Delta TA on SCOPE

[Jim]

If I had a dime for every time I heard ALPA bluster about raising the bar I wouldn't have to sell pencils on the street corner before going to dinner on my overnights. :lol:

If you'd honored binding arbitration and hadn't created the abortion called USAPA, you'd be eating steak & lobster with plenty of money left over to leave a huge tip.

 

[charlie2]

If you'd honored binding arbitration and hadn't created the abortion called USAPA, you'd be eating steak & lobster with plenty of money left over to leave a huge tip.

Fly navy jimmie must be new in airline biz cause he thinks if we accepted the nickie old served time for dui Chug a lug dougweiser parker would give us raises. Do a little research sailor Jim and you'll see that they won't budge from the kirby award which no sir would have us eating steak.

 

[SWA Bubba]

...and you STILL don't get it....you still don't see the contradiction. Everybody wants your hourly rate, right now, but that won't last long, the legacies got whacked pretty good, but it'll come back one step at a time.

I would guess that most of us on here wouldn't want your retirement "plan", work rules, work with guys that taxi-around at VR and then run out onto the ramp and start off-loading bags either.

Let's be clear, what little you have done at SWA to help this profession is far off-set by the damage that was done all those years agreeing to work harder for a fraction of what everybody else was getting.

You have only now reached, where the rest of legacies were back in 2001. They have all been knocked down and you have been left standing. That's great, and I don't wish any harm onto your pilot group, But don't come on here like your group are a bunch of trail-blazers at the edge of the envelope in improving conditions for pilots. That they are not.

And you still don't get what I'm saying. "Agreeing to work harder for a fraction of whatever everybody else was getting" was not what happened. It was either work for that amount of pay, or don't work. Although I'm sure that would have been fine with you. In case it never occurred to you, that's how all NEW carriers work. Even the one you work for was new once and didn't pay crap. My point was that it always got better and better at Southwest, and that is a good example to set. As the company could safely afford more (because of our hard work), we got paid more. Legacy carriers go up and down like freakin' yo-yos, screwing their own pilots along the way. If that's what you want your life to be, and you want to think that's progress, then good for you. Seems a little short-sighted to me personally (especially giving away flying for a few bucks upfront), but hey, that's my opinion.

Don't like our work rules? Why? Are you really lazy or something? Our rules are great: you want more money, you work more. Pretty much as much as you want. It's that simple. You guys limit yourselves to no more than some arbitrary amount of hours, because ALPA wants more pilots to pay them dues, even if there's hardly enough work to justify those bodies. That costs the company much more for the same flying, but it works in the short term, at least on the up cycles. Not so much in the down cycles.

As far as our "retirement plan," it works pretty well for us. 401-K match and profit sharing are doing me personally pretty damn well, even in a down economy. And that's just not us. You can't blame the demise of the traditional retirement plan on Southwest, as much as I know you want to. It's been coming and it's been happening in ALL industries for quite a while now. Nobody can afford the DB plans anymore; there's too much retirement money and benefits promised, and funded by too little income. Especially as people live longer. Even the federal government is trying to switch from DB to DC for the military retirements. Can't afford it. It amounts to promisng essentially unlimited benefits for people without knowing how much they'll take in and how much they'll pay out in the future.

I'm not sure why you complain about our taxi speed or work groups helping each other out, at least in terms of business. The better the business runs, the more profit sharing for us. The less time we waste, the more we can pick up and make more money personally (if that's your inclination). Hey, that's good for the company and us.

Now don't get me wrong--I'm not bitching about what you guys do. I don't care as much as Waveflyer, because I know your nature isn't going to change, and I don't want to raise my blood pressure over something I can't control. But I also think your digs on Southwest are crap. Don't blame us for your problems. The "damage to the industry" you describe is largely self-inflicted. It's just convenient for you to blame it on us, rather than looking in a mirror. Your way of negotiating is to hobble your company for your own short-term personal gain, knowing full well that you (or your juniors) will pay for it later on the downturns. And then you wonder, and then you complain about why so much of your flying is subbed out to regionals at a fraction of your pay...YOU caused this. We adapted; you did not. We work synergistically with the company to avoid the downturns that you expect (and of course get). I say our way works better for everyone. It seems to be "blazing a better trail" than YOU guys are doing.

Bubba

 

[igneousy2]

And you still don't get what I'm saying. "Agreeing to work harder for a fraction of whatever everybody else was getting" was not what happened. It was either work for that amount of pay, or don't work. Although I'm sure that would have been fine with you. In case it never occurred to you, that's how all NEW carriers work. Even the one you work for was new once and didn't pay crap. My point was that it always got better and better at Southwest, and that is a good example to set. As the company could safely afford more (because of our hard work), we got paid more. Legacy carriers go up and down like freakin' yo-yos, screwing their own pilots along the way. If that's what you want your life to be, and you want to think that's progress, then good for you. Seems a little short-sighted to me personally (especially giving away flying for a few bucks upfront), but hey, that's my opinion.

Don't like our work rules? Why? Are you really lazy or something? Our rules are great: you want more money, you work more. Pretty much as much as you want. It's that simple. You guys limit yourselves to no more than some arbitrary amount of hours, because ALPA wants more pilots to pay them dues, even if there's hardly enough work to justify those bodies. That costs the company much more for the same flying, but it works in the short term, at least on the up cycles. Not so much in the down cycles.

As far as our "retirement plan," it works pretty well for us. 401-K match and profit sharing are doing me personally pretty damn well, even in a down economy. And that's just not us. You can't blame the demise of the traditional retirement plan on Southwest, as much as I know you want to. It's been coming and it's been happening in ALL industries for quite a while now. Nobody can afford the DB plans anymore; there's too much retirement money and benefits promised, and funded by too little income. Especially as people live longer. Even the federal government is trying to switch from DB to DC for the military retirements. Can't afford it. It amounts to promisng essentially unlimited benefits for people without knowing how much they'll take in and how much they'll pay out in the future.

I'm not sure why you complain about our taxi speed or work groups helping each other out, at least in terms of business. The better the business runs, the more profit sharing for us. The less time we waste, the more we can pick up and make more money personally (if that's your inclination). Hey, that's good for the company and us.

Now don't get me wrong--I'm not bitching about what you guys do. I don't care as much as Waveflyer, because I know your nature isn't going to change, and I don't want to raise my blood pressure over something I can't control. But I also think your digs on Southwest are crap. Don't blame us for your problems. The "damage to the industry" you describe is largely self-inflicted. It's just convenient for you to blame it on us, rather than looking in a mirror. Your way of negotiating is to hobble your company for your own short-term personal gain, knowing full well that you (or your juniors) will pay for it later on the downturns. And then you wonder, and then you complain about why so much of your flying is subbed out to regionals at a fraction of your pay...YOU caused this. We adapted; you did not. We work synergistically with the company to avoid the downturns that you expect (and of course get). I say our way works better for everyone. It seems to be "blazing a better trail" than YOU guys are doing.

Bubba

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. i.e Scope problems now...totally Legacy pilots deal...should have just negotiated rates for those BE-99's and never let that horse out of the barn...now it's going to take decades to put the horse back in...if that is even possible.

You fault the legacies for negotiating unsustainable contracts, which turned out to be obviously true, but only because of the cancer of the LCC's that is continuing to spread. You'll see...your next contract is setting up to be concessionary as your yields are way down to about a fifth of what your company wants even during this time of modest oil prices. You'll get to see what it's like to have the excel spread sheet of Allegiant and Virgin America shoved in your face at every opportunity. At the end of the next negotiating round you'll be happy to just maintain the status-quo. That is what you were during Legacy negotiations during the 80's and 90's.

But I don't fault any individual pilot for taking whatever job, because at the end of the day we all have to do what's best for us. I had hoped that Deltas scope would be a little stronger, but if they as a group decide that the TA is the best for them...then that is okay to.

What I do have a problem with, is the few of the claimed-SWA pilots on here calling Delta pilots "sell-outs" and other names for not standing their ground on the latest TA. Telling them that they are bringing the whole industry down unless they...the Delta pilots...put individualism aside and draw a line in the sand and essentially "take one for the team"...in other words, do what they (the SWA pilots) wouldn't do themselves, when they took that job with less pay and less benefits, however many years ago.

As far as your taxi speeds = often ridicules and unsafe...and btw...it is not okay to use the Whisky line in SEA as a passing lane!

 

[waveflyer]

Ig-
You're off base man. An airline deciding what they themselves will fly for is a lot different than deciding how many jobs it will farm out to an artificial whipsaw market, where the pilots in it will have almost no control over their destiny.

See the difference?

 

[Jim]

......blah, blah, blah.....I have no integrity.....blah, blah, blah......

Did you say something?

 

[GogglesPisano]

Someone who is under the belief that this TA loosens scope has not done his homework. The additional 76-seaters are more than offset by the dramatic reduction in hulls, blockhours, RPMs -- use any metric you'd like.

This is negotiation. Taking advantage of opportunities as they present themselves as opposed to fighting for the next 3 years only to wind up with what we would have had anyway.

The next non-Delta guy who opines that we should recapture all Delta flying, please remain silent until your CA rates are $1,000/hr.

 

[Dan Roman]

Ig-
You're off base man. An airline deciding what they themselves will fly for is a lot different than deciding how many jobs it will farm out to an artificial whipsaw market, where the pilots in it will have almost no control over their destiny.

See the difference?

Wave, you don't agree with him but that doesn't mean ignousy was "off base". His post was spot on. The point made over and over on here by so many is quite simple. SWAPA certainly did nothing to raise the industry bar for the majority of it's existence, period. To now stand on a soap box and call DALPA sellouts with this TA is stunningly short sighted and hypocritical.
It's nice to see DALPA get the payscales going back up, they even got the 737 payscale higher than yours, which is good for all of us.

 

[Dan Roman]

As far as your taxi speeds = often ridicules and unsafe...and btw...it is not okay to use the Whisky line in SEA as a passing lane!

It's that warrior spirit thing.

 

[waveflyer]

Jesus, are you guys this dumb?
No dan, this thread doesnt have anything to do with Swapa. You defend your right to comment on any subject you want to- even when it rarely has anything to do with Hawaiian. But, I'm not allowed to voice an opinion about legacy outsourcing bc Ive ended up working at Swa well after working at a legacy, and have only worked at Swa when they did have an industry leading contract?

Try and remember, I'm happy at Swa, BUT- I was forced out of the legacy doors due to outsourcing gone wild through BK- along with thousands. Many of whom were furloughed twice in the last decade.

But that's what you're saying? You do understand that I don't speak for SWA or Swapa- and I wasn't part of the groups that voted in anything substandard.

Got it. My personal experience in the past with a legacy means nothing, but the 30 years before I got to Swa mean everything. ?? I just have to accept that somehow makes sense to the haters.
Even though that's as illogical as pcl128 lecturing me on the history of Swa when he bought his 1st job for $25k to sit right seat at Gulfstream, then worked at pinnacle and air tran, both paying substandard- But of course- I'm the problem because my 6th airline is Swa. Understood.

You guys sound really weak bc you won't address the topic at hand. Most of this TA is well and good- but there is no reason to cement the -900's as an outsourced airplane. USE the leverage you have to get an RJ on the property- then you'd have an impact. To not do that is to cut the legs out from every other carrier.

Wave, you don't agree with him but that doesn't mean ignousy was "off base". His post was spot on. The point made over and over on here by so many is quite simple. SWAPA certainly did nothing to raise the industry bar for the majority of it's existence, period. To now stand on a soap box and call them sellouts with this TA is stunningly short sighted and hypocritical.
It's nice to see DALPA get the payscales going back up, they even got the 737 payscale higher than yours, which is good for all of us.

 

[jetflier]

Up to now we have been arguing the merits of a YES or NO vote to the TA.

The arguments for the TA were mostly centering around a "Bird-in-the-Hand" premise, being that one shouldn't exchange an unknown for a known. This premise was supported by beliefs that those closest to the deal knew the most, a trust issue. Also there have been focus on the mathematical model of the time value of money. These and possibly the larger narrow body footprint are the basic reasons for voting YES.

These are logical arguments, but I propose they are in the micro view. Not to diminish the importance of any kind of "raise", or a diminishing 50 seat footprint, but I will illustrate, now with the data I have received from a company insider, how these are "micro view conditions" that are overshadowed, and overpowered by more important and more forceful arguments.

Pilots move to safety. Industrial psychologists know this. I am going to show you where the real safety is. Because I believe real safety is in the most truthful information, and the most honest assessments, I implore you, each of you, for your family, for your profession, your company, to listen carefully and make your decision based upon sound, sober judgement, without emotion or pretense.

The details are:

1. The company has Capacity Purchase Agreements (CPA) with "contract carriers".
These agreements extend well past 2020.

2. Delta has to honor these agreements as they are contractual.

3. Delta has to absorb the costs of these contracts, and if the aircraft operating or maintenance costs increase, Delta has to absorb these costs in addition.

4. The 50 seat aircraft are operating at a loss.

5. The 50 seat aircraft are coming up for mandatory engine maintenance/replacement costs very soon.

6. The costs to re-engine these 50 seat aircraft is between 2-2 1/2 BILLION dollars over the next 3 to 4 years. Unavoidable costs. (there are statements of 1billion on this web, those are wrong. The company has stated to me, through a person who knows, that the actual cost is 2-2 1/2 BILLION)

7. The company can replace these aircraft and avoid the 2-2 1/2 BILLION by letting the "contract carriers" fly 76 seat aircraft. These "contract carriers" would then allow the CPA agreements to be unhinged. The total deal is a deal between the Canadair and the "contract carriers", and Delta.

8. The 50 seat -76 seat agreement gives the company a one time savings of the hundreds of millions of dollars.

9. Canadair only has 11 76 seat aircraft to build and it closes down the line. There is a time crunch on Delta to get this deal done before that line is closed. This was a Canadair corporate decision.

10. The profit sharing cost savings to the company (going from 15% to 10%) was equal to a 2 1/2% pay "raise".

11. Efficiencies included in the contract were equal to a 3 1/2% pay "raise".

(are you seeing how Vice President of Labor Relations and Human Resources Mike Campbell might have been being very conservative when he said the pilot TA was cost neutral?)


12. AFTER re-engining the 50 seat aircraft, they still would operate at a revenue loss.

I can state emphatically that if the TA passes, we lose ALL LEVERAGE.

Points to be made:

For those of you who think we are hurting the company by voting NO.

The company used absolutely every ounce of leverage it has in Bankruptcy court to cut our contracts to the bone. This was after promising to "Do it once and do it right." Trust was given and then abused. This was a purely business decision by our management team. Moak did the best he could do, I presume, but was up against a management team that was willing to use every facet of coercion to diminish our careers under a paper Bankruptcy. It wasn't personal. It was a balance sheet decision leaving emotion and ramifications out of it.

If we doubled our contract to 8-17-6-6, we are still saving the company money by agreeing to this 8-17-6-6 agreement. Be assured you are still helping the company in this example. Remember the 400 million Tim O'Malley has cited is cost neutral to the company, there's 2-2 1/2 BILLION and we really don't know what the final costing of the "hundreds of millions" for the one time savings is.

Do not worry. A 8-17-6-6 is getting the company out of a bind they put their own selves in, we has nothing to do with that awful decision. We are neither responsible, nor required to help management for their erroneous decisions. These are the problems of a management with a lack of foresight. We can see this in how they deal with us also. But the point is that we only help them because we are going to be with this company for decades, they may be gone next year, and it is in our interest to help the company dispose of their bad business decisions. But in doing so, we will make the same business-only decisions in regard to what we get out of this agreement. It will cost them, not dearly, but fairly. This is the attitude of a professional, and a sober observer of the facts. I implore you who faithfully serve the company to reject this TA so as to make this a win/win for management and for the professional pilot.

For those of you who think a "Bird-in-the-Hand" should be the only factor.

A "Bird-in-the-Hand" premise is based upon grabbing and holding known values, contrasting with holding values that are unknown and estimated.

We know we have 4-8.5-3-3. We know 3 1/2 are efficiencies and 2 1/2 are profit sharing. We know that after real estate and automobiles are taken out of the government inflation numbers our 2012 inflation rate is amounting to an annual 8.1%. We also know that the Fed has increased the money supply at historically unprecedented levels. (portends inflation)

So lets do the math:

4-8.5-3-3

First, focus on 8.5%. Let's take out the known company savings, which could also be classified as concessions. This is 3 1/2% for efficiencies and 2 1/2% for profit sharing. This is 6%.

8.5%-6%=2.5%

now our agreement is this:

4%-2.5%-3%-3%

This is hardly a good agreement when the company is losing money. It certainly is way under real inflation. Considering leverage, the financial state of the company, and the good-will sacrifices we have made, this is not representative of reality.

But we are talking about "Bird-in-the-Hand".

The "Bird-in-the-Hand" is the company under our leverage. That is the "Bird-in-the-Hand" we want to focus upon. This "Bird-in-the-Hand" leverage goes away, with any chance of real gains, the second this TA passes muster. Vanished. Three and one half more years under draconian wages and complaining pilots. This is after 7 1/2 years since the first per-bankruptcy "Do it once, do it right" promise. By the way, where are they now? Gone, just like this management team will likely be in a few short years.

The real "Bird-in-the-Hand" is the leverage we hold over the company this very day. Today you can make a decision that tells management that they need to balance the cost savings more fairly. If they will not do it out of good moral principles, we will do so out of good moral principles and the power, thank God, we have been given by their relying too heavily of 50 seat contract flying of our passengers.

The "Bird-in-the-Hand" is a downed TA. The "Bird-in-the-Hand" is the current leverage we have this very day.

I was wondering why I heard over a year and a half ago, several times through Line Check Airman, that RA wanted to get an early agreement for us, unlike the other carriers with bad relations. Many thought he was being paternal and gracious. Now we know it was all about covering management mistakes, burdensome costs on an over-reliance on 50 seat aircraft, and we were the ones that he wanted to carry the water. Shame on him.

For those of you who said it the TA did not pass the "smell test"

All I can say is thank you for the guts to say what you thought was right for your professional brothers and sisters, without pandering to pressure. Continue with facts and reasoned thinking.



What to do now?




First and foremost is to look at the facts and make a decision. Definitely vote. Make your voice heard. I still run into busy family guys and girls who still haven't seen the TA! I ran into an old friend yesterday! That's June 5th!

So don't assume everyone knows. One guy said. "18% over 3 1/2 years! I'm voting YES!". We can laugh or pity those who are not acquainted with the facts, but they affect your career and mine! Engage in conversations in a congenial and calm manner. Present the facts, the arguments are overwhelming. ''

A key point to all of this discussion is that the leverage is a one time event.

As far as who does the duties after a failed TA? This is a tough one. For me I think every NC member and MEC member acted in good faith. I believe Tim O'Malley is a hard working, honest and dedicated leader. But I also believe that there have been egregious errors in the assessment of the TA landscape, the knowledge of the intentions and Achilles's heel of management's predicament, and egregious errors in the proper representative character of the pilots-especially in light of the effort of the contract survey and it's being apparently discarded by the leadership, in principle, the rates.

There is not one person who says the rates are GOOD. Not one. Even Tim O'Malley openly admits this.

With all this leverage. The company's financial state. The pricing power and new revenue streams and the moral obligation to repay past sacrifices, with "Bird-in-the-Hand" safety, why would anyone vote YES to this TA?

Only the most uninformed and reckless character would.

 

[General Lee]

So, you're ok with giving 70 more 76 seaters, as long as we use this perceived leverage for more money? The price was wrong, but allowing more 76 seaters is ok? I just want to understand your stance. The pay offer was too low?


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[waveflyer]

Hey, if you're going to sellout, may as well do it for what it's worth.

Or, do you dispute the assertions laid out- if there is that much money involved in keeping the 50's, that pretty much debunks your claim that mainline can't fly the -900.

Why not create mainline jobs with those 70 new -900's GL?

 

[SWA Bubba]

It's that warrior spirit thing.

Good one Dan!! That "Warrior Spirit thing" joke is still funny, even the 432nd time in a row!

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. i.e Scope problems now...totally Legacy pilots deal...should have just negotiated rates for those BE-99's and never let that horse out of the barn...now it's going to take decades to put the horse back in...if that is even possible.

You fault the legacies for negotiating unsustainable contracts, which turned out to be obviously true, but only because of the cancer of the LCC's that is continuing to spread. You'll see...your next contract is setting up to be concessionary as your yields are way down to about a fifth of what your company wants even during this time of modest oil prices. You'll get to see what it's like to have the excel spread sheet of Allegiant and Virgin America shoved in your face at every opportunity. At the end of the next negotiating round you'll be happy to just maintain the status-quo. That is what you were during Legacy negotiations during the 80's and 90's.

But I don't fault any individual pilot for taking whatever job, because at the end of the day we all have to do what's best for us. I had hoped that Deltas scope would be a little stronger, but if they as a group decide that the TA is the best for them...then that is okay to.

What I do have a problem with, is the few of the claimed-SWA pilots on here calling Delta pilots "sell-outs" and other names for not standing their ground on the latest TA. Telling them that they are bringing the whole industry down unless they...the Delta pilots...put individualism aside and draw a line in the sand and essentially "take one for the team"...in other words, do what they (the SWA pilots) wouldn't do themselves, when they took that job with less pay and less benefits, however many years ago.

As far as your taxi speeds = often ridicules and unsafe...and btw...it is not okay to use the Whisky line in SEA as a passing lane!

-I- am not faulting anyone here. As I said before, I try not to get worked up about things I have no control over. I do understand that one company's contract has some influence over the negotiations at others (primarily in legacies' case), but I also know that I can shout all I want at you or GL, and NO pilot is going to change his mind (or vote) because of something that another company's annonymous poster put up on Flight Info. You know what I mean? However, I'm not too worried about SWAPA's next contract.

As far as SWA's taxi speeds, I think you're paying too much attention to urban legend. Our limit is 20kt, or a max of 30kt on long straightaways. I personally have only passed another aircraft once, and that was after Ground's direction to go around an AA MD-80 doing literally <5kt on the 2.5 mile straight parallel to 25R at LAS. I "whipped by him like he was standing still"---and I was doing about 20kts on the other main parallel taxiway. I don't know if he was trying to make a statement to somebody, or just trying to pad his paycheck, but neither of our speeds had anything to do with safety.

If our taxi speeds were really "often ridiculous and unsafe," hasn't it occurred to you that ATC/the FAA would have said something by now? Good God, they micromanage every other aspect of our jobs in the name of "safety." I've never heard of ATC telling Southwest to slow down, but I've personally heard ATC telling other aircraft (and even us, on occasion) to "pick it up a little." I even heard ATC telling USAir in SAN to either taxi faster or pull over, so other aircraft could get by. Other carriers' purposely taxiing slow (for whatever reason they have) has no reflection on the safety of Southwest's operations. Despite what Dan Roman says. He's just jealous that he doesn't have any Warrior Spirit.

Bubba

 

[waveflyer]

What's up General? Thinking this one over?

Hey, if you're going to sellout, may as well do it for what it's worth.

Or, do you dispute the assertions laid out- if there is that much money involved in keeping the 50's, that pretty much debunks your claim that mainline can't fly the -900.

Why not create mainline jobs with those 70 new -900's GL?

 

[General Lee]

What's up General? Thinking this one over?

Nope, it's too expensive. We can't beat the feed costs from the Regionals. But, I will concentrate on building mainline, with your 717s and having a ratio with DCI that is better for mainline. That is a great plan. If you want to fly RJs again, leave your stagnate job at SWA and apply to Gojets, which will probably undercut everyone else to get more RJs. You just can't play their game, and I don't want to. Caps and a ratio are good starts for me.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[waveflyer]

Nope, it's too expensive. We can't beat the feed costs from the Regionals. But, I will concentrate on building mainline, with your 717s and having a ratio with DCI that is better for mainline. That is a great plan. If you want to fly RJs again, leave your stagnate job at SWA and apply to Gojets, which will probably undercut everyone else to get more RJs. You just can't play their game, and I don't want to. Caps and a ratio are good starts for me.
Bye Bye---General Lee

YOU CREATED this market you "cant" "compete" in!!
Of course you cant, its a whipsaw market designed to keep wages artificially low -
And Feed?? What "feed" are you talking about general?
Over 50% of your domestic departures are RJs. That's a staggering number.
If only "feed" is what they've been doing since 9/11- you're stuck in the past as mgmt uses the same arguments it used in 1992. But things have drastically changed - don't bury your head in the sand, man.

Flights 3169,3606,3525,4091 JFK-BWI- 2 50's, 2 -900's. No mainline jets.

Flights 4177, 4080, 4172, 3899 JFK-CLE

Delta does 5 flights LGA-CVG, 4 are -900's (flights 3031,2959,2969,2963) only 1 is a mainline 737(flt 995) NYC population 8.5Million, Cincinnati population 2.3 million. - sound like "regional" feed to you?

5 flights SLC-DFW 2 AB, 2-900's, 1-700= 3"RJs"

Flight 4533 SLC-PHX -900, 4501 -700

SLC-YVR flights 4710&4610, -900's- no mainline jet

Just picking cities at random man- not enough time to list how many MAINLINE routes -900's are used to supplement frequency.
Are regionals cheaper?- OF COURSE, by design-
But don't tell me these airplanes are just going to be used to connect folks to Fresno. Theres a purpose to ignorance that deep. You have to try to be that.

 

[CheapFlyer]

Nope, it's too expensive. We can't beat the feed costs from the Regionals.

If all the mainline pilots believe this, it's over - management has won.

I'm still chuckling on his reference of "feed". As in 76 seaters "feeding" pax from DTW to DFW. Again, management has won.

 

[waveflyer]

Yeah- apparently the average DALPA widebody pilot thinks "Regional" = North America. And "Feed"= single aisle domestic-

Every argument used today could be used to justify outsourcing a 717 sized aircraft in the next BK.