Delta E170 in LGA

[tindriver72]

I couldn't agree more, nothing over 50 seats belongs at any regional carrier. I wish all you little rich bastards could see that s@!# !!

Should we ask the guys at american if they want to fly the ATR 72????

 

[8HourPilot]

If it were paid as if it were at American Mainline......I'd fly it all day long. It's all about the $$$ not the airplane. Put the big stuff at mainline.

 

[jetfo]

If it were paid as if it were at American Mainline......I'd fly it all day long. It's all about the $$$ not the airplane. Put the big stuff at mainline.

Put all flying under one certificate and forget about the regionals!

 

[aa73]

Put all flying under one certificate and forget about the regionals!

That is the only solution, IMHO...

 

[list2002]

Maybe the regionals should agree to horrible contracts and pay rate, then there will always be the distinction between regionals and majors. By rallying for better wages and QOL at the regionals you are just shooting yourself in the foot.

 

[B727FA]

The last one I flew had 70 seats in it. I'm not happy that these size aircraft have ended up at regionals either. Regional airlines should be flying props only. All of the RJ's should have ended up at mainline back in the 90's. Don't blame the regional guys when it could have been prevented by the mainline guys years ago.

The thing is, the Mainline drivers were "too good" to fly the RJ. Funny, how when they got furloughed, and hungry enough, they cried for pref-hiring at RJ airlines! Here is my question: if pilots were lowering the bar by flying the RJ what do you do with the guys who accepted RJ jobs when their Mad Dog job went away? Weren't they expanding the problem by "allowing" the RJ routes to expand and thus make their OWN recall less likely?

 

[Spicepilots]

A large part of the situation has to do with the after-effects of deregulation. It is no coincidence that Legacy carriers like United and Delta looked at their options when they entered Chapter 11 and decided that the way out of their quagmire was to focus on international routes. Simply put, there is too much competition to make money domestically. Who is responsible for this? The LCCs? If I can fly to Vegas from the Denver area on Southwest or Allegiant for 60 bucks each way, am I likely as a consumer to pay 250+ to go United? Not really... if I sit in coach on United, the level of service is roughly equal, thanks to cost-cutting measures (didn't NWA find they could save $11 million a year by eliminating those tiny little bags of pretzels?) So unless I want to sit first class (and pay even more) for the service, I am going to go the cheapest way possible. The thing is, you can't BLAME the LCC's. Sure, if you're selling lemonade on your street corner for 50 cents a cup, and you're making money, and I decide I want to get in on that action and open up a competing stand across the street and sell for 35 cents, you're going to be p***ed, but I have every right to do so, right? A free market economy has always been based on the concept that prices will be determined by supply and demand. If there is more supply of an equal product, prices will naturally come down. The only way to sell successfully at a higher price is to have a superior and thus unequal product, or a monopoly on the market. As we have seen from the elimination of creature comforts and "perks" like meals in coach, nobody is offering a truly superior product. Maybe the problem is that the average-joe consumer never felt like those perks were really worth paying extra for. Hence why most money is made on the business traveller, who spends half his life in a shiny cramped metal pressurized tube, and IS willing to pay to be that much less inconvenienced. As far as market monopolies go, it still exists at the "regional" level, but enough people are willing to drive to a major airport to avoid taking the "puddle jumper" that it isn't of much help to have a lock on the market at small outstations, either. But I digress...


So to continue to operate domestically, and feed their international routes, the Legacies have turned even more than before to an ALREADY EXISTING system. It is cheaper for them to pay a regional airline cost plus 5 or 10 or whatever percent to fly an RJ of some type even when the seat capacity is close. Regionals have always been around, yes as a stepping stone, and yes, paying "subpar" wages in comparison to mainline wages. So the majors are taking advantage of the market forces and utilizing the multitude of regional airlines, who are for the most part now independantly owned and are all bidding against each other for this flying. This is basic economics, people. This so-called "race to the bottom" is a natural economic result of competition, like it or not. This has little to do with ALPA "holding the line" and more to do with oil at $70 a barrel, the absence of government subsidy, and deregulation. Airline managment is desperately looking for ways to cut costs, because they can't afford to lose business by raising prices. Unfortunately for us as pilots, after they get rid of the peanuts and the sodas and the seat pockets (like Ryanair), and contract with the regional carrier that bid at the lowest acceptable price and service, they pretty much only have the employees to go after. Until WE are a low-supply commodity, our supply-demand curve will never move upward to provide us a better salary. So while you're flogging the usual targets of managment, regional airlines, and (dare I say it, knowing I'll get flamed) non-union outfits, you might as well blame your next door neighbor, who won't pay more than $300 bucks to fly intercontinental, and your former students who kept you employed as an instructor because THEY had the aviation dream, too.

 

[kngarthur]

Thank you!!! I couldn't agree more!

Me too then!!! Please accept me!!!

 

[737 Pylt]

That is the only solution, IMHO...

AA:
I agree.....
737

 

[PHXFLYR]

A large part of the situation has to do with the after-effects of deregulation. It is no coincidence that Legacy carriers like United and Delta looked at their options when they entered Chapter 11 and decided that the way out of their quagmire was to focus on international routes. Simply put, there is too much competition to make money domestically. Who is responsible for this? The LCCs? If I can fly to Vegas from the Denver area on Southwest or Allegiant for 60 bucks each way, am I likely as a consumer to pay 250+ to go United? Not really... if I sit in coach on United, the level of service is roughly equal, thanks to cost-cutting measures (didn't NWA find they could save $11 million a year by eliminating those tiny little bags of pretzels?) So unless I want to sit first class (and pay even more) for the service, I am going to go the cheapest way possible. The thing is, you can't BLAME the LCC's. Sure, if you're selling lemonade on your street corner for 50 cents a cup, and you're making money, and I decide I want to get in on that action and open up a competing stand across the street and sell for 35 cents, you're going to be p***ed, but I have every right to do so, right? A free market economy has always been based on the concept that prices will be determined by supply and demand. If there is more supply of an equal product, prices will naturally come down. The only way to sell successfully at a higher price is to have a superior and thus unequal product, or a monopoly on the market. As we have seen from the elimination of creature comforts and "perks" like meals in coach, nobody is offering a truly superior product. Maybe the problem is that the average-joe consumer never felt like those perks were really worth paying extra for. Hence why most money is made on the business traveller, who spends half his life in a shiny cramped metal pressurized tube, and IS willing to pay to be that much less inconvenienced. As far as market monopolies go, it still exists at the "regional" level, but enough people are willing to drive to a major airport to avoid taking the "puddle jumper" that it isn't of much help to have a lock on the market at small outstations, either. But I digress...


So to continue to operate domestically, and feed their international routes, the Legacies have turned even more than before to an ALREADY EXISTING system. It is cheaper for them to pay a regional airline cost plus 5 or 10 or whatever percent to fly an RJ of some type even when the seat capacity is close. Regionals have always been around, yes as a stepping stone, and yes, paying "subpar" wages in comparison to mainline wages. So the majors are taking advantage of the market forces and utilizing the multitude of regional airlines, who are for the most part now independantly owned and are all bidding against each other for this flying. This is basic economics, people. This so-called "race to the bottom" is a natural economic result of competition, like it or not. This has little to do with ALPA "holding the line" and more to do with oil at $70 a barrel, the absence of government subsidy, and deregulation. Airline managment is desperately looking for ways to cut costs, because they can't afford to lose business by raising prices. Unfortunately for us as pilots, after they get rid of the peanuts and the sodas and the seat pockets (like Ryanair), and contract with the regional carrier that bid at the lowest acceptable price and service, they pretty much only have the employees to go after. Until WE are a low-supply commodity, our supply-demand curve will never move upward to provide us a better salary. So while you're flogging the usual targets of managment, regional airlines, and (dare I say it, knowing I'll get flamed) non-union outfits, you might as well blame your next door neighbor, who won't pay more than $300 bucks to fly intercontinental, and your former students who kept you employed as an instructor because THEY had the aviation dream, too.

Fantastic post... welcome to the madness known as FlightInfo.com:beer:


PHXFLYR

 

[Sinca3]

So to continue to operate domestically, and feed their international routes, the Legacies have turned even more than before to an ALREADY EXISTING system. It is cheaper for them to pay a regional airline cost plus 5 or 10 or whatever percent to fly an RJ of some type even when the seat capacity is close. Regionals have always been around, yes as a stepping stone, and yes, paying "subpar" wages in comparison to mainline wages. So the majors are taking advantage of the market forces and utilizing the multitude of regional airlines, who are for the most part now independantly owned and are all bidding against each other for this flying. This is basic economics, people. This so-called "race to the bottom" is a natural economic result of competition, like it or not. This has little to do with ALPA "holding the line" and more to do with oil at $70 a barrel, the absence of government subsidy, and deregulation. Airline managment is desperately looking for ways to cut costs, because they can't afford to lose business by raising prices. Unfortunately for us as pilots, after they get rid of the peanuts and the sodas and the seat pockets (like Ryanair), and contract with the regional carrier that bid at the lowest acceptable price and service, they pretty much only have the employees to go after. Until WE are a low-supply commodity, our supply-demand curve will never move upward to provide us a better salary. So while you're flogging the usual targets of managment, regional airlines, and (dare I say it, knowing I'll get flamed) non-union outfits, you might as well blame your next door neighbor, who won't pay more than $300 bucks to fly intercontinental, and your former students who kept you employed as an instructor because THEY had the aviation dream, too.

I thought these comments from Jim Whitehurst (COO DAL) during a employee chat session on 5/11/06 were intresting:
Question 1- The Cost per Available Seat Mile of the regional jets is very high in comparison to mainline service, and passengers are beginning to dislike flying them, especially on some of the longer flights. Are the numbers of RJs in Delta's fleet justified by the revenue generation they produce in some of the smaller cities?
Answer from Jim Whitehurst:
Currently, RJ CASMs are significantly higher than mainline. That was not the case prior to our 2004 restructuring, when our mainline costs were high and fuel costs were low (RJs are much less fuel efficient on a CASM basis). Clearly given our new mainline cost structure and current high fuel costs, I'd rather have more mainline aircraft and fewer RJs. Getting new mainline aircraft will take time. In the interim, we need to continue serving those cities. So, while we are reducing our number of RJs substantially while in bankruptcy, they will remain a core part of our fleet.
Question 2- Presubmitted Question The 737-200's and 737-300's will be retiring more this fall. You have mentioned that they might be replaced eventually by 737-700's or smaller 70 or 90 seat jets. If they are replaced with the smaller planes, other than the 737-700, won't there be a loss of more Delta jobs, pilots, flight attendants, and possibly ground staff since a Connection Carrier would be flying those jets? If that is true, is there anyway for Delta mainline pilots and flight attendants to work those planes. Yes, Delta would be expanding, but Delta people would continue to be downsized. Can you address these issues?
Answer from Jim Whitehurst- Any aircraft above 76 seats will be flown by mainline. To be clear, the 76 seaters are a marginal economic boost over a 70 seater (required post NW ability to fly them.) We view them as a 70 seater with slightly better economics. They do not replace our need for a 100 seater in the mainline. Any 100 seater would be in the mainline and will likely be growth aircraft, creating new jobs.