Just they idea of making one company all jet and one all turboprop is ludicrous if the turboprop is dead. You would be condemning one of your companies from the get go. Be it more Saab flying or more Qs, I think you guys have something here. Although I would doubt it would be a smaller dash.
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
Pinnacle, Mesaba, Colgan SLI
- Thread starter Yodafly
- Start date
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
In 10 years we will be looking at an all Q-400 fleet at Mesaba approx. 100 airframes and on the Pinnacle side an equal number of 900s. The resultant pilot group will be about 2000 pilots. And, for those of you that have any worries about the immediate future, I am thinking that at least HALF or more of the pilots currently at PNCL Holdings 3 companies will have moved onto to better pastures. I don't see the -300 coming to Mesaba, in fact I predict even more consolidation and reduction of airline service to smaller communities. We are already seeing fuel costs rising, in spite of a brief drop due to a lower demand. The same policies, extraction/refining and distribution problems still exist and the airlines know this. Not only is the 35/50 seat jet economically obsolete, so is the smaller turboprops.
GRAAB HIRBOUBI
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2006
- Posts
- 121
All good points. I have trouble with the 35/50 seat obsolete issue. I think airlines will just stop flying to the small cities rather than fly an aircraft with a lower CASM. If not we'd all be flying 777's to Cedar Rapids cause the CASM is so low. Doesn't matter the seat cost when that same seat is empty.
I only mention the Q300 cause we have a pay rate that it falls into. Q400's make the most sense but I have rarely seen anyone in the airline industry do anything because it made sense.
It might be cheaper to just pay someone to refurbish/reskin/rebuild SAAB's.
As to the 200's disappearing MAYBE. I think once the fleet is right sized the 200's will be around for quite a while yet. No one ever mentions putting more efficient and powerful engines on them. If they could briskly get to the high 30's and burn less fuel while going faster -they'd get a life extension. Just like old Citations, Learjets, and numerous others. Of course it's cheaper to scrap the fleet and get the metal deposits back but if done correctly it could be cost effective.
900's and Q400's - that wouldn't be so bad.
xjhawk
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2004
- Posts
- 1,617
With continentals scope the Turbo Prop is far from dead. That will be the only way they will be able to touch the markets with a 70 seat AC
Carl_Spackler
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2005
- Posts
- 705
I think the idea that the -200's are obsolete is a fallacy. If they were truly losing money for delta they wouldn't exist. While it may be true that they might lose some money on some certain routes they probably recoup that money and make more when the pax connect to higher yield routes.
I don't think that the 35/50 seat jet is dead, but it's utility in the current marketplace and cost structure of today isn't economically viable for a significant number of routes. As a pilot, I am like a Pentagon General..."I never saw a weapon system, I didn't like", however I might like to fly a particular airplane it has really nothing to do with equation.
The fact, is the CRJ/ERJ do lose money with current fuel prices and every indication that they will continue to rise. So, the solution is to either offer less flights at a higher cost to support the CASM and still have sufficient yields to make a profit or look for other solutions.
The concept of having seemless service by offering jet equipment operated by codeshares was a very good idea from a marketing standpoint. CEOs loved the idea and so did the marketing folks. The pilots were basically buffaloed into thinking that trading in their Shorts, ATP, CV-580, ATR, etc...thought that this was a great idea until they realized that it was actually like cutting off your own nose to spite your face.
Scope was the way the majors at the time felt was the best way to deal with the RJ revolution and didn't realize that a replacement for the DC-9/737 fleet WAS NOT going to be a mainline airplane! Why do you think that the Bedford group is attempting to corner the market in the 175/190(5) market? JO at MAIR GRoup might be a lousy employer, but he isn't a bad businessman and his lean 700/900 fleet is the model for the future. Again, I didn't say I like the place or that I think JO is "great" guy (I don't know him personally), but he IS a shrewd businessman like the guy that runs RyanAir in Ireland. Not a pilot's buddy, but he makes money and offers a product that people want.
Going back to the large turboprop...75-90 seat airplane that has 350 knot TAS at 25K and sips fuel at half the amount of a 50-seater is the PERFECT airplane for the Northeast corridor especially and along the busy SAN-LAX-SFO-PDX-SEA corridor as well. I am not an expert, but I have done quite a bit of reading on this topic and have seen a revival of the large turboprop coming for many years.
We work in a dynamic industry that is ever-changing and volatile for everyone involved. Being flexible is key to survival, and until the current model change mainline is going to continue evolving with even more emphasis on regional airlines. The recent ruling by the court in favor of Continental's scope will serve to put even more turboprops in the mix. History and time will tell if the "large turboprop" revolution will be a success in the way that managers hoped offering "seem-less service" would be when Comair introduced the CRJ in 1992.
in 1992.
The fact, is the CRJ/ERJ do lose money with current fuel prices and every indication that they will continue to rise. So, the solution is to either offer less flights at a higher cost to support the CASM and still have sufficient yields to make a profit or look for other solutions.
The concept of having seemless service by offering jet equipment operated by codeshares was a very good idea from a marketing standpoint. CEOs loved the idea and so did the marketing folks. The pilots were basically buffaloed into thinking that trading in their Shorts, ATP, CV-580, ATR, etc...thought that this was a great idea until they realized that it was actually like cutting off your own nose to spite your face.
Scope was the way the majors at the time felt was the best way to deal with the RJ revolution and didn't realize that a replacement for the DC-9/737 fleet WAS NOT going to be a mainline airplane! Why do you think that the Bedford group is attempting to corner the market in the 175/190(5) market? JO at MAIR GRoup might be a lousy employer, but he isn't a bad businessman and his lean 700/900 fleet is the model for the future. Again, I didn't say I like the place or that I think JO is "great" guy (I don't know him personally), but he IS a shrewd businessman like the guy that runs RyanAir in Ireland. Not a pilot's buddy, but he makes money and offers a product that people want.
Going back to the large turboprop...75-90 seat airplane that has 350 knot TAS at 25K and sips fuel at half the amount of a 50-seater is the PERFECT airplane for the Northeast corridor especially and along the busy SAN-LAX-SFO-PDX-SEA corridor as well. I am not an expert, but I have done quite a bit of reading on this topic and have seen a revival of the large turboprop coming for many years.
We work in a dynamic industry that is ever-changing and volatile for everyone involved. Being flexible is key to survival, and until the current model change mainline is going to continue evolving with even more emphasis on regional airlines. The recent ruling by the court in favor of Continental's scope will serve to put even more turboprops in the mix. History and time will tell if the "large turboprop" revolution will be a success in the way that managers hoped offering "seem-less service" would be when Comair introduced the CRJ in 1992.
in 1992.
suupah
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2004
- Posts
- 1,779
precisely why I see pncl building a NorthEastern Q empire with domiciles in EWR, IAD, and ORD. It is the perfect mix of high density markets, short stage lengths and route overlap. I think IAH is not the best utilization of the Q and will likely not last long if at all.
Dredging up an old thread....
An XJ FO proposed this idea to me, it seems to have some potential, but I wanted to throw it to the wolves to pick apart.
What if you separated the 3 companies list by 0%-10%, 10%-20%, 20%-30%, etc. Then take the 3 0%-10% groups and merge them by DOH. And so on, and so on. This guarantees that you would stay in your 10% percentage, but corrects somewhat for DOH. I have not figured out how this would work for my seniority, but I see potential in this idea. It might even be better with 5% breaks.
An XJ FO proposed this idea to me, it seems to have some potential, but I wanted to throw it to the wolves to pick apart.
What if you separated the 3 companies list by 0%-10%, 10%-20%, 20%-30%, etc. Then take the 3 0%-10% groups and merge them by DOH. And so on, and so on. This guarantees that you would stay in your 10% percentage, but corrects somewhat for DOH. I have not figured out how this would work for my seniority, but I see potential in this idea. It might even be better with 5% breaks.
Flyprdu
You Want This, Don't You.
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2002
- Posts
- 1,541
Nice idea, but the smaller the divisions, the closer it resembles a relative method.
If you got caught on the edge of a cutoff, you could get completely screwed. It was a nice idea, but there are better ones out there.
Wouldn't it be unfortunate if a pilot that got stuck in subgroup E had more longevity than any of the pilots in subgroups C and D combined...
I ran it last night for my seniority and it is better that straight RS, but less than DOH for my position. I am on the cusp though at 21% at XJ. This put me above 9E and 9L pilots in my % group, but in straight DOH with XJ pilots in the group. The smaller division (ie. 5%) made no difference in my situation. I was still in DOH with XJ in the 20-25% group.
If there are better ideas, I would definitely like to hear and discuss them. The MECs can give direction to the negotiators before they enter negotiations, but once the door closes, the decision will be made by those 10 individuals. If we can put our ambitions aside, and come up with a fair integration method before we walk in that room, I believe we will be better off, than stuck with the arbitrators decision.
Before I'm told that I am not putting MY ambitions aside with my running of this formula... Please understand I am looking for a hybrid that would put you to as close as possible in between you DOH seniority and your RS seniority. As mentioned, the above formula stays to close to RS.
suupah
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2004
- Posts
- 1,779
*brief intermission*After spending a few days speaking, working and partying with Mesaba pilots involved with their MEC, I will say that you guys are a really solid group with a great culture. Taking a stroll around the banquet room at the volunteers party told an interesting and dramatic story of a lot of struggle, unity and outright courage. I really hope moving forward the combined group can adopt the Mesaba culture which would make this place a pretty great place to work.
Great group of guys, looking forward to sharing a cockpit with any of you.
Great group of guys, looking forward to sharing a cockpit with any of you.
Airscrew
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2007
- Posts
- 60
What if we take all 3 lists and flip them upside down. Then split the inverted lists into 4 total lists. We next take a straight edge and make a nice border around 3 of the most senior lists. Colgan numbers get stapled to the side (but slightly bottom) of the next airline to be purchased. Everyone's happy.
Something similar to this is what is going to happen I bet. It will just be a certain percentage of each kind of integration. What that percentage will be, I have no idea.
Flyprdu
You Want This, Don't You.
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2002
- Posts
- 1,541
This is FI, so I'm sure any effort I put into this will be like pissing in the wind... but this was the idea I had:
Point Based Model, (Hybrid Method)
It will be a split method to 100 points, in this illustration I would assign 65% of the point score based on longevity, and 35% of the total score coming from Relative Seniority.
The equations would go something like this:
((Days of Service / Maximum Days of Service) * 65) +
(Relative percentile * 35) = Total Score.
For simplicity sake, let's say Max DoS = 10,500. Which would be the most amount of days of any pilot served in all 3 airlines. I figure it's Mesaba with a guy hired in '82, (I believe).
Example.
- Pilot A has served @ Airline 1 for 2000 days and is in the 55th percentile of pilots.
- Pilot B has served at Airline 2 for 1400 days and is in the 60th percentile of pilots.
.55 * 35 = 19.25
= 31.63 Total Score
Pilot B = (1400/10500) * 65 = 8.66
.60 * 35 = 21.00
= 29.66 Total Score
So Pilot A would be senior in the combined list over pilot B despite the fact that Pilot B has better relative at Company 2.
I think this would be a fair and uniform way to get the seniority lists taken care of.
Last edited:
Flyprdu
You Want This, Don't You.
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2002
- Posts
- 1,541
On thing I am noticing from running examples, is that the Longevity portion doesn't have much of an impact the farther you get away from DoS MAX. Which makes me think that the pilot groups should be broken up into tiers, each with its own multiplication factors for each category:
Tier I: Senior (99th - 67th percentiles) 50 pts. Longevity / 50 pts Relative
Tier II: Mid Level (66th - 34th percentiles) 65 pts Longevity / 35 pts. Relative
Tier III: Junior (33rd and below) 80 pts Longevity / 20 pts Relative.
The spreads in longevity are so narrow for the mid and junior level, the multiplication factors need to be higher in order to compensate for the small fractions created when dividing against DoS Max.
Tier I: Senior (99th - 67th percentiles) 50 pts. Longevity / 50 pts Relative
Tier II: Mid Level (66th - 34th percentiles) 65 pts Longevity / 35 pts. Relative
Tier III: Junior (33rd and below) 80 pts Longevity / 20 pts Relative.
The spreads in longevity are so narrow for the mid and junior level, the multiplication factors need to be higher in order to compensate for the small fractions created when dividing against DoS Max.
Flyprdu
You Want This, Don't You.
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2002
- Posts
- 1,541
Either that, or cap the longevity max value to something a little closer to the majority of pilots, like 7300 days. (20 years.) That would disenfranchise any pilot over that point, but they will have maxxed out that point total anyway... and probably will not suffer for it in bidding power or schedule regardless.
Yodafly
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Posts
- 129
That's essentially what FlyPrdu is proposing for the top tier.
I like it FlyPrdu. Most importantly, I like that there are mechanisms (tiers and point values) that can be manipulated to prevent windfalls and keep it fair across the board.
Flyprdu
You Want This, Don't You.
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2002
- Posts
- 1,541
The only issue i have with that is that the pilot groups are so diverse in their longevities. If we start breaking people up into subgroups that they cannot escape... then we will unwittingly limit the mobility of how far people could rightfully go.
Yeah, you could be head of the class, but you're still misplaced in the remedial room.
There needs to be a mechanism for pilots to travel naturally up and down the integrated seniority list, and not be blocked by artificial and arbitrary tier limitations.
Last edited:
xjgearbtch
Living the dream
- Joined
- May 27, 2006
- Posts
- 386
Flyprdu
You Want This, Don't You.
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2002
- Posts
- 1,541
What does full credit even mean?
The problem arises when you work the numbers in the formula I've devised. The fraction is so small if you divide total working days of junior pilots compared to the 25 years of working days that the most senior pilots has worked. If you multiply that small fraction, and compare it to the rather simple formula of multiplying a pilot's relative percentile by X... then the problem comes manifests in this way:
Longevity calculations become so small that they do not reflect the value you would want them to have in SLI.
So, how to fix it? Well you can lessen the max denominator which would increase the fraction... and increase the score. But that would cap any credit for seniority to a certain maximum... say 18 years.
Or you can give an added multiplier for junior folks in order to compensate for their deluded longevity numbers when compared to Max Days served.
I like the idea of capping the Max Days served to 18 years. It brings up everyone else's numbers... and the guys it might disenfranchise are: 1.) Few. 2.) Unlikely to be affected anyway.
Yodafly
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Posts
- 129
I don't like your formula, I dont think it would be fair to the Colgan Pilots.
i fly boxes
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2006
- Posts
- 848
And what you think is fair to Colgan is not fair to Pinnacle and Mesaba pilots.
Yodafly
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Posts
- 129
True, I doubt anyone is going to be happy with the outcome.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
