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

Less RJ flying in the future?

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
Nice...

I love how the same guys who gave away the 50-60-70 seat market to the commuters are "suprised" to see pilots flying them. What other choice do we have? Do they expect us to find another career? If so, and things are so bad now, why haven't they either? Sounds like a serious case of passing the buck.

What really cracks me up is how the guys who were willing to drive around a J31 for 8 years at $30 bucks complain about the young "shinny jet" pilots. I'd bet if they had the chance to fly an RJ back then, 100% of them would be doing the same ******************** we are...for probably even less just to get out of the J31.

I do not know any former J31 pilots that flew in the commuters for more than three years. I do know quite a few RJ pilots who have flown in the commuters more than eight years. Back then we went in the commuters, built our time, then moved on.
 
I do not know any former J31 pilots that flew in the commuters for more than three years. I do know quite a few RJ pilots who have flown in the commuters more than eight years. Back then we went in the commuters, built our time, then moved on.

Well sure, there has been good times and bad. There were times when one would only spend 2-3 years at a commuter, and there were times when 8 years was normal.

My point is just that many people sat in Dashes and other turbo props against their wishes, hoping for a better job. Sure, I don't like flying 70+ people around for $24K as an FO, but thats world that was created. It bugs me when the same pilots who voted away the 70 seat flying to the regionals to protect their own behind, are critical of those who fly them. After all, they would be doing the same thing in my shoes. What other choice do we have?
 
Last edited:
Don't forget at Eagle back in 97-98 there were more than enough guys that would have sold their grandma just to get those RJs in property. They even signed a 16 yr contract to do such and least I dont forget to mention the trickel through to AA
 
There is plenty of blame to go around at Eagle for why they have the POS contract that they have.

It is a classic lesson in whip-sawing and the importance of unity and the danger of not having a single pilot group. Pilots are quick to point the fingers at pilots but don't try to find out what happened. We keep making the same mistakes over and over.

This happened right before I got to Eagle. This is what I gathered from private conversations with Eagle ALPA leadership as well as testimony from company officers and former negotiating committee members.

Eagle consisted of 7 (I think) different pilot groups. Negotiatons were going nowhere with management. Then management announced that the Eagle carriers would be getting RJs but which carriers and the quantity of RJ's would be determined by the contract that each of the carriers agreed to (there was to be one Eagle after the ratification, however, the contract needed to be ratified by each group seperately). Additionally, only groups that ratified the contract would be able to fly the RJ's. Meanwhile, AMR started overlapping the route networks of the Eagle carriers which up until then had all been geographically isolated for the most part. Remember that these were 7 different airlines with 7 different seniority list. They began to selectively expand certain airlines and contract other airlines depending on which negotiators were "being nice" at the table. For example, it got to the point where Wings West (LAX) was expanding it's new base at DFW while Metro (DFW) was contracting. There was a point where Metro was furloughing pilots that were senior to the pilots upgrading at Wings West. There was a large amount of distrust (still is till this day) between the pilot groups and yet, when the contract went out to vote the first time it got voted DOWN. Then, management put "the word out" that any group that did not acquise to the TA by a certain date would be simply hung out to dry (i.e. ASA/Skywest). The MEC and the negotiating comm. at that time only cared about the flow through agreement so agreed to put the TA up for a "2nd chance vote" at the same time so there was no waiting to see what the others would do. The 2nd vote was close, but the companies fear campaign coupled with the pilot groups inherent distrust of the "other" pilots cemented there fate.

ALPA national did not step up to counter AMR's fear campaign, nor did they do anything to stop AMR's tactics which many were clear violations of the RLA.

The MEC/Neg Com were mostly all very senior and only cared about the flow through. They would have agreed to a 100 year contract because they expected to be long gone within 2 years. All of the original MEC/Neg Com members flowed up to American except 2, one retired and one is still a CA in BOS (he was the junior member at the time) last I heard. During testimony at a grievance hearing a former committee member stated that they accepted a 16 year contract because "the company originally asked for 24 years, we were happy to get 16"...go figure.

AMR wrote the book on dirty tricks - and they used them all. The MEC had it's own agenda, and ALPA national only cared about trying to get AA into ALPA.

The rank-and-file didn't stand a chance.
 
If I rememeber correctly, all of the various carriers that became Eagle were one carrier about a year before the contract was signed. We had a couple of guys come over from Simmons or Wings West because their upgrade went from about 3 yrs to 12 yrs
 
"Sure, I don't like flying 70+ people around for $24K as an FO, but thats world that was created."


You have got to be kidding me...THIS is what you think you are worth??? And for 8 years no less...

No wonder the Management of these companies look at us, the pilots as a bunch of idiots.
 
There's plenty of blame to go around. WE--all of us have screwed up the system.

The arrogant a$$holes who thought they were too good to fly a "little" airplane and the punks who want to stick it to the mainline pilots because they don't say hi in the terminal.

The airlines love RJ's because they've used them to take flying from mainline. They love RJ's because they hire low-timers who are hungry for jet time (who among us would have rather started in a E-145 than a Be-99?) and will work for crap pay. They love RJ's because it divides us and makes it easier to perpetuate the current low pay and lousy workrules for BOTH groups.

We both aspire to the same goal--good pay and bennies and good workrules. Whether you fly 744's, MD80's, E170's or CRJ's, you just want to be happy and make a buck.

Management wants you to be miserable and make half-a-buck.

RJ's have their place. Turboprops have their place. All of us have an interest in creating jobs at the mainline level so EVERYONE can move up the food chain.TC
 
The one thing that alot of folks forget about is what else could cause the death of RJ's.

The bottom line is that there are more people flying than ever and the total number of large airports hasnt changed in this country in more than a decade.
If you started to build one today..you wouldnt get the first paying passenger to the gate for nearly 20 years.

No..It wont be pay..It will be the need to increase throughput with the current airport/airspace system.

The increase in passenger travel will continue to increase the pressure to have slot times at ALL large airports.Once that happens..The ONLY way to get more people in the system will be planes with more seats per available slot.

My guess is that anything less than about 100 seats wont even be allowed to operate at a slot controlled airport.

With the FAA already making noise about the airlines cutting back on the over stuffed schedules its only a matter of time.
Things like having twice the number of hourly departures scheduled during the first push or late afternoon push is gonna stop.

In order to move the same number of bodies per hour you need more seats with people in them.

So..The less than 100 seat RJ is a dead man walking.Its going to die for all the right reasons and those are the same reasons we all knew in the beggining.They are too expencive to operate per leg..And soon..They will be too expencive to operate per slot.

Its just a matter of time.

I agree with you but why make it 100 seats? Why not 150? Those pesky little 130 seat airplanes will be clogging up the system before you know it:).

You are right though. The solution to the total lack of attention to the building of airports and aviation infrastructure will have to be a dramatic increase in guage and decrease in frequency at the busiest fields. Passenger traffic will double over the next deade or so and Congress and local government can't seem to get even the smallest things done these days. Small cities and their congressional reps will complain that they don't have direct service to LGA but there will be no other choice.
 
There's plenty of blame to go around. WE--all of us have screwed up the system.

The arrogant a$$holes who thought they were too good to fly a "little" airplane and the punks who want to stick it to the mainline pilots because they don't say hi in the terminal.

The airlines love RJ's because they've used them to take flying from mainline. They love RJ's because they hire low-timers who are hungry for jet time (who among us would have rather started in a E-145 than a Be-99?) and will work for crap pay. They love RJ's because it divides us and makes it easier to perpetuate the current low pay and lousy workrules for BOTH groups.

We both aspire to the same goal--good pay and bennies and good workrules. Whether you fly 744's, MD80's, E170's or CRJ's, you just want to be happy and make a buck.

Management wants you to be miserable and make half-a-buck.

RJ's have their place. Turboprops have their place. All of us have an interest in creating jobs at the mainline level so EVERYONE can move up the food chain.TC

Welcome back, TC...hope training went well for ya'.

Spot-on...once again.
 
It looks like simple supply and demand to me. You have a limited supply of seats in the current infrastructure, and an ever increasing demand for those seats. It seems the most logical way to solve this problem is to raise the price on those seats to the point where demand is lowered closer to supply. I know this is an overly simple theory and there are other variables involved and airlines fighting for market share, but it makes sense to me.
 
Its demand

The current demand for seats exists ONLY at the current price point. If you increase the price some of the demand will drop.

You guys would probably be better off with fewer planes, passengers and pilots because the pilots would be making more money.

Thats not necessarily the case for the airline's total profit (as opposed to profit margin) They might make more money with lots of less profitable flights. Frankly I don't know.

In other words... its not as simple as just raising the price $5.00 a ticket.

What would really fix the industry problems would be for big government to do one of two things.

1) Step in a regulate the routes and prices with the philosophy that travel is vital, just like electricity and it needs to be regulated.
2) Step out and stop bailing out broken companies. Let the big airlines go under.

The sort of regulated industry we have gets us the worst of a free market and the worst of a socialist regulated one.
 
True cynic, but I don't think it can be assumed that a 5 dollar fare hike will result in a massive reduction in demand. In the nation's busiest airports, I don't think it would change demand one bit. Yet airlines are afraid to do it, because theoretically all the pax will rush over to the 5 dollar cheaper airline. In theory, of course they will. In reality, when all other airlines out of those airports are operating at full capacity with demand increasing daily, there's no where for them to go. 5 bucks per head isn't going to change anyone's travel plans especially when there is no one else to fly on because everyone is full (not including Sept and October, of course).
 
i dont see how leg length has anything to do with it. are you going to tell me that they should fly a 737 into a smaller airport and load it up with the standard 30 -47 people per flight just because its more than 2 hours to get to the base.
 
To start out, the RJ's should be removed from hub to hub flying. For example, if AA can only justify a 40 seat EMB between LGA and DCA, than maybe AA shouldn't be flying LGA to DCA. Doesn't make much sense to delay the 134 people on my -88 so we can follow the 10 that AA has on the EMB by 20 mins in trail...

Same thing can be said about Delta using CRJ's between JFK and BOS, or any other airline's hub to hub situation.
 
For example, if AA can only justify a 40 seat EMB between LGA and DCA, than maybe AA shouldn't be flying LGA to DCA.

I thought AMR only used Eagle for a shuttle-like operation because they didn't have enough slots at DCA to support mainline aircraft?
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom