NWA ALPA 70 seat plan?

[InclusiveScope]

Anyone have any details on the the new NWA ALPA 70 seat jet plan? Today is supposed to be when the details go out.

 

[cargoflyr69]

To all NWA drivers.... Please do what it takes to keep 70+ seaters on-property. I hope this will help slow the race to the bottom and keep the contract carriers at bay.

 

[InclusiveScope]

To all NWA drivers.... Please do what it takes to keep 70+ seaters on-property. I hope this will help slow the race to the bottom and keep the contract carriers at bay.

Cargoflyr,
The USAirways "drivers" did exactly this and it LOWERED the bar further. Should mainline pilots underbid the regionals to gain the flying?

 

[michael707767]

Cargoflyr,
The USAirways "drivers" did exactly this and it LOWERED the bar further. Should mainline pilots underbid the regionals to gain the flying?

Why not? For years the regionals have underbid the majors to gain the flying.

 

[surplus1]

Why not? For years the regionals have underbid the majors to gain the flying.

Does that mean you think the process should extend to the regionals bidding for all of your flying, since you are prepared to underbid for ours?

Do you really believe that a full scale bidding war for each others flying will keep you in the driver''s seat?

 

[FurloughedAgain]

Northwest never gave up their 70 seat flying or deemed it to be "undesirable".

On the contrary they have fought long and hard to keep the DC9-10's on the property. The DC9-10's capacity is 78 passengers (64 in coach, 14 in first).

Why should they not fight tooth and nail to keep what flying they have on the property?

Should they yield 70-seat flying simply because it has been done at some other airlines?

Count me in among the group that believes that if NWA were to get another 70 seat product it would simply be to REPLACE the DC9-10, and the Northwest pilots should have first crack at that product since they already appear to have payrates in place to operate an aircraft with similar capacity.

 

[JohnDoe]

quote:
"Anyone have any details on the the new NWA ALPA 70 seat jet plan? "


Hate to ruin your hunt for "rjdc propaganda," but it says that the current proposal is NOT to achieve any "flow-down" to the affiliate carriers, or jet for jobs program. Says, once again, that 70 seat flying would be done by NWA seniority list pilots.

 

[surplus1]

Northwest never gave up their 70 seat flying or deemed it to be "undesirable".

On the contrary they have fought long and hard to keep the DC9-10's on the property. The DC9-10's capacity is 78 passengers (64 in coach, 14 in first).

Why should they not fight tooth and nail to keep what flying they have on the property?

Should they yield 70-seat flying simply because it has been done at some other airlines?

Count me in among the group that believes that if NWA were to get another 70 seat product it would simply be to REPLACE the DC9-10, and the Northwest pilots should have first crack at that product since they already appear to have payrates in place to operate an aircraft with similar capacity.

What you say is all true. However, do you really expect the company to pay NW pilots on the same scale as their current DC-9 rates, should the company decide to operate a CR7? If you do or rather if the NW pilots do there's a lot of dreaming going on.

I don't think the NW pilots should yield their flying, but if they want to operate CR7's at the mainline they will have to do what U pilots did at MAA, i.e., underbid the current "regional" operators by a substantial margin.

As an example, if you put a CR7 into the mainline infrastructure with pay rates like CMR or even ARW the addidional costs of the mainline operation will render the aircraft economically useless.

Remember, most of those baby -9's at NWA are fully amortized. New CR7's or E-170s will carry a lot of debt service.

My guess is the NW pilots will either give up their current rates and contractual goodies or they will give up the idea of RJ's. It will be interersting to watch.

 

[michael707767]

Does that mean you think the process should extend to the regionals bidding for all of your flying, since you are prepared to underbid for ours?

Do you really believe that a full scale bidding war for each others flying will keep you in the driver''s seat?

No I don't. And I don't think anyone should be trying to underbid anyone else. However, I think it somewhat hypocritical for regional guys to be complaining about the majors thinking of trying to capture back some flying by bidding less, when all along the only reason any flying was ever outsourced is because you were willing to do it for less.

 

[FDJ2]

No I don't. And I don't think anyone should be trying to underbid anyone else. However, I think it somewhat hypocritical for regional guys to be complaining about the majors thinking of trying to capture back some flying by bidding less, when all along the only reason any flying was ever outsourced is because you were willing to do it for less.

BINGO!!!!

 

[surplus1]

>>>>> when all along the only reason any flying was ever outsourced is because you were willing to do it for less.

Mike, that's where you and I part company in the thought process. Flying was not outsourced because regional pilots were "willing to do it for less". It was outsourced because mainline pilots didn't want to do it at all and you gave it to the company in exchange for a few more pieces of eight.

So it's not that we "do it for less", it's that you declined to do it at all. The choice was yours (we did not exist) and it was voluntary on your part. Truth is the only reason you seek to do it now is because the market has changed and you've priced yourselves out of it. With so many of your own pounding the pavement, what we do has suddenly become attractive.

We have never underbid you, simply because we don't do the same kind of flying. You are now intentionally underbidding us in an effort to add what we do to your portfolio. That is, in my opinion, an extremely dangerous strategy. Not only will it drag the rest of what you do down, it may literally force us to bid for what you now do exclusively in an effort to survive. I don't think that's "good" for either of us. In fact, it's a Pandora's Box.

 

[michael707767]

Mike, that's where you and I part company in the thought process. Flying was not outsourced because regional pilots were "willing to do it for less". It was outsourced because mainline pilots didn't want to do it at all and you gave it to the company in exchange for a few more pieces of eight.

I disagree. It was outsourced because the company was not willing to compensate the mainline pilots high enough to make them want to do it. Do you really mean to tell me we never wanted to fly a 70 seat jet, when we have flown them in the past? Are you trying to tell me that the mainline pilots would have refused to fly a Brasilia if the pay had been $70 an hour back when an engineer made $65 an hour? You are kidding yourself. Talk to any pilot. They would fly a C-172 if the pay were high enough. True the price would have been too high to negotiate a pay scale our pilots would have accepted. It would have come out of the pay scales on other aircraft, or resulted in a lower retirement or worse benefits. But to say we did not want to do that flying at all is pure folly.

But lets say for a minute you are right, the mainline pilots did not want to do that flying. Just because it waswe allowed to be outsourced does not mean it had to be outsourced. Management would have only done it if it were cheaper to outsource.

Last, even though NW is trying to secure the 70 seat flying (which it is already doing), no mainline pilot group has yet taken away any flying from any regional by under bidding them. USAirways? Nope. 70 seaters were not allowed by their regionals until the same deal that created MAA. At the same time MAA was created they allowed 70 seaters to go to the regionals, but they never took away any aircraft from a USAirways regional. Did MAA set the bar pretty low? Sure. But in doing so they did not underbid anyone who was flying a 70 seater for USAirways and take that flying away from them.

 

[deceptibum]

the economics or the present

Look everyone, I am not attempting to start a war. But if you look at the world around you, you would realize that it is changing. If you younger fellows feel to believe that an airline pilot is made from flight instucting to working loyaly to a regional and beyond, well for some of you, yes it would work...... but, for a lot of employees this is not the case. I don't usually write comments on here just to stir up gossip like others, but I just state the facts so to speak. I too am only in the mid 20's, 25 to be exact and I just dont't see the "standard" progression to further an airline career. Yes I work for eagle and yes we all know the stagnation at this place, but let me say this............ I read somewhere on here, that we all got into this path to one day be an international captain, however; look at prognostics. Evolution happens very slowely. Just like now. Take the opportunities that come along, and make best of the rest. The future of US "standard career progression" is all up in the air. What used to be the goal "legacy airlines" is, for the immediate future, a useless venture. The low cost deals seem to be the wave right now. What I say is this.....yes I would like to see 70 seat CRJ's at mainline in order to preserve "some" integrity in pay, but what about the future? Are we all to live under substandard pay for flying just about the same size equpment at mainline does now? I say hold out like Comair did. They have fought tooth and nail and still claim the highest "regional" pay and benifits and still recruit pilots after all the threats and indimidation. Just thoughts to consider for anyone......

 

[Lear70]

As an example, if you put a CR7 into the mainline infrastructure with pay rates like CMR or even ARW the addidional costs of the mainline operation will render the aircraft economically useless.

Too fu*king bad for NW management. Paying CMR rates for the 70-seaters is about as low as I believe the NW pilots would go and I sincerely doubt they'd drop any of their work rules for it - they're too hard to get back. I'm a betting man, and I bet this will be the stalemate item that drives these talks near the edge of work action.

We have never underbid you, simply because we don't do the same kind of flying. You are now intentionally underbidding us in an effort to add what we do to your portfolio. That is, in my opinion, an extremely dangerous strategy. Not only will it drag the rest of what you do down, it may literally force us to bid for what you now do exclusively in an effort to survive. I don't think that's "good" for either of us. In fact, it's a Pandora's Box.

Now don't go getting ahead of yourself; NW pilots haven't underbid us YET and as far as my contacts at mainline are telling me, have no intention of underbidding us as far as rate and work rules are concerned. However, I agree with your summary of what would happen if they did - talk about a race to the bottom; that's a Pandora's box that I hope I never see opened (UAir's pilots haven't opened it yet - their situation is different as they had little economic choice in the matter as a dying airline's last gasp for breath).

NW is diffent from UAir in many details but, most importantly for this topic, is different as NW is one of the most financially solvent legacy carriers left right now - if NW PILOTS agree to SJ pay rates and work rules less than say PCL or MSA in order to retain 70- and 90- seaters on property while they ARE in such a "relatively good" financial position, it would be the most crippling blow in the effort to hold or raise the bar for regional airlines than has ever been seen, and would more than likely lead the way for every other legacy carrier to act in kind at their next negotiating opportunity.

Just to be clear, it's my sincere hope that the NW pilots keep 70- and 90- seat SJ's ON THEIR PROPERTY and keep pay rates on the same formula that they use NOW to calculate pay (seat capacity, aircraft range, night/day, etc) which would pay them probably about 20% less than current DC-9 rates or maybe slightly less if they need to concede some room on it for management. Otherwise, it just speeds our way to the bottom of the pile...

 

[LivinDaDream]

I would look for a "Regional within a Major" type of situation from the NWA plan.

As someone stated earlier, the economics (pilot pay aside) are so out of whack at ALL Legacy Carriers that any these 70 or 90 seat planes are a huge loss at mainline. However, if the cost structure of the 70 seat operation can be separated from mainline, with NWA pilots flying them, it may work. Even if the NWA pay rates are industry leading for these planes, if NWA can run this operation with a different set of work rules, and a separate infrastructure, it's feasible.

Of course, the key for the pilots would have to be protecting the rest of the narrow body fleet. If they are replacing DC9's with RJ's, it won't fly with nearly 800 on the street. I think this part is also achievable.

NWA has started thinking outside of the box for the first time in it's existence. The point-to-point flying out of MKE and now IND shows that they are finally willing to try new things.

Just what I expect the proposal to be. The end result may be no where near this, but it's not a bad starting point.