AirTran Expects Profit every Quarter this year

[Max Powers]

Looking at the industry from a historical standpoint, I would argue that senior guys are B-scale pilots and junior guys are D-scale.

Someone has to fight to restore what was once lucrative career, why not us? Didn't Bob say we're going to be profitable each quarter this year? Time to raise the bar and quit settling for mediocrity!

THAT's GD right!!!!!!!!

 

[airline#5]

No More F'ing B Scale. The Senior H'mo's Will Lose This Fight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[maxblast72]

It doesn't need to be a fight. We do need to come together after the ALPA whichever way it turns out. The junior guys voice has been heard and I think the majority now realize that FO's % raise will need to be much higher than the CA % since upgrades times are heading towards 8-10 years.

The senior guys did a good job laying the groundwork for a strong company in the late 90's/early 2000's and have seen a large increase in pay between 2001 and 2005. This contract will focus on bringing the junior guys some rewards for the success of our company similar to what the senior guys saw from 2001 to 2005.

 

[CatfishVT9]

NPA= no loss of lic. insurance or aero-medical benefits.

ALPA= loss of lic. insurance and aero-medical benefits.

Even if negotiating is the same song and dance, we still get more outta ALPA. Thats why I know why many people are voting ALPA. At least were getting something then nothing. Also if anyone says oh ALPA will sell you out via scope. They should read TA2, see how management tried to get the pilots to give up scope. It was the worst scope clause that any Major airline would have ratified.

That's a big problem with this pilot group. I had several conversations where guys were complaining about what TA2 said and I told them they were wrong, it wasn't in there, now go read it yourself.

 

[Lear70]

That's a big problem with this pilot group. I had several conversations where guys were complaining about what TA2 said and I told them they were wrong, it wasn't in there, now go read it yourself.

Not sure what you mean.

There were a LOT of Scope give-backs in T.A. 2. Yes, I still have my copy, printed as well, with the negotiating notes from the NC when we were in D.C.

The most important change would have allowed 90-seat Q-400 turboprops on property, regardless of our staffing level. You know... the ones that Frontier has been using to grow instead of the A319's or even RJ's..

#1 clue should have been that, when we finally said, "OK, you can have changes to Scope... if you guarantee, in writing, a no-furlough clause to every single pilot on property IF those new planes are brought on property OR guarantee, in writing, that the pilots here will be flying them at 717 or better wages after a 180-day 'trial period' to guage their cost-effectiveness, OR guarantee, in writing, that the second you furlough ONE pilot or park or sell ONE 717 or 737, ALL extra CRJ/ERJ/Q400 flying gets parked with them, overnight". They absolutely refused to put ANY of those protections in place.

The point isn't that we tried to give up more stuff to get Scope back to where it is now, but to point out that the company, under NO circumstances, was willing to change that Scope language that was in T.A. 2 back to what we have now.

There's a message in there... a very important one at that: "The Scope changes were more important to management than any other, single thing in the T.A." Question you have to ask yourself is... Why?

I personally believe it's because the Q-400 is the perfect replacement to about 50% of our 717 fleet because of the stage lengths we fly. 90-minute or less legs are up to 30% less CASM in a Q-400 than the 717.

NOT ONE FU*KING SEAT reduction in Scope in ANY future T.A. Period. The end. Spread the word.

 

[Colonel Savage]

"I personally believe it's because the Q-400 is the perfect replacement to about 50% of our 717 fleet because of the stage lengths we fly. 90-minute or less legs are up to 30% less CASM in a Q-400 than the 717."

What is the CASM of the 717 vs the 737-700?

 

[Lear70]

The 717 CASM is more expensive than the 737-700 because of the additional seats on the 737, killer lease rate AAI negotiated, and the same (roughly) ancilliary costs (crew costs, ground services, etc).

Not certain if the maintenance costs less or not - I've heard that it does from MX guys, but haven't seen the numbers...

The 717 is an orphan airplane and the question isn't "If" it will go away but, rather, "When". If they could find a cheap alternative, it would be sooner than later, which is why I believe their Scope plans combined with E-190 rates in the T.A. are likely what they have in mind.

Outsource 25 Q-400's, replace all the 717's with a combination of those Q-400's and E-190's, and the result would be an overall reduction in crew costs to the company in the 10-15% range and a hefty paycut for every 717 pilot on property.

And yes, the ability for that to happen was in both T.A. 1 and 2.

 

[maxblast72]

Ownership/lease cost of the 717 is alot lower than the 737. Fuel CASM on the 737 is obviously alot lower than the 717 due to 20 more seats for the same total fuel burn. At low fuel prices the 717 is probably close to the 737. At higher fuel prices, the 737 has a bigger cost advanatage.

I don't believe the company has ever came out and broke down the CASM for each fleet type.

 

[Lear70]

Ownership/lease cost of the 717 is alot lower than the 737. Fuel CASM on the 737 is obviously alot lower than the 717 due to 20 more seats for the same total fuel burn. At low fuel prices the 717 is probably close to the 737. At higher fuel prices, the 737 has a bigger cost advanatage.

I don't believe the company has ever came out and broke down the CASM for each fleet type.

They haven't (or I was told they hadn't when we were headed to D.C.). I was told the 717 was lower when I was up there 2 summers ago, for the reasons I stated, but that was 2nd hand info, although I had no reason to doubt it, considering the source...

 

[Colonel Savage]

"Outsource 25 Q-400's, replace all the 717's with a combination of those Q-400's and E-190's, and the result would be an overall reduction in crew costs to the company in the 10-15% range and a hefty paycut for every 717 pilot on property."

It looks like the biggest problem is how to get out of the 717's, since they are unique and have limited capacity. I get from your post that the 190's would be flown by AAI mainline pilots, but at a lower payrate than the 737?