Industry 70 seat rates

[FLYLOW22]

How did my thread on industry comparisons of 70 seat rates turn into an RJDC thread????? Oh well!

Because THAT is what it is all about.

Management will continue to whipsaw mainline against regional and regional against regional until all of you no longer realize what the fight was about... oops, too late.

 

[JoeMerchant]

Well... actually it was the DAL pilots who let the camels nose under the tent on the RJ issue. Years ago, in a galaxy far, far away (CVG) and airline called Comair began with 50 seaters.

Now the pay is about the same for 50 seats through 100 seats. The RJ has killed the DC9, 717, 737-200/500 and F100. Ain't paybacks a bitch.

Actually Flylow22, it started well before that. It started with Eastern Metro in the early '80s. Randy Babbitt is on record as saying it was a mistake to allow outsourced flying, but their ego's got in the way of good judgement. Let that be a lesson to all of us..... put the ego's and emotion away, and stop the transfer of flying. If it means paycuts and concessions, so be it - don't allow more flying to leave.

 

[jehtplane]

I decided to do some research on 70 seat rates in the industry, to compare them to ASA's current rates, and what mngmt has proposed. Pretty interesting:

Captain Rates:

---Eagle--Comair--Mesa- PSA- CHQ- SKYW--Ave: ASA

5yr- 70--- 64 --- 62--- 66--- 68----63--- 65.5----68
6yr- 72--- 66--- 64--- 68--- 70 ---65--- 67.5----70
7yr- 74--- 68--- 66--- 69--- 72----67--- 69.3----72
8yr- 76--- 70 --- 68--- 71---74 ---69--- 71.3-----75
9yr- 78--- 72--- 70--- 73--- 76--- 71--- 73.3----78
10yr- 80---74--- 72 --- 75--- 79--- 74---77.7-----81
Max- 97--- 94--- 90 --- 91--- 95--- 93---93.5----103
18 yrs

First Officers:

---Eagle--Comair--Mesa--Psa---CHQ---SKYW---Ave----ASA--ASA cut

1yr--24---20-------21-----21----22----19----21.6-----19---?
2yr--32---32-------28-----30----30----35----30.4-----37---32.2
3yr--34---34-------31-----32----34----36----33-------39---34.3
4yr--36---35-------33-----34----35----37----34.6-----40---34.8
5yr--37---36-------34-----35----35----38----35.4-----41---35.7
max-39---38-------36-----36----35-----40---35.7-----45

If you look at the FO rates, ASA is indeed considerably higher than the rest, aside from 1st year. Now, my feeling on this is maybe everyone else is paid too little, however, they are what they are. ASA's second year FO pay is almost more than the industry ave. for the max pay! Trying to be rational, and looking from the other side, I can see where management is coming up with their proposed rates. They still put ASA above industry average. With the unions propsed 9% raises above these rates, we would be so far above industry rates our flying would no longer be viable, and we would probably lose all of our 700's to Skywest. This is how business works. They seek to keep their costs in line with their competitors. No flame, now. I am not a Deangelo. Just wanted to lay it out and look at it in the big picture to decide if I support 9% increase (which I would LOVE!) over our already higher rates, and deciding the cosequences of that. Can I strike to try to get 23% more pay than the averages of my competitors? I just don't think they will pay us that, and if they did agree to, how could we expect any new flying, or to keep what we have when Skywest could just take it, or Delta could give it to Mesa and CHQ whose costs are much lower!

Look at all the ********************bag companies you are comparing yourselves too, I do not see Horizon in there, lets see, Skywest, flies them for 50 seat rates, CHQ, and Mesa, well why go there, Eagle signed a 15 year contract, I can not believe what I am reading all the sudden it is OK to take paycuts for growth aircraft, grow a pair guys, The airframes are already determined where they are going, lets be realistic about this, Sky******************** flies them for less, do you really want to sink to that level? Don't sell out.

 

[JoeMerchant]

How did my thread on industry comparisons of 70 seat rates turn into an RJDC thread????? Oh well!

Because they are more closely related then you realize..... Bidding for flying has resulted in this situation, and bidding for flying is a result in ALPA's failure to deal with scope in an effective matter.

 

[Dodge]

That is exactly the reason that having effective scope language in our next contract is critical.

Mesaba pilots have very effective scope. As long as NWA continues to contract out flying that has been deemed below the standards of mainline pilots to Mesaba, the Mesaba pilots are employed. When NWA and Mesaba (aka NWA) Management decide to part ways, scope language is wasted ink and paper. This is where Mesaba is and many other regionals could be headed.

Last post, I promise.

 

[~~~^~~~]

How did my thread on industry comparisons of 70 seat rates turn into an RJDC thread????? Oh well!

Sorry.... You started a good thread.

 

[JoeMerchant]

Thank God, because you were the only one I was worried about I will definately need a driver to and from the Buffett concert.

Sorry for the thread creep everyone. 737 Pylt got my goat with his libel.

Looking forward to seeing you this weekend. Don't let 737Peenut get your goat, he is getting worried that ALPA isn't protecting his job and is rightly concerned.... maybe he should seek outside legal council also because obviously ALPA isn't protecting his career.

Fins up and see this weekend....

 

[JoeMerchant]

Look at all the ********************bag companies you are comparing yourselves too, I do not see Horizon in there, lets see, Skywest, flies them for 50 seat rates, CHQ, and Mesa, well why go there, Eagle signed a 15 year contract, I can not believe what I am reading all the sudden it is OK to take paycuts for growth aircraft, grow a pair guys, The airframes are already determined where they are going, lets be realistic about this, Sky******************** flies them for less, do you really want to sink to that level? Don't sell out.

It's not a matter of "selling out", it is a matter of industry reality. Horizon at this time is a unique situation that may or may not continue. We are a competitor for Delta flying. Our parent company is in BK, and our competition is paid less than we are asking for the 70 seater. I don't like it anymore than you do, but we have to play with the hand we are dealt...

 

[79%N1]

Look at all the ********************bag companies you are comparing yourselves too, I do not see Horizon in there, lets see, Skywest, flies them for 50 seat rates, CHQ, and Mesa, well why go there, Eagle signed a 15 year contract, I can not believe what I am reading all the sudden it is OK to take paycuts for growth aircraft, grow a pair guys, The airframes are already determined where they are going, lets be realistic about this, Sky******************** flies them for less, do you really want to sink to that level? Don't sell out.

Well, other than Horizon, those are all of the Regional carriers that fly 70 seaters. Who else can I compare? I don't think anyone should have to take paycuts....but I disagree that the aircraft are already decided on where they go. Look at Skywest already taking 13 700's from ASA! How can we think they won't take more? The point of the chart was for me to find out how my pay compares with others, to see if my CNC was in line in what we are asking for.....and guess what? It isnt! We are already $6-7/hr more than everyone else. How do we think we can get another 9%, and then keep the flying? Can SKYW not open a base in ATL to fly more 70's? How about them opening a base in ATL to get the new (proposed) 90's? Of course they can. Rumor is, Mesa will be getting the 900 flying anyway, not ASA. I didnt invent the pay to play, and I don't like it. I just think we need to be careful in what we are asking for, and I don't think too many people understand where we are in relation to the competition. I really foresee small decreases for 70 Captains at ASA, and FO's going to one rate for all aircraft. (Fo's always get sold out anyway, right) Throw in some profit sharing and some sort of rig or min day, more liberal swapping rules and our w2's will come out ahead. We can, and should meet management at some compromise where we can all come out ahead.

 

[JoeMerchant]

Well, other than Horizon, those are all of the Regional carriers that fly 70 seaters. Who else can I compare? I don't think anyone should have to take paycuts....but I disagree that the aircraft are already decided on where they go. Look at Skywest already taking 13 700's from ASA! How can we think they won't take more? The point of the chart was for me to find out how my pay compares with others, to see if my CNC was in line in what we are asking for.....and guess what? It isnt! We are already $6-7/hr more than everyone else. How do we think we can get another 9%, and then keep the flying? Can SKYW not open a base in ATL to fly more 70's? How about them opening a base in ATL to get the new (proposed) 90's? Of course they can. Rumor is, Mesa will be getting the 900 flying anyway, not ASA. I didnt invent the pay to play, and I don't like it. I just think we need to be careful in what we are asking for, and I don't think too many people understand where we are in relation to the competition. I really foresee small decreases for 70 Captains at ASA, and FO's going to one rate for all aircraft. (Fo's always get sold out anyway, right) Throw in some profit sharing and some sort of rig or min day, more liberal swapping rules and our w2's will come out ahead. We can, and should meet management at some compromise where we can all come out ahead.

79%, I know you and I don't agree on a lot of things, but I applaud you for looking at this objectively and independantly. I don't like "pay to play" any more than you do, but unfortunately it is a fact of life. ALPA will form more committees to study "pay to play" and "scope" while those of us in the trenches have to live it.

The fact is, until ALPA mounts an effective defense, we must live with "pay to play" whether we like it or not.......