Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Future of the Regionals - I am Calling It Here

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Reading FREEBRD from CFIT's post (have him on ignore), I would absoluetly disagree. What many don't understand is it really does take a BK to TRY to change scope in big ways. First of all, the BK judge will not just "give" larger planes to AMR. He/she will look at the peers. It didn't happen in any of the other BKs. So, it cannot be forced, or it would have already happened. Next, the American pilots don't want to give it all away, they know what will happen, and the majority of pilots would vote it down, even if the senior guys tried to allow it. It wouldn't pass, it didn't at any of the other BK carriers. Next, even if somehow it DID happen at AMR, the other legacies aren't even close to BK. And, since they aren't close, it won't even come up. Look at the current CAL/UAL stance on nothing more than 50 seaters. Their MEC is sticking with that hardcore stance, even with all of the very senior pilots at both UAL and CAL. Same at DL. Scope would have been relaxed at the joint contract when DL/NWA came together, but it DID NOT. So, I wouldn't count on it (scope relaxation) if I were a regional guy.


Godspeed!


The OYSter
 
Last edited:
This is the most pivotal element of the regional out source for the foreseeable future and will determine, most likely, everyone's outcome in this industie. IF the GTF is the game changer it's proported to be, and IF the C-series is as efficient as claimed, it will required by every carrier.

Who flies it will be the "million dollar" question. AA management has already proposed to give it to mainline but they have yet to acknowledge anything regarding the pensions. IF AA management gives into the pensions, then they are going to want to outsource the C-series.

If the C-series goes to an out source then AA will have substantial advantage over the others. So much so that the other legacies will need to follow with similar contracts.

So, it appears that AA pilots hold almost all of us at hand. If they hold strong, all should go as the OP has suggested. If they succomb then you can imagine the rest.

What has the past history shown on scope?

How bad do the AA pilots want to recover their pensions?


Who says the PBGC will allow the pension termination? They may be "frozen", but they may not lose it all together. The head of that agency doesn't sound like he wants to give in, and they have to prove at AMR that they will fail with the pensions intact. They went in with $4 billion in cash, and since the other airlines terminated their pensions, laws have been enacted to make it tougher to drop them.


Godspeed!


The OYSter
 
That is for sure.

I doubt anyone flying a wide-body at UAL even knows , or cares what scope is.


I guess you don't know the CAL/UAL MEC stance on RJs. Sounds pretty "solid" to me. If it were not, they might have had a deal by now.


Godspeed!


The OYSter
 
This is the most pivotal element of the regional out source for the foreseeable future and will determine, most likely, everyone's outcome in this industie. IF the GTF is the game changer it's proported to be, and IF the C-series is as efficient as claimed, it will required by every carrier.

Who flies it will be the "million dollar" question. AA management has already proposed to give it to mainline but they have yet to acknowledge anything regarding the pensions. IF AA management gives into the pensions, then they are going to want to outsource the C-series.

If the C-series goes to an out source then AA will have substantial advantage over the others. So much so that the other legacies will need to follow with similar contracts.

So, it appears that AA pilots hold almost all of us at hand. If they hold strong, all should go as the OP has suggested. If they succomb then you can imagine the rest.

What has the past history shown on scope?

How bad do the AA pilots want to recover their pensions?

Look at it from the other perspective. CAL/UAL get a joint contract first requiring that 90 seats be flown at mainline. Now, that takes leverage away from AMR management to give that piece of flying away. Rumor has it that Smisek realizes what is at stake here, and that he would like to get a contract done before the AMR guys finish up. I have trouble agreeing with anything Smisek says, but if he did indeed make that point, then I would certainly agree to that one.
 
A very bold prediction, one that would be a complete reversal of 15 (?) years of current mainline practices. You have anything other than a "feeling" to back this up?

Yes I do. There is absolutely no reason to give scope up. The results of the last scope relief have been felt by far too many. So, why would we do it again??? The guys in the bottom 25% see it simply as furlough protection. The 50% above them as seat or seniority protection. Ask a United guy who downgraded as the 737's were parked and replaced with 50 or 70 seat flying how he felt about the paycut. Ask a widebody captain how he felt about downgrading to narrowbody cpt. Ask a senior FO who got all his choice days off and a great schedule how he felt about working 18 days per month and having no control over his schedule. Ask all the guys who went from lineholder to reserve how they felt about the scope relief.

I would hardly call that a bold prediction, but rather a reasonable one.
 
Every time two 50seaters are replaced by one 100seater that is a reduction of pilots in the industry.

True. But for every 100-seat mainline plane that's replaced by two outsourced 50-seaters, a dozen more pilots see their careers hit a brick wall.
 
I guess you don't know the CAL/UAL MEC stance on RJs. Sounds pretty "solid" to me. If it were not, they might have had a deal by now.


Godspeed!


The OYSter

I guess you do not know the UAL management stance. You know the ones that put them into bankruptcy, stole there pensions, cut there pay by over half(50%).

The MEC is bring a knife to a gun fight.


PS DAL is next on the list. The DAL union is a paper tiger.
 
Truer words could not be spoken.


The regionals will only grow larger.

Agreed, after the AMR mess is done and over with you will see the scope contracts be broken and Eagle will be flying A320s and 737s within the next decade.

RyanAir in europe is already paying 737-800 FO's $27,000 USD/year and making them pay for their own recurrents...

The Delta/United/American/US Air brands will just be brands with everything outsourced. Look at what Qantas is doing.

This big retirement/hiring boom will be replaced with outsourcing to low paid pilots with no pensions.
 
I guess you do not know the UAL management stance. You know the ones that put them into bankruptcy, stole there pensions, cut there pay by over half(50%).

That UAL mgt team is gone. It's CAL mgt now, and they made a grab for the UAL scope that resulted in a scope arbitration win for pilot labor. Yeah, the 70 seaters are still flying in the UAL brand, but only on the former UAL side. The former CAL flying is still covered by the former CAL scope, even after all the flying has been merged.

A member of the new UAL mgt team, who was trying to justify the 70 seater, spoke to it like this: Skywest wanted to fly the 70 seater for 50 seat wage for "growth", going forward that's all any of them are going to get. 50s go away and the 70s go to 50 seat wage, and then they can start bidding against each other. The 90 seaters go to UAL mainline and pay a decent wage.

However, I'm not even in favor of them skating on the 70.
 
Last edited:
Yes I do. There is absolutely no reason to give scope up. The results of the last scope relief have been felt by far too many. So, why would we do it again??? The guys in the bottom 25% see it simply as furlough protection. The 50% above them as seat or seniority protection. Ask a United guy who downgraded as the 737's were parked and replaced with 50 or 70 seat flying how he felt about the paycut. Ask a widebody captain how he felt about downgrading to narrowbody cpt. Ask a senior FO who got all his choice days off and a great schedule how he felt about working 18 days per month and having no control over his schedule. Ask all the guys who went from lineholder to reserve how they felt about the scope relief.

I would hardly call that a bold prediction, but rather a reasonable one.

Hehe, yeah I've actually talked to some of those guys you are speaking of. There are guys that care, but overwhelmingly they didn't. If it comes down to better pay vs scope for a bunch of guys that have 10 or less years left and they know there's no chance of a furlough thanks to retirements that's the ball game. There will be the hold outs as always, but majority rules, and my experience shows the majority to want nothing to do with the RJs. My sampling has been fairly unscientific (mostly commuters).
 

Latest resources

Back
Top