E-190s at AWA/US Mainline?

[FDJ2]

You sure do spend a lot of time feeding false information about the RJDC. Thankfully most pilots have the ability to weed your false info from the truth.

It comes directly from Surplus, so is he uninformed or misleading, or are you uninformed or misleading? You know, you might be both.

 

[outtahere]

First of all, who is going to finance these 100 seat airplanes for DAL? Secondly, if a military pilot has to come out and fly a turboprop then so the heck what. Military pilots deserve respect, but they do not deserve a free pass to a major just because. I have endured some trully horrible jobs to get to this point in my carrer, and I believe that I and others like me deserve that major job alot more than a military pilot. Thirdly, the reason mainline is losing scope is due to one reason, EGO, especially at DAL these pricks are unbelievable. They were to good for the Crj-200, the Crj-700, and now they b!tch about getting fourloughed. If the obsession of the size of your d!ck gets in the way of you making a logical decision then I don't feel sorry for you. Now, I think everyone at the regional level would have loved to have flown a turboprop for a while and then gone on to a major. However, you greedy jokers priced the market to the point that your companys could not make money, now there are no mainline jobs, and you want us to hold your hand and not try to get a 100 seat airplane? Then you tell us that when you do start to hire again those seats are reserved for your military buddies. You know what, KISS MY @SS! I was once a supporter for the greater good, but you egomaniacal pricks have totally pissed me off and now you know what, I couldn't care less what happens to your jobs. After all you all seem to want to see the 50's parked and us out on the street, so I think I want all the domestic flying and see you take a walk.

 

[100fly]

WOW! You are T.O'd

 

[FurloughedAgain]

Someone needs to switch to decaf.

 

[Green]

outtahere,

You say Dal pilots priced themeselves out of the market and deserve what they got? Just out of curiosity what is the upper limit of a fair wage? Are SWA pilots pricing themeselves out of the market? They have captains making over 190/hour to fly a 737. That's more than a Ual 747 captain. Are SWA pilots greedy?

What about ABX. They have DC9 captains making 200/hour to fly a plane that is equivalent in size to an emb-190. Jal captains can exceed 400k/year; Cathay pacific guys top 300k. I get so tired of pilots that blame mismanagement on labor costs.


By the way the AVERAGE air traffic controller wage is in excess of 140k/year.

 

[On Your Six]

First of all, who is going to finance these 100 seat airplanes for DAL? Secondly, if a military pilot has to come out and fly a turboprop then so the heck what. Military pilots deserve respect, but they do not deserve a free pass to a major just because. I have endured some trully horrible jobs to get to this point in my carrer, and I believe that I and others like me deserve that major job alot more than a military pilot. Thirdly, the reason mainline is losing scope is due to one reason, EGO, especially at DAL these pricks are unbelievable. They were to good for the Crj-200, the Crj-700, and now they b!tch about getting fourloughed. If the obsession of the size of your d!ck gets in the way of you making a logical decision then I don't feel sorry for you. Now, I think everyone at the regional level would have loved to have flown a turboprop for a while and then gone on to a major. However, you greedy jokers priced the market to the point that your companys could not make money, now there are no mainline jobs, and you want us to hold your hand and not try to get a 100 seat airplane? Then you tell us that when you do start to hire again those seats are reserved for your military buddies. You know what, KISS MY @SS! I was once a supporter for the greater good, but you egomaniacal pricks have totally pissed me off and now you know what, I couldn't care less what happens to your jobs. After all you all seem to want to see the 50's parked and us out on the street, so I think I want all the domestic flying and see you take a walk.

How did UAL secure something like $2.5-3 Billion in exit financing? How did Air Canada (bankrupt this time last year) at least secure funding for 777s and 787s even if the labor situation has thrown a wrench into that deal?

When financing aircraft, you are looking into the future and whether the airline has the infrastructure and the routes to support the use of these aircraft - enough to generate the revenue to cover the debt service. In this case, UAL and DAL have strong route structures, qualified pilots and the infrastructure to support new replacement aircraft. On top of that, the aircraft lessors know that if things go t!ts up, there will be a market for these aircraft elsewhere - maybe Asia or India.... It's a roll of the dice, but you can bet the interest rates are high enough to mitigate a lot of the risk.

 

[SUNDOWN]

About the 190 payrate at B6 it is not great but ........time and half over 70, nuff said. Total compensation puts CHQ back in it's place, a regional. I am also very disapointed at all of the pilots we've had leave the property to go to CHQ and Republic, shame on you.

 

[stillflyn]

CHQ does pay more in the long run than JetBlue does. I think after year 7 or 8 it surpasses JetBlues payscale. check it! http://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/

year 12 ooops! Its pretty much the same!

Does CHQ pay 1.5% for everything above 70 hrs? Give JetBlue some time to acutally fly the 190 and prove it's self. The initial payrates were set up to get investors onboard. When we start making money you'll see a payraise.

 

[stillflyn]

Why all the turmoil about the dang E-190. It was never a problem when Biz Ex was running the Bae146 for Delta Connection. It's not a problem that Mesaba is running the Bae146 for NWA Airlink. It's not a problem for Air Wisconsin running the Bae146 for United Express.
This "line-in-the-sand" should have been drawn fifteen years ago.
I agree, I think the E-190 and the old Bae146 should not be and never been "express/connection/airlink" branded platforms.
This fight is almost two decades late, but you want them now because the industry niche is the "large smalljet."

Why didn't mainline crews want them "back in the day"???

Republics E-190 Capt rates are better than B6. With a fairly good contract to boot.

Why is it OK for B6 to operate the E-190 and not Republic???[/QUOTE]


Well to start... when Jetblue flys the 190 there are no other pilots at any other airline that are being furloughed as a direct result. When you fly a 190, a Delta F/O is going to be furloughed or a UAL F/O will be kept on the street even longer.

CHQ 190 Capt rates are not better than Jetblue's.. see above post.

Stillflyn

 

[Swaayze]

I seriously doubt anyone will ever see a 190 at USAirways.....with the ability to fly (85? - I've lost track) 170's at Republic and 93 CRJ900's at (Mesa, PSA, AWAC) Express they will be set. Minimum fleet count at mainline will be in the 370 range I think so they have the ability to outsource an additional 50% of the airframes they want (not to mention all the 50 seaters they want). Mgmt continues to amaze me with their stupidity - why in the world would you want to dump the 170s and virtually guarantee the use of CRJ900s instead of the superior product of the 190?

 

[banger]

About the 190 payrate at B6 it is not great but ........time and half over 70, nuff said. Total compensation puts CHQ back in it's place, a regional. I am also very disapointed at all of the pilots we've had leave the property to go to CHQ and Republic, shame on you.

?????????

 

[FlyinPiker]

I seriously doubt anyone will ever see a 190 at USAirways.....with the ability to fly (85? - I've lost track) 170's at Republic and 93 CRJ900's at (Mesa, PSA, AWAC) Express they will be set. Minimum fleet count at mainline will be in the 370 range I think so they have the ability to outsource an additional 50% of the airframes they want (not to mention all the 50 seaters they want). Mgmt continues to amaze me with their stupidity - why in the world would you want to dump the 170s and virtually guarantee the use of CRJ900s instead of the superior product of the 190?

I agree with you. Some additional thoughts:

The MDA/REP deal isn't out of the woods yet. If the truely intend on operating the 190 maybe this whole thing won't go through (hide behind a court battle).

on the flip side.......

Airbus and the Canadians both seem to be pretty good at offering some pretty sweet financing deals so why not........

Dump the 170's and give them to Republic who can probably operate them cheaper. Order more A-319's from Airbus ( I believe they are some type of investor in this whole game) instead of 190's. Then take advantage of clearance prices on the 900's. An added bonus....with additional A-319's they can operate even more 900's, with 190's they cannot.

In the end. Mainline gets more "true mainline aircraft" and management gets the freedom to keep adding CRJ's above 93.

Piker

 

[SUNDOWN]

?????????

It was a bad joke.

 

[Lampshade]

This is a quote from the filing:


The US Airways and America West collective bargaining agreements will be
modified to allow for a combined maximum of ninety-three (93) CRJ-900, or other aircraft within the seating and maximum take-off weight limits specified in Paragraph B above, to be operated in revenue service at any given time at Express Carriers except that for every two (2) aircraft in excess of the combined 360 aircraft (excluding EMB 190 aircraft) operated at both US Airways and America West, that are added to revenue service in the mainline fleet, the Company may allow three (3) additional CRJ-900, or other aircraft within the seating and maximum take-off weight limits specified in Paragraph B above, to be operated in revenue service at Express carriers.

The math I believe is this to honor AWA scope:

38 current CRJ900 operated by Mesa (In AWA scope)
27 E170 are/or will be operated by Republic (not in AWA scope)

65 total current A/C

28 more A/C to be delivered that stay below 88 seats/90,000lbs

93 total in new TA'd AWA/US scope

 

[FlyinPiker]

This is a quote from the filing:

The US Airways and America West collective bargaining agreements will be
modified to allow for a combined maximum of ninety-three (93) CRJ-900, or other aircraft within the seating and maximum take-off weight limits specified in Paragraph B above

The math I believe is this to honor AWA scope:

38 current CRJ900 operated by Mesa (In AWA scope)
27 E170 are/or will be operated by Republic (not in AWA scope)

65 total current A/C

28 more A/C to be delivered that stay below 88 seats/90,000lbs

93 total in new TA'd AWA/US scope

I see what you are catching, 28 more 900's sounds familiar to the RFP that was put out awhile back, but then again that was prior to these lastest developments. I'm curious.......

All paragragh B says is a maximum seating of 88 seats and/or max weight up to 90,000lbs. If you are going to add the 170's to this number why not PSA's 700's or all of Mesa, CHQ's, TSA's, and ZW's 50 seaters.

I'm probably missing something.

 

[Lampshade]

The AWA pilot contract has limited the number of Express planes with seating for 71 or more to 38. 70 seats and below not included.

 

[fam62c]

The AWA pilot contract has limited the number of Express planes with seating for 71 or more to 38. 70 seats and below not included.

I might be wrong but I read the transition agreement and I think that it supercedes the AWA agreement.

 

[Lampshade]

B. Section 1.D.2 of the America West collective bargaining agreement will be modified to increase the maximum seating capacity of jet aircraft flown by Express carriers to a maximum seating capacity of 88 seats (or up to 90 seats if there are no first class seats) and/or certificated maximum take off weight of up to 90,000 pounds.
C. The US Airways and America West collective bargaining agreements will be modified to allow for a combined maximum of ninety-three (93) CRJ-900, or other aircraft within the seating and maximum take-off weight limits specified in Paragraph B above, to be operated in revenue service at any given time at Express Carriers except that for every two (2) aircraft in excess of the combined 360 aircraft (excluding EMB 190 aircraft) operated at both US Airways and America West, that are added to revenue service in the mainline fleet, the Company may allow three (3) additional CRJ-900, or other aircraft within the seating and maximum take-off weight limits specified in Paragraph B above, to be operated in revenue service at Express carriers.

AWA scope is about 10 pages long it won't be replaced with what was in that TA alone, just modified.

 

[Swaayze]

Thanks Lampshade, that's a little better....but why not just cap it where they are today? They just keep on giving.

 

[Lampshade]

heres an article to clear it up a little more:


http://www.flightinternational.com/Articles/2005/09/20/Navigation/177/201663/+US +Airways+free+to+expand+90-seat+or+under+fleet.html