Many posts in assorted threads on this board cover the subject of the regional vs. mainline mentality. It would seem by reading all of these that Bob Crandall's last wish has come true. He and Frank Lorenzo would be reading these and giggling all the way to Hell's First/Third Bank. Who knows maybe Steve Wolfe will even get back into the game.
Mainline pilots blame regional pilots for stealing their jobs, and regional pilots blame mainline pilots for not allowing them growth.
So what came first the chicken or the egg?
History can explain a lot, and this did not start in just the past five years.
It might even be the example of, do Unions bare the requirement of protecting the un-born at the possible expense (or pay) of the senior pilots?
This is how the B-scale came to being at American almost 25 years ago. The senior pilot leadership said everyone on property now will get a pay raise, but all new hires will come in at a lower rate. Seemed okay at the time for the guys on property, but little did they realize that "management just got their nose under the tent". Ask any of the new hires that came in and were flying the same job at 20% less pay.
That essentially showed management that pilot groups in general were willing to take pay raises (or no pay cuts) in order to not protect the "un-born" or not hired yet. Bu what the pilot groups failed to realize is that by doing this, they started a trend in which management expounded upon the idea, and convinced pilot groups by using the same logic once the "regional jet arrived" that mainine pilots could maintain their pay or raises if they let the company have a "small number" of small jets at an affiliate carrier or even a another carrier owned by them.
Thus scope was born. Then, mainline pilot groups, unknowingly to them, created an avenue for management to get replacement workers at a substantially cheaper cost. Look, at how technology has turned the DC-9 (once considered a regional jet) now into mainline product) but an EMB-170 which stands bigger and looks like a 737 and EMB-190 which carries more people than a DC-9 into a regional feeder.
I like USAirways pilots, as some have ben in my family, but they allowed paid for DC-9's which provided "regional feed" to their hubs to be parked and then gave away scope restrictions allowing regional carriers to fly the same flights in similar aircraft. How is this a regional pilots fault? I am a regional pilot, andI am on a 170 now, but I would have much rather been in the right seat of a DC-9 where the growth should have been.
This has been a snowballing effot in the industry by management. Did our mainline pilots bretheren purposesly do this to themselves? No. They did not mean to price themselves out of a job, and me into a lower paying job. I do not hold contempt for them or any other carrier's pilots and wish everyone the best.
But, how is it that some many regionals were "needed" to fill capacity feed for their mainline partners? Especially on "regional jet feed" n just a matter of 12 years? It is because mainline pilots bargained away their rights to F-28's, F-100's, DC-9's, etc. These WERE THE REGIONAL FEED! But the market had a definite need for similar aircraft capacity on certain routes. 138 seat aircraft which consistently only fills 80 seats on certain routes is not profitable not matter what the pilots make.
Management started this trend with "small" scope changes first allowing limited number of 30-50 seat regional jets while convincing mainline pilots we were cheap commuters just replacing turbo-prop aircraft. And that by allwing this to happen manline's (DAL, UAL, USAir, CAL) could expand into larger aircraft and more routes. But by getting larger aircraft, they covered up the fact of downsizing mid-size mainline fleets. Once again management was getting their nose further under the tent.
Even though the aircraft parked were "old, fuel thirsty, tanks" they were still profitable in their markets they were designed for. Regional hub feed 70-90 seats. Northwest STILL uses these aircraft for what they were designed. The 717 is just another reinvention of this BUT IS fuel efficient, but this IS considered mainline equipment vs. 90 seat RJ'swhich can be flown at a "commuter".
Now, regionals- flying the size of aircraft that mainline flew 30 years ago, on the same routes feeding the same hubs, are considered sell-outs for working so cheaply. Mainline doesn't have the appropriate aircraft feed they use to, and mainline pilots have bargained away those size aircraft needed in exchange for larger wide-body growth, higher pay, etc. which just fed into what management was trying to do, and what Bob Crandall did 25 years ago- create a cheaper work force. And since their is no growth at mainlines and now there is furloughs, because of too many larger aircraft. So we have many pilots on the street now willing to work for those regionals which SOME (not all) thought were inferior, and now they ask why do we work so cheaply?
So who's fault is it? Management? Mainline Pilot Unions? Regional Pilots? The MArket? Fuel Prices? The Economy? Maybe all of these and maybe none. My post is not to blame, but ask how can stop this snow ball, because it is getting to the bottom of he hill and is going to take the whole village with it.
I have seen posts on having one national unified pilot group. That is what we had 40 years ago. Many of those ideals were given up with the lifting of scope restrictions. So, how do we get back to it?
1. No more looking down your noses at regional pilots because they fly smaller equipment or make less. We should be working for them on their seniority lists.
2. No more regional pilots blaming mainline pilots for making to much and bringing down the industry. They were trying to make their lives better just as we would have if we were in the same position. However, I think we should ALL learn a lesson from this and try to prevent it from happening again.
3. Support each other's pilot groups and have ONE opinion on pay issues, work rules, quality of life issues. We have everybody brow beating everyone else instead of trying to make each other's lives better- the true purpose of a Union.
An example, I was a negotiator for Chautauqua. Some of you think we sold out the industry. We sold out for growth. Actually the main reason we signed our contract, was to stop the above cyce from happening again, now at the regional level. We can agree to disagree, but I have read almost all of the posts on this board. CHQ has better health care than any DAL unit. Our 90 seat rates are much better than JtBlue's. We DO NOT have Junior Manning. I have been here 4 years and I am going to clear 85k this year. We were helped by USAir's ALPA for leverage against our Holding Company when they tried to start another carrier for whipsawing. We appreciate that, and any one of them could come to me and I would hand walk in their resume, and that is why we gave them jet 4 jobs. CHQ still got growth under that, and they got jobs. By the way seniority is not really overted in that issue, and these guys have been a great addition with great experience. By the way, in 4 more years (8 with the company) I should clear 110k a year. DC-9 pay at AirTran, while at a "Regional" nd CHQ will still have 6 years left on all of its' contracts.
I guess I am just tired of all the bashing on this board. I was a negotiator, would I liked to have gotten a better deal- He!! Yes, but we live to fight another day with some really good gains, and a stronger position the next time around. UAL's last contract wasn't all won at once, it was won over the last 20 years. Many younger guys on these boards don't seem to realize that, and maybe you older guys can help them out.
No more name calling, and the other BS. There will always be a few tools. One of the J4J guys calls it the "Cool to Tool" ratio at any Company. I like that. But in order for this profession to succeed, it is going to take all of us to figure it out.
Dan
Mainline pilots blame regional pilots for stealing their jobs, and regional pilots blame mainline pilots for not allowing them growth.
So what came first the chicken or the egg?
History can explain a lot, and this did not start in just the past five years.
It might even be the example of, do Unions bare the requirement of protecting the un-born at the possible expense (or pay) of the senior pilots?
This is how the B-scale came to being at American almost 25 years ago. The senior pilot leadership said everyone on property now will get a pay raise, but all new hires will come in at a lower rate. Seemed okay at the time for the guys on property, but little did they realize that "management just got their nose under the tent". Ask any of the new hires that came in and were flying the same job at 20% less pay.
That essentially showed management that pilot groups in general were willing to take pay raises (or no pay cuts) in order to not protect the "un-born" or not hired yet. Bu what the pilot groups failed to realize is that by doing this, they started a trend in which management expounded upon the idea, and convinced pilot groups by using the same logic once the "regional jet arrived" that mainine pilots could maintain their pay or raises if they let the company have a "small number" of small jets at an affiliate carrier or even a another carrier owned by them.
Thus scope was born. Then, mainline pilot groups, unknowingly to them, created an avenue for management to get replacement workers at a substantially cheaper cost. Look, at how technology has turned the DC-9 (once considered a regional jet) now into mainline product) but an EMB-170 which stands bigger and looks like a 737 and EMB-190 which carries more people than a DC-9 into a regional feeder.
I like USAirways pilots, as some have ben in my family, but they allowed paid for DC-9's which provided "regional feed" to their hubs to be parked and then gave away scope restrictions allowing regional carriers to fly the same flights in similar aircraft. How is this a regional pilots fault? I am a regional pilot, andI am on a 170 now, but I would have much rather been in the right seat of a DC-9 where the growth should have been.
This has been a snowballing effot in the industry by management. Did our mainline pilots bretheren purposesly do this to themselves? No. They did not mean to price themselves out of a job, and me into a lower paying job. I do not hold contempt for them or any other carrier's pilots and wish everyone the best.
But, how is it that some many regionals were "needed" to fill capacity feed for their mainline partners? Especially on "regional jet feed" n just a matter of 12 years? It is because mainline pilots bargained away their rights to F-28's, F-100's, DC-9's, etc. These WERE THE REGIONAL FEED! But the market had a definite need for similar aircraft capacity on certain routes. 138 seat aircraft which consistently only fills 80 seats on certain routes is not profitable not matter what the pilots make.
Management started this trend with "small" scope changes first allowing limited number of 30-50 seat regional jets while convincing mainline pilots we were cheap commuters just replacing turbo-prop aircraft. And that by allwing this to happen manline's (DAL, UAL, USAir, CAL) could expand into larger aircraft and more routes. But by getting larger aircraft, they covered up the fact of downsizing mid-size mainline fleets. Once again management was getting their nose further under the tent.
Even though the aircraft parked were "old, fuel thirsty, tanks" they were still profitable in their markets they were designed for. Regional hub feed 70-90 seats. Northwest STILL uses these aircraft for what they were designed. The 717 is just another reinvention of this BUT IS fuel efficient, but this IS considered mainline equipment vs. 90 seat RJ'swhich can be flown at a "commuter".
Now, regionals- flying the size of aircraft that mainline flew 30 years ago, on the same routes feeding the same hubs, are considered sell-outs for working so cheaply. Mainline doesn't have the appropriate aircraft feed they use to, and mainline pilots have bargained away those size aircraft needed in exchange for larger wide-body growth, higher pay, etc. which just fed into what management was trying to do, and what Bob Crandall did 25 years ago- create a cheaper work force. And since their is no growth at mainlines and now there is furloughs, because of too many larger aircraft. So we have many pilots on the street now willing to work for those regionals which SOME (not all) thought were inferior, and now they ask why do we work so cheaply?
So who's fault is it? Management? Mainline Pilot Unions? Regional Pilots? The MArket? Fuel Prices? The Economy? Maybe all of these and maybe none. My post is not to blame, but ask how can stop this snow ball, because it is getting to the bottom of he hill and is going to take the whole village with it.
I have seen posts on having one national unified pilot group. That is what we had 40 years ago. Many of those ideals were given up with the lifting of scope restrictions. So, how do we get back to it?
1. No more looking down your noses at regional pilots because they fly smaller equipment or make less. We should be working for them on their seniority lists.
2. No more regional pilots blaming mainline pilots for making to much and bringing down the industry. They were trying to make their lives better just as we would have if we were in the same position. However, I think we should ALL learn a lesson from this and try to prevent it from happening again.
3. Support each other's pilot groups and have ONE opinion on pay issues, work rules, quality of life issues. We have everybody brow beating everyone else instead of trying to make each other's lives better- the true purpose of a Union.
An example, I was a negotiator for Chautauqua. Some of you think we sold out the industry. We sold out for growth. Actually the main reason we signed our contract, was to stop the above cyce from happening again, now at the regional level. We can agree to disagree, but I have read almost all of the posts on this board. CHQ has better health care than any DAL unit. Our 90 seat rates are much better than JtBlue's. We DO NOT have Junior Manning. I have been here 4 years and I am going to clear 85k this year. We were helped by USAir's ALPA for leverage against our Holding Company when they tried to start another carrier for whipsawing. We appreciate that, and any one of them could come to me and I would hand walk in their resume, and that is why we gave them jet 4 jobs. CHQ still got growth under that, and they got jobs. By the way seniority is not really overted in that issue, and these guys have been a great addition with great experience. By the way, in 4 more years (8 with the company) I should clear 110k a year. DC-9 pay at AirTran, while at a "Regional" nd CHQ will still have 6 years left on all of its' contracts.
I guess I am just tired of all the bashing on this board. I was a negotiator, would I liked to have gotten a better deal- He!! Yes, but we live to fight another day with some really good gains, and a stronger position the next time around. UAL's last contract wasn't all won at once, it was won over the last 20 years. Many younger guys on these boards don't seem to realize that, and maybe you older guys can help them out.
No more name calling, and the other BS. There will always be a few tools. One of the J4J guys calls it the "Cool to Tool" ratio at any Company. I like that. But in order for this profession to succeed, it is going to take all of us to figure it out.
Dan
