Pdt

[deadstick]

It can be done. And Piedmont pilots' balls are bigger. Duh!

Beech Balls, of course. imp:

 

[LowlyPropCapt]

Just for the sake of round-ish numbers: AWAC/Mesa/RAH/PSA schedules are for 3100 hours per month (12,400 total). Those 3 contracts (not PSA) have a minimum of 3000 block hours each, but Airways wants to cut the hours to 2900 hours each (11,600 hrs total) . Won't they still have to pay those 3 contract carriers for 3000 hrs (paying out for 11,900 hrs)? OR they could cut the 3 contract carriers to 3000 hours and PSA would take the bigger hit to 2600 hrs to make up the differnece (back to the desired 11,600). Because it is not under contract -- it's a w/o -- Airways has more direct control over how much and how little PSA flies. They would under-utilize PSA planes (like they have done recently) before they pay a contract carrier for the hours not flown (scheduling less than the contract min).

Clear as mud? My brain is hurting just trying to reread it. :beer:

Wow. Yeah... My pain drug addled brain can't really take in all those numbers. But I don't think I have to- It is simpler than that.

At least as far as Air Willy goes (and probably some of the others) US Airways pays them per departure and gives them money for gas. You chop flights you don't pay as much (down to a minimum contractual level). Nor do you buy as much gas.

As far as PDT and PSA goes, you can gain some of the same economies by cutting flights there as well. But you don't cut them as much, because you can easily redeploy those assets and make some money with them... All without paying a set fee for departure.

It will be interesting to see what happens to the block times in the spring. My assumption is that Tempe will be very slow to give back much of anything to Air Willy. Piedmont will probably get most of our block back. Same with REP as they have the E170 "mainline size, regional pay" jet. Not sure about PSA. I am sure the 70 seaters will be busy.

 

[deadstick]

Wow. Yeah... My pain drug addled brain can't really take in all those numbers. But I don't think I have to- It is simpler than that.

At least as far as Air Willy goes (and probably some of the others) US Airways pays them per departure and gives them money for gas. You chop flights you don't pay as much (down to a minimum contractual level). Nor do you buy as much gas.

As far as PDT and PSA goes, you can gain some of the same economies by cutting flights there as well. But you don't cut them as much, because you can easily redeploy those assets and make some money with them... All without paying a set fee for departure.

It's all about the contract minimums, even with FFD structure. Airways is cutting capacity like a turkey at Thanksgiving (yea, I just thought that one up ). The W/O's do not have a minimum. However, if Airways cut 100% of AWAC's flying, Airways would still have to pay the contract min. If Airways cuts 100% of PSA's flying, they just have to deal with the equipment leases. Timmy H at Midwest proved that tactic with the late, great Skyway.

If they were looking at growing and opening new markets, then using the W/O could help because of that direct operational control and "agility."

Who the heck knows how this will all wash out? They hire until they furlough, and furlough until they hire. I imagine companies will be slow to spool-up after all this. Until, that is, they realize they are woefully understaffed, have not real reserve, and half of their crews are going to time out. Then they will be back to 250TT and a wet ticket. It's a vicious cycle.

 

[LowlyPropCapt]

It's all about the contract minimums, even with FFD structure. Airways is cutting capacity like a turkey at Thanksgiving (yea, I just thought that one up ). The W/O's do not have a minimum. However, if Airways cut 100% of AWAC's flying, Airways would still have to pay the contract min. If Airways cuts 100% of PSA's flying, they just have to deal with the equipment leases. Timmy H at Midwest proved that tactic with the late, great Skyway.

We are kinda saying the same thing- just different conclusions from the same data. All of AWAC's expenses are built into the FFD scheme. Therefore, you can look at it as a "cost plus" arrangement. With a wholly owned, it is just cost. In this sort of economy, WO makes more sense to a certain extent.

So, why have contract carriers at all? One reason you said yourself: Agility. The ability to add a lot of airplanes to the fleet with minimum capital outlay. The ability to subtract that fleet at will, unless of course you are dumb enough to sign multi-year agreements (thanks to Siegel wasn't it?). Of course, there is the ancillary benefit of bending mainline scope and depressing wages at the trunk carriers.

In this economy you trim down what you don't need and the fly the heck out of the stuff that is paid for. WO's do that for you. Heck, who lost the most flying during the past few months and who lost it first? AWAC did, hands down. My guess is PDT block will be back up by early spring. It is already up for January.

 

[MESAhater]

Cancellation pay. It would be nice if we had it but its not that much of a factor. Our year end bonus probably covers it. Hows that non-profit regional jet carrier doing? Play nice before we stop loaning you money.

How is your min day pay going over at republic or your trip rig or duty rig? Or your FIVE day trips? Come on chief you guys are a joke flying that large RJ for low wages all the while keeping your noses in the air to other commuter airlines. You are a commuter airline and you fly and RJ, it's ok we have all been there.

 

[lindsaya99]

PSA announced voluntary leaves of absence for January. No specifics on how many from each seat but the deadline for submission in on the 15th.

 

[MCOE175]

You are right... Mainline can be a better place than regionals like PDT or RP. But some of us don't have to worry about the size of our pay check and the size of the equipment we fly. That doesn't make my D*CK any bigger. If you all think it makes yours bigger than good for you.
I am a former PDT driver, but I can and have let go. PDT was a bad company. QOL sucked, and company doesn't care about you at all.
Another nice thing is we don't have to listen to all the crap from PAX about the crappy equip.
So I will continue to fly the so called mainline jet, and be a lot happier. FWIW, I am one who knows I work and fly a regional jet, and I know my ******************** stinks just as bad as the next guys.

 

[n757st]

With gas coming down to 40 dollars, I would not be surprised if the block hours at my company (AWAC) came up. The 50 seater is not nearly as uneconomical at 40 dollars a barrel as it was at 140 dollars a barrel. The dash (-100), despite its smaller passenger cabin obviously was a much better choice in the high fuel enviornment, but with smaller cost difference now due to the low fuel price, the 50 seater potentially has higher profit capability due to its higher passenger capacity. Who knows though, I really respect the PDT dudes, they are one of the carriers that knows pain like awac does, and one of the few that, for the aircraft they fly, has a pretty decent contract. See ya dudes around the F concourse.

 

[RobCat]

Come on Rob... You used to be a Piedmonster. I am disappointed in you. I thought we taught you better than that.

Made captain on that big 'ole jet yet?

Your right. My bad. I ended up getting downgraded back to F.O. on the heavy, lol. Besides its not the size of the plane, its how you fly it. Once a Piedmonster always a Piedmonster.

 

[RobCat]

When did Republic loan PDT money? It appears PDT is the only part of USAirways actually making money. Hell it aint all that hard when the aircraft are paid for and only burn 200 gallons a leg.

Show me the money. You work under a budget. The money you save from the amount given to you from your operation goes back to mainline. Then Mainline gives you another allowance. Then money you save or what you call make is not reinvested in you or your company, it goes back to mainline. The money that AWA, RAH, etc etc is money your parent company needs for its operation which in part helps keep you in operation.

 

[kf4amu]

Show me the money. You work under a budget. The money you save from the amount given to you from your operation goes back to mainline. Then Mainline gives you another allowance. Then money you save or what you call make is not reinvested in you or your company, it goes back to mainline. The money that AWA, RAH, etc etc is money your parent company needs for its operation which in part helps keep you in operation.

You should be an accountant the way you spun that.

 

[RobCat]

Another former PDT FO that just can't let go!

Sorry Bro. I can and have let go, but I'll will always have a soft spot for those HHH overnights. It is no doubt that PDT has a fine pilot group. Although the management is weak at best. Some if not most of us wish only the best for you. Everything I look at a thread for PDT I hope to see that your getting new equipment, flow thru or something.

Some of the work group has to look around as see that PDT as a wholly owned turbo prop carrier is not on the same playing field as a RAH, AWA, Xjet, Mesa or any other contract jet carrier.

 

[kf4amu]

Some of the work group has to look around as see that PDT as a wholly owned turbo prop carrier is not on the same playing field as a RAH, AWA, Xjet, Mesa or any other contract jet carrier.

And thank god for that, what with furloughs, and 17 cent stock shares and all.

 

[LowlyPropCapt]

Rob is right... And wrong.

He is correct about the money PDT makes, in a way. It is actually irrelevant how much money PDT "makes." What really matters is how economically PDT delivers people to the hubs so that they can get on an bigger airplane and fly as far away as possible. That is what drives down CASM, and that is what makes an airline money. PDT is merely part of the bigger US Airways machine. It is worth noting that PDT CASM is somewhere in the $.25 range, and the mainline CASM last time I checked is down to between $.09 and $.11. Regional jets typically operate in the $.30 to $.35 range, making them the least cost effective aircraft in the fleet. Generally speaking, the more seats you have in an airplane the easier it is to drive down your CASM.

But the basic fact remains that the measure of PDTs value is not to be found in profit/loss numbers, but how effectively they do their job. By any measure, PDT is both effective and efficient given the equipment they operate.

What I said in an earlier post regarding the rational of outsourced flying (AWAC and REP and the rest) remains true: They exist only because they provide lift that the company cannot afford to add because of the capital outlay that it would involve. The fact that by thier very existance they create an environment that can drive down labor costs at the mainline is a factor as well.

For pilots, that is the inherent problem with outsourced flying. The issue is not really REP or Mesa or whatever, the issue really is what ALPA did before most of us were out of short pants. The first time ALPA agreed to allow ANY airplane to be operated in the mainline's colors with pilots that were not on the mainline seniority list the battle was well and truly lost. The water is out of the tub on that one... We went from Beech 99's to 90 seat jets, something that would have been unthinkable 20 years ago. ALPA gave management an inch and management ran with that inch and made it a mile.

Carriers such as REP mean less mainline jobs. Mainline jobs are now really not that much better than being senior at a regional. The dream is basically dead, with the exception of SWA, FDX or UPS. I don't fault REP pilots (or any other pilots) for this. We simply inherited a situation created by pilots who deemed a certain size of airplane or mode of propultion beneath them and not worth the effort to protect.

The only way to reverse to slide of the pay and working conditions for us pilots (if it is possible- and I have my doubts) is insist on brand scope. You fly with an airline's paint on the side of the airplane you are on that airline's seniority list. No ifs ands or buts. Then you create a bargaining unit with real power and you end the whipsaw. Until that happens, we are doomed to have these self defeating pissing contests.

As for the money that REP gave US Airways, Rob has to remember that is an act of self preservation on the part of REP. REP's success is tied to the health of the mainline carriers they feed as much as PDT's is. The only difference is that REP is better diversified. Don't think for a single moment that if US Airways were to go under REP pilots would not be negatively effected. That money is "pay to play," nothing more and nothing less.

 

[deadstick]

Rob is right... And wrong.

He is correct about the money PDT makes, in a way. It is actually irrelevant how much money PDT "makes." What really matters is how economically PDT delivers people to the hubs so that they can get on an bigger airplane and fly as far away as possible. That is what drives down CASM, and that is what makes an airline money. PDT is merely part of the bigger US Airways machine. It is worth noting that PDT CASM is somewhere in the $.25 range, and the mainline CASM last time I checked is down to between $.09 and $.11. Regional jets typically operate in the $.30 to $.35 range, making them the least cost effective aircraft in the fleet. Generally speaking, the more seats you have in an airplane the easier it is to drive down your CASM.

But the basic fact remains that the measure of PDTs value is not to be found in profit/loss numbers, but how effectively they do their job. By any measure, PDT is both effective and efficient given the equipment they operate.

What I said in an earlier post regarding the rational of outsourced flying (AWAC and REP and the rest) remains true: They exist only because they provide lift that the company cannot afford to add because of the capital outlay that it would involve. The fact that by thier very existance they create an environment that can drive down labor costs at the mainline is a factor as well.

For pilots, that is the inherent problem with outsourced flying. The issue is not really REP or Mesa or whatever, the issue really is what ALPA did before most of us were out of short pants. The first time ALPA agreed to allow ANY airplane to be operated in the mainline's colors with pilots that were not on the mainline seniority list the battle was well and truly lost. The water is out of the tub on that one... We went from Beech 99's to 90 seat jets, something that would have been unthinkable 20 years ago. ALPA gave management an inch and management ran with that inch and made it a mile.

Carriers such as REP mean less mainline jobs. Mainline jobs are now really not that much better than being senior at a regional. The dream is basically dead, with the exception of SWA, FDX or UPS. I don't fault REP pilots (or any other pilots) for this. We simply inherited a situation created by pilots who deemed a certain size of airplane or mode of propultion beneath them and not worth the effort to protect.

The only way to reverse to slide of the pay and working conditions for us pilots (if it is possible- and I have my doubts) is insist on brand scope. You fly with an airline's paint on the side of the airplane you are on that airline's seniority list. No ifs ands or buts. Then you create a bargaining unit with real power and you end the whipsaw. Until that happens, we are doomed to have these self defeating pissing contests.

As for the money that REP gave US Airways, Rob has to remember that is an act of self preservation on the part of REP. REP's success is tied to the health of the mainline carriers they feed as much as PDT's is. The only difference is that REP is better diversified. Don't think for a single moment that if US Airways were to go under REP pilots would not be negatively effected. That money is "pay to play," nothing more and nothing less.

All in all, a great post.

I'd just add that, by design, PDT and PSA do not make any money. They are an expense on the Airways books are viewed as a way to bring people to the hubs so they can get on a mainline flight. They operate at cost without a profit margin.

I don't think it was a brand/livery thing that got the camel's nose in the ol' tent, it was mainline's snubbing of the regional jets -- "regional" jets that now fly half-way across the country. If oils had stayed above $100, I think we would have seen a resurrection of the truely regional aircraft -- the turboprop. However, now that it's back down, who knows...but I'm not optimistic.

Finally, how would seniority list work with places that have crews moving between the differnet carriers?