RJ history?

[AAflyer]

Not sure what areverse code share is, but I suspect seeing this first hand:

A number of seats can be flown (ASM) at a regional or affiliate under the code share. In our caseTSA, or CHA as well as Corporate Air can fly with an AA designator. If the ASM cap is exceeded they must stop. Mainline could then take the AA codeshare off of the airline like Corporate but match up flight schedules for the pax to connect but no AA on the flight number, they can maniplulate these at all airlines flying the AA designator to suit what they need.

AAflyer

 

[surplus1]

One question, would someone please explain a "reverse code-share," to me? I am still one that is willing to learn something new. Thanks in advance for the assistance.

At the risk of proving myself to be the lame brain that many already believe me to be, I'll try.

"Reverse code-share" is a coined phrase. It's a new gimmick in the code-share game. "Conventional code-share" would be its opposite. Both devices are designed to circumvent Scope. AMR is the first to come up with the "reverse" concept. The whole code-share concept has variations in the international and domestic markets. I'll refer only to the domestic variety.

Conventional code-share can take two formats. Mainline - mainline. Mainline - regional.

In the mainline/mainline deals it doesn't matter which of the two airlines use the other's code, they still call it simply code-share.

Regional airlines are special though, and mainline pilot contracts don't deal with regional carriers the same way they deal with other mainline carriers. There are lots of artificial restrictions that apply to the relationships between major airlines and regional airlines, all imposed by mainline pilot contracts.

Until recently, no mainline flight has ever operated using a regional carriers "code". AMR has started doing this because it is not covered by the AA pilot contract, which is currently imposing penalties on AMR that it can't live with.

To avoid these penalties, AMR is making agreements that will place the regional carriers code on the mainline flights, instead of the mainline code on the regional flights. This procedure avoids the artificial constraints of the AA contract and allows AMR to operate the flights it needs.

So instead of putting the AA code on TSA originating flights, they will fly under the TSA code, so will any connecting flights that take place on AA itself. CHQ flights will operate with the CHQ code and the connecting AA flight will do the same. They can still call it AA Connection and bypass the Scope without a violation of the artificial restrictions.

Since the "mainline" is now operating under the regional's code, instead of the regional operating under the mainline code, they decided to call it "reverse code share".

It's the same thing, just a different name. Much like pretending that Comair and Delta are "separate", when they really aren't.

The AA pilots will probably grieve this. Maybye they'll win and maybe they won't. Until it is settled, AMR can operate the flights it needs. The AA contract does not impose limits on American Airlines operating with the code of another airline. It does impose limits on other airlines operating with the AA code.

It's a clever move on the part of AMR. While I don't know who came up with this idea, I could make and educated guess but prefer to keep that to myself.

 

[surplus1]

Re: Re: Re: You said it, not me

Surplus,
While I have enjoyed our discussions, we seem to rehash the same points over and over. I therefore have limited my debating a bit. The above three points, however, begged for comment!

Hope you are well.

FDJ,

Very true. Of course that is only because you keep insisting on the same wrong ideas. (LOL) I'm just trying to get you up to speed but you're a slow learner.

I noticed you were sort of avoiding me but I wasn't offended. I figured you were just weary of your efforts to convince me and my unwillingness to accept error. (Just pulling your chain a little). I don't blame you at all, we've been at it for months so we pretty much know where the other guy stands. Your tune hasn't changed and neither has mine. SO, you're wrong and I'm right! Did I get that right? Or, is it I'm right and you're wrong?

Just kidding ya my friend. We have to smile every now and then even in the worst of times.

I'm fine thanks. Frustrated sometimes, but hanging in there. I hope things are going ok for you as well and the ordeal will be over soon.

I'm very worried about this code-share talk though. I hope you all don't agree to a mainline/mainline code-share. If you do, furture growth for your side of the operation will be a long time coming. Do that and in a few years you'll be having the same quarrel with whomever your new "partner" turns out to be, that you are now having with us. In my dictionary code-share and subcontracting are synonyms.

Take care and don't hesitate to yell at me when you feel the need.

Regards,
Surplus1

PS. I'm gonna let you slide with most of those off base replies, this time. The light will come to you my son.

On the marketing part, I was refering mainly to the era preceding Delta's purchase of Comair. In the current time frame, some of your flying has indeed been replaced. I think we both know the real reasons. I'll also say that when your equipment replaces Comair's on certain routes, which it has many times in the past, we didn't feel we were being "replaced" by you. That's the business we are in and that is how it is supposed to work.

It is not our fault that the current market can't justify your equipment in some places and can justify ours. It's not your fault either and we shouldn't be balming each other or the Company for trying to minimize the stagering losess that are definitely coming from your side of the operation. We are making money and that money is paying both our bills. We just can't make enough to carry all of your losses. I wish we could. IF we could, you'd still be working as are many of your peers that would otherwise be joining you. We are an asset, not a liability. You may not agree, but we have always been.

It's a package deal and we are a part of the package. Without that part, you'd be hurting a lot more than you are today.

You can't pick and choose parts of the package that you like one day and not the next. Neither can you take our part of the package and make it yours. We come with it.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Not just avoiding you, Surplus, avoiding the board in general.


First of all, please stop talking about your "package!"



We agree on the codesharing thing. Makes me very nervous. I really don't know the answer, however. There is no doubt that U/UAL now has a major advantage over us now. In other words, the line has been breached, and I hope we are not left out to dry. DALPA should have held the line on scope years ago. We did not, but U did. We are seeing today what their courage got them. I don't want to be in a competitive disadvatage, but I also don't want to see ALL of our flying outsourced. It is an interesting issue, and one that you can be sure I will study very closely. Right now, I don't have all the answers (ever think you'd hear me say that?)


P.S.
You are still wrong.

P.P.S.
Your response to this will be wrong too! (but long!)

PPPS
Sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

[surplus1]

First of all, please stop talking about your "package!"

Hey, you can talk about my RJs all you want but leave my package alone. It's a good package and I'm proud of it!

Right now, I don't have all the answers (ever think you'd hear me say that?)

You not have all the answers? You're wrong AGAIN. When are you gonna learn?

Seriously, the code share thing is dangerous. I think the U pilots have written their own siren song. I agree WE have to stay competitive. There are better ways. Think about it.

Regards,

PS. I did think I was wrong once and admitted it, but I made a mistake. I was actually right all along.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Seriously, the code share thing is dangerous. I think the U pilots have written their own siren song. I agree WE have to stay competitive. There are better ways. Think about it.






------------Believe me, I am.



PS. I did think I was wrong once and admitted it, but I made a mistake. I was actually right all along.

So weren't you wrong by thinking you were wrong when you were actually right?

(And they say we pilots have big egos!)

 

[DaveGriffin]

Will management offer "seats for jobs" to the Delta MEC for their support of code share? It's not really that much different than "jets for jobs".

 

[enigma]

Enigma,
You didn't raise my ire, as I just pointed out that you were making fun of people who flame at your posts, while flaming them at the same time. That is all. I do read your posts, and I also try to find common ground. I find, however, that the only way you can find common ground is for me to agree with you. Perhaps I'm the same way, but I dont' think that insulting me is a good way of going about it. I have never done that to you, but if you think it's a good strategy, then please, continue.

One question, would someone please explain a "reverse code-share," to me? I am still one that is willing to learn something new. Thanks in advance for the assistance.

SDD, Maybe you're correct. Maybe I'm inconsistent. That's one reason that I choose name myself "puzzle". Or maybe you're just a contrarian, and like to give a negative reply to my posts. I think both actually.

I stand by what I posted, with this one addition. I don't consider asking you read and think about my posts as an insult to you. If I wanted to be insulting I wouldn't be veiled about it. Sarcastic, maybe, testy, maybe, but not cowardly.

Here is the passage I wrote, that you originally and apparently found fault with: "You know, it's sort of funny. Someone posts a question asking why all the fuss about why RJ's are disliked, and the string goes into multiple pages. I pose a few questions that don't require any name calling or controversy and none of the loudmouths have anything to say. " Where did I flame anyone in that passage?

You wrote: "Perhaps I'm the same way, but I dont' think that insulting me is a good way of going about it." Sorry bud, but I never mentioned you nor any other specific person in any manner. Not in some sideways insinuation, nor in any veiled way. It may insult you, but SDD was not on my mind when I wrote that. Sorry. Me thinks you protest to loudly. I ran something up the flagpole and you saluted. Who really labeled you a loudmouth? me, or you?

enigma

That's my defense. I'm done. You're welcome to the last word.

 

[Kaman]

Early "RJs"

Hello,
Looking back at airline history, it is obvious that the "RJ" concept is hardly anything new. What is new is the timing and the thought process behind it in today's world. Back in the mid-1960's, Boeing and Douglas both introduced the DC-9-10 and Boeing 737-100. However, at the time a large number of rgional carriers were in business (Trans Texas, Ozark, North Central, etc...)and they operated them for many years. These airlines were eventually swallowed up by the "big airlines" during the merger crazed late 70's and 80's.
The service that the early regional airlines differed little from what the regional jet operators of today offer, except for the flashy paint job identifying it's partnership with "XYZ major airline". Sadly, what is different is the corporate culture of modern airlines that no longer have aviaiton pioneers, pilots or aviation-minded people in the head office. The CEOs of today didn't come by their positions thru the sweat of their brow as much as their slick lawyer tricks. Gordon Bethune being the exception to this, at least in my opinion.
All this talk of RJs and the dissent that it has caused in the pilot community must make those fellows smile from their perch in corporate HQs. Speaking of that, have you noticed that most airlines no longer have their head office located on the field any longer? That should tell us something about upper-level management. In management's eyes, airplanes are merely the vehicle that gets the fare paying passengers to their destination. Pilots, mechanics and all other required employees are nothing more than a necessarry evil.
Hopefully, there will be a rennaisance of the certificated regional carrier like the Air New England I grew up around. Perhaps, like-mined aviation people will take back their own industry and return to a level of service, pride in profession and kinship with the flying public that the old regionals once had.
Hang in there folks...

Regards,

ex-Navy rotorhead

 

[bobbysamd]

RJ v. Regional history

I appreciate Kaman's comments, above, and Wiggums' link to RJ history.

Further to Kaman's post, scope and reverse-code share aside, all of this is repetition of airline history. There have always been "regionals" and "mainlines." Let's go back even forty or fifty years ago and we hear the terms "feeder" and "trunk" being thrown about. So, what were the early "RJs"? Well, they weren't pure jets. RJs are a reflection of evolving technology.

A great example is the early (I mean 1940s and '50s) Frontier Airlines. The following is a wonderful website on Frontier's early history: The Frontier Airlines History Page Early Frontier newspaper ad

Review of this history shows that Frontier was a regional that comprised the merger of three other regionals (hear that, Mesa?). Equipment? DC-3s. Fast-forward to 1976. I recall taking a flight on Frontier from Denver to Sidney, Nebraska on a Twotter!

There are others. Southern Airways, a regional, also operated DC-3s. Fast-forward about twenty years. Southern and another regional, North Central Airlines, merged and became Republic Airlines. Technology had advanced. I recall that North Central operated CV-580s. I recall during that same era taking a flight from BOS to BDL on an early RJ, a Mohawk BAC-111.

These examples document that nothing has really changed in the big picture. Instead of 3s feeding DC-7s or 707s, RJs as we know them feed Airbuses, etc.

Moreover, as Kaman notes, management is chortling while pilots bicker, just as did in times of yore. Just a thought to ponder.

Once again, great link to RJ history from Wiggums