 seat jets today are not flying to the small cities. They are flying to medium and large cities from hubs to provide increased frequency on behalf of the mainline partner. These fights used to be flown by the mainlines themselves, but... see below

LightningZ71 wrote:

Wouldn't it make more sense to just rework the mainline contract to allow for a separate collectively bargained contract for pilots for those mid size regional birds? Something that offers the protections and benefits that are similar to mainline, but at a different wage scale? Perhaps as something like a feeder system for mainline pilots with provisions for more experienced left seaters to elect to transition to mainline status, but remain as a sort of advisory training pilot for new hires?

What is the scope clause trying to prevent that this won't address?

We already have this very system. As I stated above, there was a time when when everything was flown inhouse. They were flying BAC1-11's and DC-9-10's and the like. But then they decided they were going to outsource this flying to other carriers for less costs. And that was when the regional industry as we know it today was born.

Mainline is the "A" payscale and regionals are the "B" payscale. We do not get paid the same rate on a per passenger basis for the aircraft size. For that reason, if they were to bring regional jets back in house, the rates they would have to pay would increase over the regional rates. A pilot group operates under a collective bargaining agreement, keyword there is collective. A union can not propose a contract with "b" scale rates at a major, the pilot groups would never go for it nor should they.

Without scope, there is zero protection for the mainline rates or job security. Without it, the mainlines would send 737's down to the regional level which means all those pilots will now take a pay cut. It's even happening on the opposite end of the spectrum. Look at Delta, they are essentially outsourcing a lot of international flying by sending their passenger through their partner airlines that operate with a lower cost structure.

Overall, pilot costs are a drop in the ocean when it comes to the overall cost of a flight, at least in the regional world.

ANet may be largely anti-union and anti-collective bargaining but its a seller's market (pilots). The military is producing fewer pilots who transition to civilian airlines which means the U.S. airline industry lost one of its main feeds for pilots.

A person going to school to acquire a pilot's license and the requisite hours will spend tens of thousands of dollars only to work for a regional making peanuts while flying a brutal schedule. People say no thanks and the upcoming pilot shortage was born.

There is a solution - bring the flying to the mainline. While it will be more expensive than what we see now, it need not be that much more. Airlines may also have to set up flight academy type programs as has been done in Europe, we'll see if there are enough pilots to fill the ranks in the years ahead.

Sure unions have taken a hit in the last few decades, including the airlines. However the reality of the upcoming retirement of thousands of pilots is a statistic that tilts the balance away from "scope" relief.

DCA-ROCguy wrote:

More evidence of how scope clauses hurt consumers and communities, and why they should be eliminated.

Scope clauses may hurt consumers and communities, but this ain't evidence of it. Bombardier and Embraer just need to make a lighter plane and – viola! – it's salable. This is an example of poor product planning – making assumptions about a future marketplace that haven't borne out.

DCA-ROCguy wrote:

Aviation Week reports that Embraer and Bombardier are delaying new-generation 70-ish seat aircraft due to scope clause seat and weight restrictions. Apparently some of these contracts at US carriers come up in 2018, and the manufacturers don't expect scope relief to allow these aircraft to be built.

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... 1b738e3ccd

More evidence of how scope clauses hurt consumers and communities, and why they should be eliminated. The 70-110 seat category is extremely important for smaller and mid-size communities, especially as the economics of 50-seaters are less and less sustainable. Newer-technology, more-efficient 70-80 seat RJs could likely help keep more routes sustainable. Airlines should not be obstructed in any way from offering them. If anyone says "let mainline pilots fly them," fine, but they have to do so at rates that do their part to help keep fares and routes economically sustainable.

Jim

Sorry Jim, the pendulum has swung to the side of labor for now. Were you lamenting the 50% pay cuts many of us took and loss of pensions etc so OUR flying could be outsourced to the lowest bidder? Please, give it a rest there is no innate right to air service and no right for YOU to decide what is a "fair" price. RJs were a tool to use against mainline employees to keep wages and benefits down and that is all they were meant to do and thanks to the bankruptcy laws, the airlines were able to take more than full advantage of this whip sawing. I am constantly amazed how many members of a so called airline enthusiasts site are so anti airline employee (unless they are willing to work at wages you deem appropriate). Please point me to a university enthusiasts site so I can spout about how university employees are over paid and they should be outsourced so that tuition can be at a level that I feel is appropriate...

DCA-ROCguy wrote:

Aviation Week reports that Embraer and Bombardier are delaying new-generation 70-ish seat aircraft due to scope clause seat and weight restrictions. Apparently some of these contracts at US carriers come up in 2018, and the manufacturers don't expect scope relief to allow these aircraft to be built.

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... 1b738e3ccd

More evidence of how scope clauses hurt consumers and communities, and why they should be eliminated. The 70-110 seat category is extremely important for smaller and mid-size communities, especially as the economics of 50-seaters are less and less sustainable. Newer-technology, more-efficient 70-80 seat RJs could likely help keep more routes sustainable. Airlines should not be obstructed in any way from offering them. If anyone says "let mainline pilots fly them," fine, but they have to do so at rates that do their part to help keep fares and routes economically sustainable.

Jim

Get real Jim.

There shouldn't be any outsourced regional flying at all. The Majors did it as a play to pull down labor costs to unsustainable low wages, resulting in Colgan air/Comair incidents.

Scope should be zero All RJ's flown by mainline at mainline rates.

Jetblue and AA do it without issue on the E190.

Varsity1 wrote:

DCA-ROCguy wrote:

Aviation Week reports that Embraer and Bombardier are delaying new-generation 70-ish seat aircraft due to scope clause seat and weight restrictions. Apparently some of these contracts at US carriers come up in 2018, and the manufacturers don't expect scope relief to allow these aircraft to be built.

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... 1b738e3ccd

More evidence of how scope clauses hurt consumers and communities, and why they should be eliminated. The 70-110 seat category is extremely important for smaller and mid-size communities, especially as the economics of 50-seaters are less and less sustainable. Newer-technology, more-efficient 70-80 seat RJs could likely help keep more routes sustainable. Airlines should not be obstructed in any way from offering them. If anyone says "let mainline pilots fly them," fine, but they have to do so at rates that do their part to help keep fares and routes economically sustainable.

Jim

Get real Jim.

There shouldn't be any outsourced regional flying at all. The Majors did it as a play to pull down labor costs to unsustainable low wages, resulting in Colgan air/Comair incidents.

Scope should be zero All RJ's flown by mainline at mainline rates.

Jetblue and AA do it without issue on the E190.

AA is removing their E190s and jetBlue is focused on the A321 because their smaller jets don't add a lot of profit potential. Regional airlines are crucial to operating smaller jets profitably. If mainline pilots want to fly the regional jets, they need to accept lower wages for these particular birds, otherwise the majors would lose money. It's not acceptable to the owners of the company to operate jets knowingly at a loss.

It will never cease to amaze me ....... I remember so well, getting into an argument with a passenger on a Toronto to Fort Lauderdale flight way back in the late 90's. At the time we offered a complimentary bar/drink service, followed by a hot meal, 2 x red/white wine with the meal, 2 x coffee/tea service and then another round of drinks prior to arrival. This on a less than 3 hour flight. The passenger complained he didn't get offered enough free drinks. I asked him how much he had paid for the flight .... his answer $99. I then asked him how he got to the airport that evening...... answer, $35 in a cab from downtown Toronto. He probably didn't question the cab driver or demand a bottle of water or expect any special services..... so why is it the airline industry has to keep giving giving giving .....

815Oceanic wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

DCA-ROCguy wrote:

Aviation Week reports that Embraer and Bombardier are delaying new-generation 70-ish seat aircraft due to scope clause seat and weight restrictions. Apparently some of these contracts at US carriers come up in 2018, and the manufacturers don't expect scope relief to allow these aircraft to be built.

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... 1b738e3ccd

More evidence of how scope clauses hurt consumers and communities, and why they should be eliminated. The 70-110 seat category is extremely important for smaller and mid-size communities, especially as the economics of 50-seaters are less and less sustainable. Newer-technology, more-efficient 70-80 seat RJs could likely help keep more routes sustainable. Airlines should not be obstructed in any way from offering them. If anyone says "let mainline pilots fly them," fine, but they have to do so at rates that do their part to help keep fares and routes economically sustainable.

Jim

Get real Jim.

There shouldn't be any outsourced regional flying at all. The Majors did it as a play to pull down labor costs to unsustainable low wages, resulting in Colgan air/Comair incidents.

Scope should be zero All RJ's flown by mainline at mainline rates.

Jetblue and AA do it without issue on the E190.

AA is removing their E190s and jetBlue is focused on the A321 because their smaller jets don't add a lot of profit potential. Regional airlines are crucial to operating smaller jets profitably. If mainline pilots want to fly the regional jets, they need to accept lower wages for these particular birds, otherwise the majors would lose money. It's not acceptable to the owners of the company to operate jets knowingly at a loss.

Then don't operate the jets. Simple as that.

If outsourcing make airline cheaper to operate then why weren't airlines outsourcing all of their services to those smaller airline and instead only those regionals? Before they sign the scope clause

It will be very interesting to see how the RJ market develops. Scope is the reason why I think Bombardier is actually in not a bad position even with the CSeries fiasco considered. Management have their back against the wall, and the mainline pilots have no reason to provide any more scope relief. I think Embraer and Mitsubishi are going to run into a lot of issues once they realize that they've designed planes that they can't meaningfully sell to the largest "RJ" market in the world. Bombardier has the luxury of being able to wait and see what happens. The CRJ is a lighter frame than the E-Jet, though the CRJ-900 isn't too much under 86,000 lbs, so who knows if they can even get a next gen engine onto the frame while still staying under.

So long as the working conditions stay crappy at these regionals, we're going to see more regional carriers running into the same unsightly issues AS has run into with QX — not nearly enough pilots to staff all those shiny new RJs.

intotheair wrote:

It will be very interesting to see how the RJ market develops. Scope is the reason why I think Bombardier is actually in not a bad position even with the CSeries fiasco considered. Management have their back against the wall, and the mainline pilots have no reason to provide any more scope relief. I think Embraer and Mitsubishi are going to run into a lot of issues once they realize that they've designed planes that they can't meaningfully sell to the largest "RJ" market in the world. Bombardier has the luxury of being able to wait and see what happens. The CRJ is a lighter frame than the E-Jet, though the CRJ-900 isn't too much under 86,000 lbs, so who knows if they can even get a next gen engine onto the frame while still staying under.

So long as the working conditions stay crappy at these regionals, we're going to see more regional carriers running into the same unsightly issues AS has run into with QX — not nearly enough pilots to staff all those shiny new RJs.

Certain majors have figured out that to keep their regionals staffed, they're bringing the flying to the regionals they own. Places that pay reasonable money even for first year FO's, places that offer decent money and some form of career progression. The small, non-owned regionals are probably not going to have much of a future.

flightsimer wrote:

Scope clauses have nothing to do with a communities service. If a community can't fill a 50 seat jet or barely fills it, a 70 seat jet is not going to help the situation. That efficiency gain by spreading the coast out over more seats is only realized if the seats are filled. A 70 seater with 50 people in it will result in less profit than a filled 50 seater because of the increased cost to operate the 70 seater (its carrying dead structural weight). What these small cities should be getting is turbo prop service but the US population is too dumb to accept them. 70-110 seats is also not an "extremely important" aircraft size category. The only large brand name carrier operating that in that size is JetBlue with their E190's and 20 E190's at American from USAir. Most 70-76 seat jets today are not flying to the small cities. They are flying to medium and large cities from hubs to provide increased frequency on behalf of the mainline partner. These fights used to be flown by the mainlines themselves, but... see below.

Like most union arguments I see on Airliners.net, this assumes that the status quo defines things. 70-100 seats is extremely historically important, and BAC-111's, DC-9's, and first-gen 737's populated the aprons of airports from larger-small airports on up. The economics of the industry and aircraft have changed, and it's now regional-size aircraft that can economically fill this category. The idea that airlines should have to choose between 50-seaters and 125-seat A319/ 73G is idiotic and does not make for most CASM-efficient and schedule-tailored way to move people from medium-small markets, and many routes at larger markets. The 70-seat aircraft we do have are extremely important, and more are needed. The reason that segment is underrepresented is scope, otherwise we can be sure there'd be lots more aircraft flying it. History is very clear that this segment matters.

The fact that there has been a logjam for so long, and that there's now one developing over next-gen planes, means that someone's not giving somewhere. Management wants to fly airplanes that make money, and history tells us that this size category makes money. As a passenger, I could not care less whether a regional carrier or mainline flies the aircraft, just that I have good schedules on aircraft operated on time, safely, etc., that help keep costs as reasonable as possible. Who flies it is up to management and unions to work out. Management may have to pay more for pilot training, to ensure that the supply of pilots is sufficient, and unions have to accept that the higher CASM of smaller aircraft may require rates in keeping with the smaller number of pax and the costs of the aircraft. If next-gen aircraft have larger engines and carry some more people, and go over current scope-weights, then the weights have to change or mainline need to agree to operate the aircraft at sustainable cost. The current system is clearly not working.

And what do stories about unreasonable, demanding on-board customers have to do with anything? You get the number of drinks, etc., that policy says you get, who disagrees with that? That's a customer-service issue, irrelevant to a discussion of operating costs.

And yes, sorry, air travel *is* a public or social good, one with high barriers to entry for providers and insufficient competition. A different set of assumptions applies about its operation than easily-supplied private goods with lots of competition like TV's.

Jim

c933103 wrote:

what was the reason behind the difference in mainline vs subsidiaries airline pilot salary that caused the scope clause to be created? If someone establish a new airline with new staff that fly aircrafts larger and better than those permitted by scope clause while treating their staff in same way as regionals wouldn't that be a win?

That was tried. They called it MidAtlantic. Ask them how that turned out.

b727fa wrote:

c933103 wrote:

what was the reason behind the difference in mainline vs subsidiaries airline pilot salary that caused the scope clause to be created? If someone establish a new airline with new staff that fly aircrafts larger and better than those permitted by scope clause while treating their staff in same way as regionals wouldn't that be a win?

That was tried. They called it MidAtlantic. Ask them how that turned out.

From its wikipedia page those larger embraer aircrafts are still staffed by mainline?

And, as you pointed out, they were treated like the regionals--that's NOT a "win."

DCA-ROCguy wrote:

flightsimer wrote:

And yes, sorry, air travel *is* a public or social good, one with high barriers to entry for providers and insufficient competition. A different set of assumptions applies about its operation than easily-supplied private goods with lots of competition like TV's.

If you're in academia, you might want to do some research on what is a "public good." If you did, you'd quickly find that your definition is wrong.

Bottomline, even with scope relief, the regionals would have a hard time operating a large number of additional large RJ's as they wouldn't find pilots willing to fly them for low pay.

Perhaps as a reflection of the current impasse Embraer has pushed back work on the E175-E2 to concentrate their efforts on the 190 (already flying) and 195 (rolled out this week ahead of schedule). With over 180 firm orders and around 200 options/MoU/LoI for these models there is plenty to keep them busy.

Work on the 175 will continue but at a reduced rate and the service entry date has been moved back one year to 2021.

DCA-ROCguy wrote:

flightsimer wrote:

Scope clauses have nothing to do with a communities service. If a community can't fill a 50 seat jet or barely fills it, a 70 seat jet is not going to help the situation. That efficiency gain by spreading the coast out over more seats is only realized if the seats are filled. A 70 seater with 50 people in it will result in less profit than a filled 50 seater because of the increased cost to operate the 70 seater (its carrying dead structural weight). What these small cities should be getting is turbo prop service but the US population is too dumb to accept them. 70-110 seats is also not an "extremely important" aircraft size category. The only large brand name carrier operating that in that size is JetBlue with their E190's and 20 E190's at American from USAir. Most 70-76 seat jets today are not flying to the small cities. They are flying to medium and large cities from hubs to provide increased frequency on behalf of the mainline partner. These fights used to be flown by the mainlines themselves, but... see below.

Like most union arguments I see on Airliners.net, this assumes that the status quo defines things. 70-100 seats is extremely historically important, and BAC-111's, DC-9's, and first-gen 737's populated the aprons of airports from larger-small airports on up. The economics of the industry and aircraft have changed, and it's now regional-size aircraft that can economically fill this category. The idea that airlines should have to choose between 50-seaters and 125-seat A319/ 73G is idiotic and does not make for most CASM-efficient and schedule-tailored way to move people from medium-small markets, and many routes at larger markets. The 70-seat aircraft we do have are extremely important, and more are needed. The reason that segment is underrepresented is scope, otherwise we can be sure there'd be lots more aircraft flying it. History is very clear that this segment matters.

The fact that there has been a logjam for so long, and that there's now one developing over next-gen planes, means that someone's not giving somewhere. Management wants to fly airplanes that make money, and history tells us that this size category makes money. As a passenger, I could not care less whether a regional carrier or mainline flies the aircraft, just that I have good schedules on aircraft operated on time, safely, etc., that help keep costs as reasonable as possible. Who flies it is up to management and unions to work out. Management may have to pay more for pilot training, to ensure that the supply of pilots is sufficient, and unions have to accept that the higher CASM of smaller aircraft may require rates in keeping with the smaller number of pax and the costs of the aircraft. If next-gen aircraft have larger engines and carry some more people, and go over current scope-weights, then the weights have to change or mainline need to agree to operate the aircraft at sustainable cost. The current system is clearly not working.

And what do stories about unreasonable, demanding on-board customers have to do with anything? You get the number of drinks, etc., that policy says you get, who disagrees with that? That's a customer-service issue, irrelevant to a discussion of operating costs.

And yes, sorry, air travel *is* a public or social good, one with high barriers to entry for providers and insufficient competition. A different set of assumptions applies about its operation than easily-supplied private goods with lots of competition like TV's.

Jim

Jim, Mainline carriers can always fly 50-100 seaters under the mainline brand, nothing is stopping them from ordering the E-175 E2s to do that. The C-series and E-190s are available to be flown by mainline carriers already. Blame the mainline carriers for not ordering the 100 seaters. AA has the E-190s built into their pilot contracts as group rates already. All scope does is prevent mainline carriers from outsourcing flight crews jobs out to regional carriers.

Jim, Its fine that you want low fares and decent schedule, air crews want a good QOL and good pay, and management wants profits. Air fares are already at a historic low number compare to what they were before deregulation. Pilot supply has dried out because of the decrease of QOL and food stamps wages at the entry level. No one is paying 50K plus to become pilots to get paid 20-30k a year...... Management at one time was using regionals to undercut crew pay and cutting services to make a buck. But air travel today is different from air travel in the past. The economics are different and aircraft performance is different, passenger numbers have increased. What scope does is prevent mainline carriers from outsourcing crew jobs to the regional level.

The system that isn't broke, the system is doing what is supposed to do just like the way it was set up between management, unions, and consumers. Consumers are still getting good air fares, management are making profits after consolidation, pilots qol and pay are returning back to where they were before the regional industry was used to whipshaw rates down to unsustainable levels.

FlyPNS1 wrote:

If you're in academia, you might want to do some research on what is a "public good." If you did, you'd quickly find that your definition is wrong.
Bottomline, even with scope relief, the regionals would have a hard time operating a large number of additional large RJ's as they wouldn't find pilots willing to fly them for low pay.

I said "public or social good" to distinguish my usage from the phrase "public good" which has specific meaning in economics.I refer to a good that is public, not private in nature, but is not necessarily provided by government,and might be provided by a profit-making entity. "Public good" refers to "a commodity or service that is provided without profit to all members of a society, either by the government or a private individual or organization." History has shown that air travel is best provided by profit-making entities, so I add the word "social" to distinguish it.

The bigger problem may be with the training system. Pilots can't be expected to be loaded with debt. That one's on management and the broader industry, and it needs to be changed somehow.

Jim

Pilots can't be expected to be loaded with debt, but it's OK for doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc? I think perhaps that that is an unrealistic expextation.

LightningZ71 wrote:

Pilots can't be expected to be loaded with debt, but it's OK for doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc? I think perhaps that that is an unrealistic expectation.

Compare the starting salaries for doctors, lawyers and engineers with those for pilots, then decide who is better able to handle trade school debts.

I'm not advocating for debt. And I am not a fan of $300,000 salaries for pilots. But I equate a fully qualified first officer/pilot with a journeyman plumber or electrician. They have all paid the dues to learn their craft and they all should be paid living wages.

The fly in the ointment is that generally, the plumber or electrician is paid while going through apprenticeship, while many budding pilots are not. It is at least logical that airlines should pay for the training of their new pilots. This could be done through a national air academy program, jointly funded by all airlines (and perhaps also by a military ROTC type program).

Like what many have posted before, there is nothing to stop the airlines to order x amount of any small, medium, large "regional jets" and have MAINLINE pilots fly them. Oddly enough, Delta is finding out costs actually came down, even thou the pilot rates would be higher than outsourced to regional operators because they could control it more with staffing and other issues. SkyWest is really the only large scale regional operator who have used a model of "at risk" flying and has made it profitable for SkyWest while still giving access to the hubs for small communities. But there becomes a point where the communities have to pay to get that access. If demand isn't there, why should any airline continue to waste resources that could be best used elsewhere.
Pilots over the next few decades, if numbers and the economy holds up, will be a major commodity for the airlines. Who can staff the most planes will win the game. A legacy carrier could in theory, hire a majority away from a competitor, and cripple their operations. Delta and AA recruiters could walk over to T5 in JFK and hand out preferential interviews to jetBlue pilots (and yes many would take them up on the offer) and be in class two weeks later, would destroy jetBlue. Finally labor has the upper hand, at least for the time being. Still laugh when some on here can't seem to justify a pilot making 200K plus at their job. Jealousy maybe? If the airlines, especially in this market, have no issues with mainline pilots pay rates, why should ANET?
The history lesson of how and why the regional industry started and why scope was sold, to only be used as a bargaining chip in pay contracts is interesting on itself. Many of us who kept seeing mainline pilots sell their souls for higher pay rates while giving away scope to the regionals, hurt the industry and stagnated pilots and their salaries for those "stuck" at the regionals especially during rough economic times. Ask any pilot who worked at regionals in the 90s-00s what pay was like and scope issues. There is a reason why "shiny jet syndrome" became a term, and the "race to the bottom" was common in the regionals. There was a time where SkyWest operated more flights in a day than United, with the UAX brand servinging a needed purpose to feed the hubs, many times the brand was hurt when say a regional operator couldn't live up to their contracts, whether be it aircraft or pilot resources. This is when the mainline operators started to rethink things, and brought mainline flying back to mainline where they could have more operational control.

So unless the small communities can pool up some money from local business for regional service or maybe mainline service, many people in these communities will have to wake up and realize their community can't sustain airline service. The airline industry is NOT a charity. When I can still fly around the world (just saw on United a month ago RT EWR-HKG for under $500USD) cheaper than you can drive across the country or even a few hours (jetBlue $29 fares LGB-LAS) the argument of expensive air travel is dead....

Longer rant than I expected LMAO. My bad....

FlyinRabbit88 wrote:

When I can still fly around the world (just saw on United a month ago RT EWR-HKG for under $500USD) cheaper than you can drive across the country or even a few hours (jetBlue $29 fares LGB-LAS) the argument of expensive air travel is dead....

I'm not certain about the EWR-HKG example you give, but the JetBlue $29 fare for LGB-LAS is product price dumping and should be illegal.

exunited wrote:

DCA-ROCguy wrote:

Aviation Week reports that Embraer and Bombardier are delaying new-generation 70-ish seat aircraft due to scope clause seat and weight restrictions. Apparently some of these contracts at US carriers come up in 2018, and the manufacturers don't expect scope relief to allow these aircraft to be built.

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... 1b738e3ccd

More evidence of how scope clauses hurt consumers and communities, and why they should be eliminated. The 70-110 seat category is extremely important for smaller and mid-size communities, especially as the economics of 50-seaters are less and less sustainable. Newer-technology, more-efficient 70-80 seat RJs could likely help keep more routes sustainable. Airlines should not be obstructed in any way from offering them. If anyone says "let mainline pilots fly them," fine, but they have to do so at rates that do their part to help keep fares and routes economically sustainable.

Jim

Sorry Jim, the pendulum has swung to the side of labor for now. Were you lamenting the 50% pay cuts many of us took and loss of pensions etc so OUR flying could be outsourced to the lowest bidder? Please, give it a rest there is no innate right to air service and no right for YOU to decide what is a "fair" price. RJs were a tool to use against mainline employees to keep wages and benefits down and that is all they were meant to do and thanks to the bankruptcy laws, the airlines were able to take more than full advantage of this whip sawing. I am constantly amazed how many members of a so called airline enthusiasts site are so anti airline employee (unless they are willing to work at wages you deem appropriate). Please point me to a university enthusiasts site so I can spout about how university employees are over paid and they should be outsourced so that tuition can be at a level that I feel is appropriate...

YOUR flying? What an attitude to have. I can't even comprehend it. This is your country to live in (I think) otherwise nothing is guaranteed to you at all.

bigb wrote:

The system that isn't broke, the system is doing what is supposed to do just like the way it was set up between management, unions, and consumers. Consumers are still getting good air fares, management are making profits after consolidation, pilots qol and pay are returning back to where they were before the regional industry was used to whipshaw rates down to unsustainable levels.

This is very well said

BobPatterson wrote:

FlyinRabbit88 wrote:

When I can still fly around the world (just saw on United a month ago RT EWR-HKG for under $500USD) cheaper than you can drive across the country or even a few hours (jetBlue $29 fares LGB-LAS) the argument of expensive air travel is dead....

I'm not certain about the EWR-HKG example you give, but the JetBlue $29 fare for LGB-LAS is product price dumping and should be illegal.

Price dumping? JetBlue is trying to just fill airplanes....an airline seat is perishable.... once the flight is gone, any potential revenue is gone....
Just look on google flights... $159OW jfk-lax on delta; $40 LAX-LAS on Spirit, $29 SFO-LAS on United..... could go on and on
Even found JFK-SYD on Delta for $966RT .....

Still, even the decades after deregulation, airfares continue to go down. Yes service to many small communities are still high or stopped completely, but that's economics. Imagine the crazy times when the pilot shortage is really going...
Again, Delta pilots have pay rates for RJs, nothing to stop Delta mainline flying a CR7/9 with Delta crew vs a SkyWest crew. But scope will NEVER be sold again by mainline crew, especially as the regional pilots who are now at the mainline airline who had to live under the eroding of pay and work rules the selling away of scope by mainline pilots caused.

DCA-ROCguy wrote:

flightsimer wrote:

Scope clauses have nothing to do with a communities service. If a community can't fill a 50 seat jet or barely fills it, a 70 seat jet is not going to help the situation. That efficiency gain by spreading the coast out over more seats is only realized if the seats are filled. A 70 seater with 50 people in it will result in less profit than a filled 50 seater because of the increased cost to operate the 70 seater (its carrying dead structural weight). What these small cities should be getting is turbo prop service but the US population is too dumb to accept them. 70-110 seats is also not an "extremely important" aircraft size category. The only large brand name carrier operating that in that size is JetBlue with their E190's and 20 E190's at American from USAir. Most 70-76 seat jets today are not flying to the small cities. They are flying to medium and large cities from hubs to provide increased frequency on behalf of the mainline partner. These fights used to be flown by the mainlines themselves, but... see below.

Like most union arguments I see on Airliners.net, this assumes that the status quo defines things. 70-100 seats is extremely historically important, and BAC-111's, DC-9's, and first-gen 737's populated the aprons of airports from larger-small airports on up. The economics of the industry and aircraft have changed, and it's now regional-size aircraft that can economically fill this category. The idea that airlines should have to choose between 50-seaters and 125-seat A319/ 73G is idiotic and does not make for most CASM-efficient and schedule-tailored way to move people from medium-small markets, and many routes at larger markets. The 70-seat aircraft we do have are extremely important, and more are needed. The reason that segment is underrepresented is scope, otherwise we can be sure there'd be lots more aircraft flying it. History is very clear that this segment matters.

The fact that there has been a logjam for so long, and that there's now one developing over next-gen planes, means that someone's not giving somewhere. Management wants to fly airplanes that make money, and history tells us that this size category makes money. As a passenger, I could not care less whether a regional carrier or mainline flies the aircraft, just that I have good schedules on aircraft operated on time, safely, etc., that help keep costs as reasonable as possible. Who flies it is up to management and unions to work out. Management may have to pay more for pilot training, to ensure that the supply of pilots is sufficient, and unions have to accept that the higher CASM of smaller aircraft may require rates in keeping with the smaller number of pax and the costs of the aircraft. If next-gen aircraft have larger engines and carry some more people, and go over current scope-weights, then the weights have to change or mainline need to agree to operate the aircraft at sustainable cost. The current system is clearly not working.

And what do stories about unreasonable, demanding on-board customers have to do with anything? You get the number of drinks, etc., that policy says you get, who disagrees with that? That's a customer-service issue, irrelevant to a discussion of operating costs.

And yes, sorry, air travel *is* a public or social good, one with high barriers to entry for providers and insufficient competition. A different set of assumptions applies about its operation than easily-supplied private goods with lots of competition like TV's.

Jim

Jim, you keep coming at this argument saying that the pilots are the problem. Why have you not asked for management to take a paycut? Instead of all those stock options they recieve, they could fund the extra costs to fly the planes to these small cities to keep ticket costs lower for you. I am gatherin from your arguments that you are not an economics professor, and if you are are math professor, you are not are good one.

Wingnut

FlyinRabbit88 wrote:

I'm not certain about the EWR-HKG example you give, but the JetBlue $29 fare for LGB-LAS is product price dumping and should be illegal.

Price dumping? JetBlue is trying to just fill airplanes....an airline seat is perishable.... once the flight is gone, any potential revenue is gone....
[/quote]

If those were last minute or even last hour walk-up fares I would agree with you.

I've checked JetBlue fares for LGB-LAS and can get $39-$49 fares usually only with at least 7 days advanced bookings, and many of their flights don't offer seats priced so low.

And that's before the add-ons.

I still maintain that offering advance fares for less than the cost of flying a seat should be illegal. Same as for selling steel from China at below production costs.

wingnutmn wrote:

Jim, you keep coming at this argument saying that the pilots are the problem. Why have you not asked for management to take a paycut? Instead of all those stock options they recieve, they could fund the extra costs to fly the planes to these small cities to keep ticket costs lower for you. I am gatherin from your arguments that you are not an economics professor, and if you are are math professor, you are not are good one. Wingnut

Upper management in most cases, as I understand it, would do very well to take pay cuts. The reason I hadn't mentioned them is because they aren't part of scope, which is what we were discussing. But, absolutely, management should set the example by not taking massive stock options and limiting their own compensation. I'd have to look up numbers to see exactly how they'd affect costs.

Most of my arguments here are about philosophy rather than math, but I don't see where I've had math issues in the discussion.

Jim

I have a hard time believing that spread out over 70-100 seats for a 1-2 hour flight that a mainline contracted pilot and crew is that much more expensive than a regional pilot. Anecdotally, many of us in these RJ markets are paying premium prices for our coach fares just to originate from our local airport.

Many factors seem to play into some of this decision making including long term benefits/retirement/ground handling clauses/etc. that all increase the cost factor for the carriers. Not to mention, at the higher per mile seat costs us non-hub folks have to pay, filling a 70-100 seat plane may not be nearly as easy. When the inevitable load factor goes down, I'm sure the yield takes a punch on the nose.

I seem to recall that even some pilot groups have entertained a "B scale" wage system for just such purposes and were either turned down from the management side OR simply not exercised.

I am not a "union guy". In many instances, those structures and institutions of unions have seemed too often to harm the poorly informed workers under the guise of helping them. The service workers union preys on just such a group of people.

However, the pilot groups for these major airlines are generally well educated, thought to be largely conservative, well informed, highly trained, and staunch protectors of their investments they've made in the their training. They simply appear to be asking to be paid for the work they do. I think the whole idea of a major contributing factor in pilot salaries being paid the size of plane one flies is a bit archaic as I want highly trained and capable staff in the front two seats no matter what size aircraft I'm in.

Don't forget that these small communities often do damage to themselves through their own actions as well.

I wish we could get rid of scope considerations altogether as it has fractured the US air service system and pits working groups against one another.

Here look at the pay rates for Delta/AA that have the CR9 and/or E190 rates....

http://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/airl ... _air_lines
http://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/airl ... n_airlines

Vs some of the regionals and their same equipment for FOs....and even captains.

http://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/airl ... al/skywest. (Non Union)
http://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/airl ... deavor_air
http://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/airl ... a_airlines

Many of the issues that many regional pilots who some of the general public consider as "less qualified" compared to those at mainline, are doing the same job, flying more legs, and are in many ways, the regionals are the backbone of the hub/spoke system of the legacies.

Ok some people on here always seem to be "anti-union" because of propaganda portrayed from various industry management. In the past management would throw out the 300k salaries by pilots but failed to say that's the senior, top of the pay scale captain, where the FOs and many of those on the seniority lists were not seeing such salaries. Many hear the pay rates and are blown away by the number but relate it to their 40 hour work weeks vs only getting paid when the door is closed and the brake is released. Us pilots have sacrificed a ton for our jobs, many have experienced the "fun" of being furloughed at least once with the hope to one day get a chance to have that brass ring. The airline industry is different since we can't move to another airline with our seniority. We have to start over. Remember all that public shock after the Colgan crash at how low regional pilot salaries were and how fatigue had the potential to lead to mistakes and potential accidents. The con was people thinking every pilots made 200k was greedy (especially in contract disputes) where in reality, pilots, especially regional pilots could qualify for food stamps well beyond first year pay. Until the hiring issues started to appear and as the new retirement age of 65 approached , we started to see higher wages.

The age of the RJ created a weird attitude among airline pilots. At first mainline pilots, you could say looked down at the rj and were willing to sell scope and contract out the RJ flying to subcontractors like SkyWest, air Wisconsin etc, for higher pay rates..... the more scope relief, the higher the legacy pay rates...... Then the economy started falling apart and those legacy airlines were asking for pay cuts and even more scope relief. Thus the regional airlines flourished, with much lower pilot pay rates, while doing many of the jobs/flights that legacy pilots were doing in 737s,727s, etc. now a regional pilot was flying IAH-IAD, ORD-DTW, LAX-LAS, etc. So the attitude of mainline pilot vs regional pilot began and scope started to come back in contract negotiations. The carrot of higher pay rates to mainline wasn't good enough to help management with scope relief. Scope was at first defined by seats, then pilot unions got wise and put the scope restrictions on weight, such as the issues with the E175-E2 and the MRJ. These became hard numbers that the likes of ALPA were not going to let go. Some people don't know there is scope language for every airline out there, even the regionals to protect from undercutting work. At one point there was rumors that a regional airline was thinking of using CRJs and convert them to cargo and fly for say ups or FedEx..... scope language was put in those contracts very quickly.
Pilots and pilot unions have become very protective of their money, as history tends to repeat itself in the airline industry.
Scope is a hardline issue that many regional pilots were held down with pay because of the "race to the bottom" game with various other regionals. As time passed and hiring at legacies started to go, scope wasn't going to be sold, period. The thought is, why delute the product of mainline, when the passengers don't even know or even care what regional they are flying on in the first place. The just care if the price is "cheap" and the tail has the logo of the airline they are suppose to fly. In today's environment there are more 737s, 717s, A32X, etc flying old regional routes where the CR7/9 are replacing the CR2/ERJ flying and the mainline flying is shifted to cover the large regional flying. All while making record profits. If pilot wages really mattered, you wouldn't be seeing the lowest airfares the world has ever seen over the last two years... and yet scope is still holding strong.

BobPatterson wrote:

LightningZ71 wrote:

Pilots can't be expected to be loaded with debt, but it's OK for doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc? I think perhaps that that is an unrealistic expectation.

Compare the starting salaries for doctors, lawyers and engineers with those for pilots, then decide who is better able to handle trade school debts.

...you can, but you might not like the results. Especially for new lawyers.

Especially here in Los Angeles:
For every first-year associate you find making 6-figures at an AmLaw-200 level firm, you're going to find probably twice as many taking $4K/mo or less at a small firm, just to get started. Might not sound so bad, until you realize that median rent is nearly $2100 as of the end of 2016, with $X00/mo+ loan payments even under IBR.

I wouldn't be shocked it pilots have it better.

BobPatterson wrote:

Compare the starting salaries for doctors, lawyers and engineers with those for pilots, then decide who is better able to handle trade school debts.

I'm not advocating for debt. And I am not a fan of $300,000 salaries for pilots. But I equate a fully qualified first officer/pilot with a journeyman plumber or electrician. They have all paid the dues to learn their craft and they all should be paid living wages.

The fly in the ointment is that generally, the plumber or electrician is paid while going through apprenticeship, while many budding pilots are not. It is at least logical that airlines should pay for the training of their new pilots. This could be done through a national air academy program, jointly funded by all airlines (and perhaps also by a military ROTC type program).

Actually, I used those careers because I have friends and family that are in those very fields. Those first few years are brutal for all of them. Medical gets half way decent pay, but has brutal hours. Law gets very poor pay early on and can include mountains of nonbillable hours. Early career engineers are often being paid entry wages as essentially assistants and carry a lot of the load for the less interesting grunt work of various projects, often with many unpaid hours thrown in as well.

Early career is hard for many people. What many pilots have, though, is that they are ex military and already have a lot of their training behind them when they choose an AP career. Yes, it's harder for the ones that decide to foot their own bill and climb up from a first flight in a cessna, just as its harder for an engineer to decide to go the private school and foot their own post grad bill route. And, arguably, mistakes by any of them can get people killed, including lawyers not doing a good job in defense of their client and surrendering an unwarranted conviction.

Pilots have a high risk job, but they aren't special snowflakes. Yes, work rules need to be reasonable, and pay should be liveable for a career pilot, but it also doesn't mean that being paid less for flying smaller planes is wrong either. And, for an airline that has 1000 pilots, every million you take from a manager will average to $20 a week for each pilot, except that, it won't actually spread that way, the highest seniority pilots will wind up with over $100 a week and the ones starting out will get roughly $5. That won't even get one lunch at the airport cafeteria with an employee discount. If you took 2 million from each of the 5 highest paid execs, you still wouldn't help the new pilots, but the most senior guys would love it a lot, until that airline lost its top level execs and became uncompetitive.

You know where the most help for starting pilots can come from? The union. It just has to flatten the pay scale more to start pilots off higher and pay for it by lowering the top end some. I'm not asking senior pilots to live on pauper wages, but there is room to help those starting out have an easier time of it.

As for scope clauses, I get it. Having the ability for outside pilots to come in and compete for flying the smaller regional is bad for business for the union. Absolutely go for the clause while you have the upper hand. But I don't want to hear it when fuel prices start to go up again and the smaller, less able to spread out pilot cost planes start getting parked and the union numbers start to dwindle as pilots get laid off. Though, it's not that mainline pilots would have been flying those smaller planes in the first place, it's that those smaller planes would be feeding more passengers into the system keeping more of the larger planes busier.

Scope relaxation needs to disappear, especially if US carriers want to have US crews flying domestic flights within the next 20 years. I'm a regional pilot now and if scope is ever greatly relaxed or eliminated at the major level I am leaving the aviation industry within the year. I will not be flying 737s for the rest of my life at regional wages. I'm not alone. You would see a mass exodus of regional pilots should that happen. If foreign airlines start domestic US flying I along with many other pilots would leave the US airlines. That would not bode well for the pilot shortage. I'm better than living with my parents at 30 years, making $24k per year commuting and spending 5-7 nights a month in my own bed.

c933103 wrote:

If outsourcing make airline cheaper to operate then why weren't airlines outsourcing all of their services to those smaller airline and instead only those regionals? Before they sign the scope clause

If Any regional wants to fly those airplanes they are FREE to DO SO!! Nobody at ANY major will oppose them!! "Howsumever" They will Fly them as an independent operator with no subsidy from the Major airline. They will fly them Independently Under their OWN flight numbers. They have every right to.. They just can't fly them under another Major Airline's flight number Nor under their Banner!
I came to the airline business when the regionals flew their OWN colors, Golden Gate Airlines, Golden West airlines, Rocky Mountain, Aspen ,Mississippi Valley, Air Wisconsin, Ransome Henson and many other Fine regionals. The Pilots at the majors are protecting their Jobs, and they have EVERY right to. They're taking NOTHING from YOU! You're free to open and run your OWN airline if you choose. then you too can experience what it takes to spout all that "Balderdash" you're spouting. NONE of what they say is in the Least bit illegal, Nor is it anti-competitive.. You just don't want to HEAR or READ any of it! Isn't that what this is REALLY about?? BTW? What is it exactly that YOU do so we can find a way to undermine your "Hustle"??

strfyr51 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

If outsourcing make airline cheaper to operate then why weren't airlines outsourcing all of their services to those smaller airline and instead only those regionals? Before they sign the scope clause

If Any regional wants to fly those airplanes they are FREE to DO SO!! Nobody at ANY major will oppose them!! "Howsumever" They will Fly them as an independent operator with no subsidy from the Major airline. They will fly them Independently Under their OWN flight numbers. They have every right to.. They just can't fly them under another Major Airline's flight number Nor under their Banner!
I came to the airline business when the regionals flew their OWN colors, Golden Gate Airlines, Golden West airlines, Rocky Mountain, Aspen ,Mississippi Valley, Air Wisconsin, Ransome Henson and many other Fine regionals. The Pilots at the majors are protecting their Jobs, and they have EVERY right to. They're taking NOTHING from YOU! You're free to open and run your OWN airline if you choose. then you too can experience what it takes to spout all that "Balderdash" you're spouting. NONE of what they say is in the Least bit illegal, Nor is it anti-competitive.. You just don't want to HEAR or READ any of it! Isn't that what this is REALLY about?? BTW? What is it exactly that YOU do so we can find a way to undermine your "Hustle"??

That's what I was asking about... as regionals have lower cost base, why aren't regionals currently flying their own 737 across the contintent? Or are some regional operating as such nowadays but gained no tarction?

Independence Air / ACA is the reason why..... they got tired of the United shell game that is the regional feed. And they decided to try and go alone..... they got destroyed.. Republic tried it too with E190s, Failed too.....

FlyinRabbit88 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

FlyinRabbit88 wrote:

When I can still fly around the world (just saw on United a month ago RT EWR-HKG for under $500USD) cheaper than you can drive across the country or even a few hours (jetBlue $29 fares LGB-LAS) the argument of expensive air travel is dead....

I'm not certain about the EWR-HKG example you give, but the JetBlue $29 fare for LGB-LAS is product price dumping and should be illegal.

Price dumping? JetBlue is trying to just fill airplanes....an airline seat is perishable.... once the flight is gone, any potential revenue is gone....
Just look on google flights... $159OW jfk-lax on delta; $40 LAX-LAS on Spirit, $29 SFO-LAS on United..... could go on and on
Even found JFK-SYD on Delta for $966RT .....

Still, even the decades after deregulation, airfares continue to go down. Yes service to many small communities are still high or stopped completely, but that's economics. Imagine the crazy times when the pilot shortage is really going...
Again, Delta pilots have pay rates for RJs, nothing to stop Delta mainline flying a CR7/9 with Delta crew vs a SkyWest crew. But scope will NEVER be sold again by mainline crew, especially as the regional pilots who are now at the mainline airline who had to live under the eroding of pay and work rules the selling away of scope by mainline pilots caused.

Yes I've been preaching how low airfares are to all the a-nutters that complain about the mergers tring and claim how out rages airfares are post mergers. I see the market has good equilibrium right now in the market as of now seems to be pretty well-balanced.

c933103 wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

If outsourcing make airline cheaper to operate then why weren't airlines outsourcing all of their services to those smaller airline and instead only those regionals? Before they sign the scope clause

If Any regional wants to fly those airplanes they are FREE to DO SO!! Nobody at ANY major will oppose them!! "Howsumever" They will Fly them as an independent operator with no subsidy from the Major airline. They will fly them Independently Under their OWN flight numbers. They have every right to.. They just can't fly them under another Major Airline's flight number Nor under their Banner!
I came to the airline business when the regionals flew their OWN colors, Golden Gate Airlines, Golden West airlines, Rocky Mountain, Aspen ,Mississippi Valley, Air Wisconsin, Ransome Henson and many other Fine regionals. The Pilots at the majors are protecting their Jobs, and they have EVERY right to. They're taking NOTHING from YOU! You're free to open and run your OWN airline if you choose. then you too can experience what it takes to spout all that "Balderdash" you're spouting. NONE of what they say is in the Least bit illegal, Nor is it anti-competitive.. You just don't want to HEAR or READ any of it! Isn't that what this is REALLY about?? BTW? What is it exactly that YOU do so we can find a way to undermine your "Hustle"??

That's what I was asking about... as regionals have lower cost base, why aren't regionals currently flying their own 737 across the contintent? Or are some regional operating as such nowadays but gained no tarction?

When regionals fly main line equipment (B737. A320 etc.) their pilots might go along for awhile. But! when "awhile" is OVER?? Their pilots will also want Main Line Equipment Salary and we'll be back in the same conversation. Nobody is going to give you More for LESS. It hasn't happened up to NOW? And it's NOT going to happen going Forward. You might get by if you're limited to lower main line equipment. But?? that airline will become a "Training Center" for he Majors. and not having access to the mainline carrier's resources? Won't do YOU a damn bit of good.. Because you'll never see what you seem to want.

strfyr51 wrote:

When regionals fly main line equipment (B737. A320 etc.) their pilots might go along for awhile. But! when "awhile" is OVER?? Their pilots will also want Main Line Equipment Salary and we'll be back in the same conversation. Nobody is going to give you More for LESS. It hasn't happened up to NOW? And it's NOT going to happen going Forward. You might get by if you're limited to lower main line equipment. But?? that airline will become a "Training Center" for he Majors. and not having access to the mainline carrier's resources? Won't do YOU a damn bit of good.. Because you'll never see what you seem to want.

Humm I see. But what stopped current regional airline pilots from doing the same and jump to mainline, and thus make their pay less than mainline pilot?