Is it time for another "how's Lynx doing?" thread?

[D-Bo]

Can you imagine the nightmare of trying to have 74 and 132 seat aircraft on the same certificate. The pay, work rules, and advancement opportunities that exist for most 74 seaters are entirely different than that expected for 132 seaters.

Look at all the problems Airways is having even with a 98 seater..

the list of conflicts is long and complicated..

Get the F outta here. That's the weakest F'n argument I've ever read on this board and that's saying a lot. Your logic is extremely deniable.

 

[Cardinal]

Lmfao

 

[cale42]

Seriously Dbo.. get the F out is your response??

I'm thoroughly looking forward to your explanation of how that would work?

You think its a coincidence that not a single US carrier has a mixed fleet of mainline and regional planes. That is what scope is all about....

How do you think F9 pilots would feel about the possibility of some buses being taken away and the most junior guys go to a Dash....

How about the pay rates.. first year regional pay is around 55 to 60/hr for left seat.... for a "major/national/LCC" it is around 80.. the disparity is even larger for the right seat.

How about recruiting.. you gonna use regional minimums and have guys that have 200 hrs with a chance to bid the bus in 30 months.. or recruit guys to fly a Dash that have 3000TT??

What about work rules? regional standards or major standards...

Once I hear this great business plan you have to work around all these obstacles.. we can nominate you for airline CEO of the year...

You think just about every company out there wouldn't LIKE to run their own regional fleet if the could???

 

[Cardinal]

You think its a coincidence that not a single US carrier has a mixed fleet of mainline and regional planes. That is what scope is all about....

Scope is designed to retain flying for the pilot group - not stratify fleets or keep pilots out of icky turboprops. The proof that scope is necessary is clear - no mainline pilot group has been offered flying not defined in their scope clause. It's a vital defense against management, they think they can do it cheaper, even if they can't.

How do you think F9 pilots would feel about the possibility of some buses being taken away and the most junior guys go to a Dash....

I'd take the Dash in a heartbeat over the street. I was lookin for a job when I found this one. Frontier had a brief window of opportunity to become the new paradigm, a model for the industry. Most or all of the branded flying could have been brought in house. 'Tis a pity.

 

[D-Bo]

Seriously Dbo.. get the F out is your response??

I'm thoroughly looking forward to your explanation of how that would work?

You think its a coincidence that not a single US carrier has a mixed fleet of mainline and regional planes. That is what scope is all about....

How do you think F9 pilots would feel about the possibility of some buses being taken away and the most junior guys go to a Dash....

How about the pay rates.. first year regional pay is around 55 to 60/hr for left seat.... for a "major/national/LCC" it is around 80.. the disparity is even larger for the right seat.

How about recruiting.. you gonna use regional minimums and have guys that have 200 hrs with a chance to bid the bus in 30 months.. or recruit guys to fly a Dash that have 3000TT??

What about work rules? regional standards or major standards...

Once I hear this great business plan you have to work around all these obstacles.. we can nominate you for airline CEO of the year...

You think just about every company out there wouldn't LIKE to run their own regional fleet if the could???

Damn right thats my response. Look. The main reason we're having this discussion is because back in the very early 90s, Delta basically felt like they were above RJs. They basically gave them away for nothing. Next thing you know, every other airline is trying to get their regional partners jets under the assumption that those jets would basically replace turbo props on a one for one basis while only serving the same city pairs. It was everyones weak scope that didn't have an airplane for airplane, N number for N number, city pair for city pair clause in them. That's what allowed all this to get out of control. Along with the fact the major airline management found out how good it was at whipsawing.

Anyway, you've got me arguing your apples to oranges argument. You can't compare F9s situation to mainlines situation. First of all, the major airlines didn't up and start another airline under the same certificate but under the same umbrella then take money from the mainline to buy net planes under the new, separate certificate.

Now as far as recruiting.....why should that be a concern of the pilot group for the purposes of protecting flying. So you're saying in their thought process they should think..."well, we want to control flying and protect jobs but maybe we shouldn't for the sake of recruiting"????? Control the flying. The "regional minimums" are only that because those aircraft are being flown at a regional airline. That's the only reason why.

Work Rules? That's very easy. Why can't they be the same. They should be and would be if the whipsawing weren't allowed in the first place.

And lastly, you speak about regional fleet. These aircraft aren't regional aircraft. They're mainline aircraft being flown at regionals.

The problems you speak about aren't big problems at all. They're weak excuses.

 

[T-prop]

And lastly, you speak about regional fleet. These aircraft aren't regional aircraft. They're mainline aircraft being flown at regionals.

The Q400 is more "regional" than an RJ by definition.
Until you see it run DEN-MIA the Q400 is a "regional" aircraft.

I hope you are enjoying being angry for another pilot group over some "lowly" "outdated" turboprops.

66 pax ATR's were flying at American Eagle and ASA LONG before the first RJ arrived. With little to no complaint from the mainline pilot groups.

 

[T-prop]

Basically, you need to hop in a time machine and take your argument back to 1993 when the first ATR's were delivered.

You may need to go further back to convince the last Legacy carrier that operated turbo-props and tell them not retire it in order to gain some form of precedence for your argument.

Mainline pilots were too good to fly turboprops, many are still too good to this day. The AA flow-through/back agreement reflects that. How many flowbacks ended up as CA on the ATR? Saab? Keep in mind that ATR CA pays better than EMB135/140 CA.

 

[cale42]

Alright D-bo.. you and I agree in theory.. but not so much in the implementation. All those things you speak of sound wonderful.. main line work rules and pay rates for all.

However as you pointed out scope clauses are weak. And regardless of what some may say I don't truly think very many mainline pilots really want 50 seaters in their scope.. they certainly didn't fight very hard for them. So until scope changes it is cheaper to have a regional fly 70-90 seaters and it will continue to be that way.

I'm a youngin.. my whole aviation career has been post 9/11. That means I've never seen the good times.. I've never seen the industry before regionals had 70 seaters... all I've seen is crazy high fuel prices and massive pay cuts. This had made me pessimistic no doubt.. but I don't think I'm going to see a day when the regionals flying decrease again.. I hope so.. I've got a long career in front of me.. but I don't see it. With fuel cost being what it is, and the public accustomed to disturbing low ticket prices, I just don't see it.

I long for the world you describe.. but to have expected an airline that was already losing money to step up and implement that seems unrealistic...

cale

 

[D-Bo]

The Q400 is more "regional" than an RJ by definition.
Until you see it run DEN-MIA the Q400 is a "regional" aircraft.

I hope you are enjoying being angry for another pilot group over some "lowly" "outdated" turboprops.

66 pax ATR's were flying at American Eagle and ASA LONG before the first RJ arrived. With little to no complaint from the mainline pilot groups.

Were the ATRs a threat to mainline? Did they have the almost same performance capability of the mainline aircraft? I'm glad you brought that up though. My point is you have F9 mainline flying Airbuses at sub 7 cents per available seat mile. They say they're a low cost carrier. So with that being said, if their cost are so low, comparatively, why buy a brand new airplane and operate it under a brand new certificate? There is something big behind that.

You used AMR in your example. In those days, even with fuel less than half of what it is today, they're CASM was way above 10 cents per mile. If I remember correctly it was about 15 or 16 cents per mile. So if F9 is able to keep it's cost so low, why whipsaw against the mainline pilots? And why shouldn't those pilots be pissed about that? Yeah....that makes me mad. Because they had a chance to stop it. But I'm not just pissed at them. I'm pissed at every other airline that has giving flying away and used two pilot groups against each other. We thought it would stop at 50 seat jets. Now we shake our head at the 90s. It's got to stop. We do it to ourselves.

 

[D-Bo]

However as you pointed out scope clauses are weak. And regardless of what some may say I don't truly think very many mainline pilots really want 50 seaters in their scope.. they certainly didn't fight very hard for them. So until scope changes it is cheaper to have a regional fly 70-90 seaters and it will continue to be that way.


cale

I'm sure the group at F9 would want them on their certificate and on their list. Same with every other mainline with the exception of Delta. These days mainlines have to fight to just keep the flying they have. Not only from RJs but from code share partners too. I think most folks realize it would be in their best interest to gain and control that flying. For those back in the day like Delta who thought that having RJs on the property would just drag their pay rates down.......not having them on the property has done more damage.

If mainlines don't fight for and command as much of the flying as possible these days...they're kicking yourself in the teeth.
I'm not making this a mainline v. regional thing either. I think we all have seen even regionals get played against each other too.

 

[Gr82Aviate]

The Q400 is more "regional" than an RJ by definition.
Until you see it run DEN-MIA the Q400 is a "regional" aircraft.

I hope you are enjoying being angry for another pilot group over some "lowly" "outdated" turboprops.

66 pax ATR's were flying at American Eagle and ASA LONG before the first RJ arrived. With little to no complaint from the mainline pilot groups.

So were Bae 146's at Air Whisky, and WestAir...

 

[sqwkvfr]

This is a little off subject from the direction that this thread has taken, but it has been said over and again that there is not a flowthrough, however, I'd like to know if there is a flowback?

Or does "no flowthrough" imply such?

 

[AceCrackshot]

1) Regarding flow-throughs, flow-backs and flow arounds.

There are two separate lists. Two separate companies. Two separate certificates. I think everyone can see the mountain of issues here.

2) Horizon feed is expensive, comparably. The Q is the perfect airplane for many of the routes not currently serviced by F9. ASE, JAC, and EGE come to mind immediately. The -170 can't go to many of these places. Ski destinations are premium tickets that F9 is essentially leaving on the table.

3) Separate certificates do create economic opportunities. Separate certificates also insulate the other from liabilities.

4) Certification is around the corner.

If I was a F9 pilot (and I'm not) my worries would be growing mainline and concurrently eliminating Republic.

10 Dash 8s wouldn't even register on my radar.

 

[GuppyWN]

Heard the Feds won't certify it because it doesn't have O2 masks and the MEA's are over 14k.

Gup

 

[regionaltard]

Heard the Feds won't certify it because it doesn't have O2 masks and the MEA's are over 14k.

Gup

Let's not let facts get in the way here. I heard that it's because the Feds are incompetent and they have it in for Frontier.

 

[T-prop]

Heard the Feds won't certify it because it doesn't have O2 masks and the MEA's are over 14k.

Gup

They got around that issue months ago.

 

[PCL_128]

Can you imagine the nightmare of trying to have 74 and 132 seat aircraft on the same certificate. The pay, work rules, and advancement opportunities that exist for most 74 seaters are entirely different than that expected for 132 seaters.

Look at all the problems Airways is having even with a 98 seater..

the list of conflicts is long and complicated..

This is ridiculous. Up until a couple of years ago, Northwest pilots were flying 78-seat airplanes on their certificate with no such problems. You've bought into the management kool-aid.

 

[Cardinal]

If I was a F9 pilot (and I'm not) my worries would be growing mainline and concurrently eliminating Republic.

10 Dash 8s wouldn't even register on my radar.

For The Win.

 

[AceCrackshot]

Heard the Feds won't certify it because it doesn't have O2 masks and the MEA's are over 14k.

Gup

Nope.

There are numerous workaround for this problem. This would be a dispatching/routing issue, not an aircraft problem.