Pdt

[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?

 

[LowlyPropCapt]

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.

That is pretty much what I was trying to say. WO's are operated at cost, but contract carriers are "cost-plus." They are- have to be- more expensive in the long run.

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.

You are not going back far enough. Regional jets would probably not have even existed-at least in the numbers that they do- had ALPA never given any scope relief historically. It all began with that Henson (coincidentally!) Queen Air flying for Allegheney way back when. Once some scope relief was given, management was able to use that as a pry bar to gain further scope concessions from the mainline unions. First it was a Queen Air... Then 19 seaters, then 31 seats, then 37, then 50, then 68 seat ATRs. Then the jump was made to jets, the first RJ being concieved was put on the drawing board with 31 seats! It didn't take long to get to 50 and now we have 90 seat jets (basically 717s or mothership Fokkers!) flying around with pilots paid less than 40% of what they should be. My point is that it all began with that first instance of scope relief and ALPA was absolutely complicit in the fall of the profession. To this day I heap ashes on thier heads and say shame on them!

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

That is the rub, isn't it. If no scope relief had ever been granted than this wouldn't be an issue, but now everyone would be stepping all over each other for a piece of the pie. As I think I have demonstrated, ALL flying is and should be mainline flying and we are essentially "stealing" it and stealing from ourselves what could have been a better job. No honor among thieves...

 

[Captain Morgan]

No they don't, but I think they are more suited over there, then on the D Concourse. I would hope one day they would get the word Express off that plane and up the payrates. Never thought regional pay would be slammed into a plane that big.

Sad, whats next? I guess soon the 737 will be a regional plane also.

Ehhhemm... The 737 is a regional airplane. You're about 40 years late on that comment.

 

[quinnlake]

Ehhhemm... The 737 is a regional airplane. You're about 40 years late on that comment.

If the 737 is a regional plane, what isn't? The space shuttle? The star ship Enterprize?

 

[Captain Morgan]

If the 737 is a regional plane, what isn't? The space shuttle? The star ship Enterprize?

You should take another look at your history. The 737 was one of the first regional aircraft, along with the DC-9. There was quite an uproar from pilots and ALPA because it also had a two man crew, making the Flight Engineer obsolete. Back then, USAir was flying 73's and DC-9's around the Northeast REGION out of Pittsburgh. Whether you like it or not, the 737 and DC-9 are regional aircraft. What has happend today is an abomination. 737's are doing transcons and we have an in-between jet now called a regional jet. The RJ's should really be called a Commuter Jet, or a Feeder Jet. Another group of aircraft infiltrated the US from Europe that were well suited over there but here they were just considered Regional Jets. Perhaps you've heard of the Fokker F-28 and F-100. What about the BAC-111, or the BAE-146. All of those are Regional Jets over here. Over there they are just jets because that's all Europe is, one big region. Well, there you have it. If you have any other questions feel free to ask.

 

[WSurf]

You should take another look at your history. The 737 was one of the first regional aircraft, along with the DC-9. There was quite an uproar from pilots and ALPA because it also had a two man crew, making the Flight Engineer obsolete. Back then, USAir was flying 73's and DC-9's around the Northeast REGION out of Pittsburgh. Whether you like it or not, the 737 and DC-9 are regional aircraft. What has happend today is an abomination. 737's are doing transcons and we have an in-between jet now called a regional jet. The RJ's should really be called a Commuter Jet, or a Feeder Jet. Another group of aircraft infiltrated the US from Europe that were well suited over there but here they were just considered Regional Jets. Perhaps you've heard of the Fokker F-28 and F-100. What about the BAC-111, or the BAE-146. All of those are Regional Jets over here. Over there they are just jets because that's all Europe is, one big region. Well, there you have it. If you have any other questions feel free to ask.

I see you have read your copy of "Flying the Line".

LOL

The payrates back then on the F-28's back in the 80's are better then what we see now on the 170's.

We could talk all day about whats a regional airplane, but if your flying a bird that replaces a mainline plane you should get atleast in the same ballpark in pay.