LukeSkywalker
Member
- Jan 14, 2003
- 27
- 0
Do you think that ALG will be the all prop WO giving PDT the RJ''s first? Maybe ALG will assume some of the Dash 8 that PDT will loose. When is this BIG ANNOUNCEMENT supposed to happen? Anyone?
Allegheny All Prop WO?
- Thread starter LukeSkywalker
- Start date
ITRADE
Veteran
Donno how or who, but just looking at the cities served, etc., you would HAVE to conclude that there will necessarily be a need for turboprops on some routes. The economics simply do not justify running 50 seat aircraft on routes that are hard pressed to justify 32 (DO-328) or 37 (Dash-8) seats.
I might envision AL as the surviving Turboprop carrier since PSA is getting the jets first and some of PSA''s cities are precisely those where the above-mentioned statements apply.
I might envision AL as the surviving Turboprop carrier since PSA is getting the jets first and some of PSA''s cities are precisely those where the above-mentioned statements apply.
Rumor..but getting more likely everyday, that PDT will not get the ERJ's/RJ's or any jets, and really believe the upper management in MX do'nt want them....it means change and not knowing anything about the new equipment..lets face it, PDT does'nt like change, at least thats the way I see them. The are the dash - 8 "King Daddy" , and thats what they want to stay as. But at the risk of a greatly reduced fleet size with less employees.
Time Marches On...
Time Marches On...
ITRADE
Veteran
----------------
On 6/2/2003 7:39:49 AM wings396 wrote:
Let''s not get fooled here...the RJ''s were never REALLY going to replace the props. That was just a sales sham. Their true intent is to replace as much mainline flying as possible, and to screw as many employees as possible out of good paying jobs. This my friends is what the RJ''s are going to be used for. It would have been common sense to replace the props with them, and we all know common sense is never used at this company. All we heard is how much the passengers preferred RJ''s over props....did any passengers ever say how much they hated being on a mainline A/C, and wish they could be crammed on a flying sewerpipe for a 2 hour flight....
----------------
It never ceases to amaze me how much certain people view employment as an entitlement, not as a voluntary job. On 6/2/2003 7:39:49 AM wings396 wrote:
Let''s not get fooled here...the RJ''s were never REALLY going to replace the props. That was just a sales sham. Their true intent is to replace as much mainline flying as possible, and to screw as many employees as possible out of good paying jobs. This my friends is what the RJ''s are going to be used for. It would have been common sense to replace the props with them, and we all know common sense is never used at this company. All we heard is how much the passengers preferred RJ''s over props....did any passengers ever say how much they hated being on a mainline A/C, and wish they could be crammed on a flying sewerpipe for a 2 hour flight....
----------------
Simply put, if the economics of the system do not justify the utilization of a mainline aircraft on a particular route, then the company SHOULD NOT USE the mainline aircraft. The company''s (and the BOD''s) primary role is revenue/profit generation - it is not to keep people on the payroll for the sake of keeping people on the payroll.
Look at the load factors on certain routes in past months and past years. DCA was always a good station because you had passengers willing to shell out top $$$ for the convenience of flying out of DCA. However, the number of passengers willing to do so has fallen over time. Hence, you frequently saw 737-300s and A-319s flying to ROC and SYR and RDU with 50 passengers on board.
Ask yourself, does it make sense to continually fly your aircraft 60% empty?
Aks yourself, does it make sense to pay for digital cable TV if the only thing you watch is the Weather Channel?
Ask yourself, does it make sense to pay $1,900 a month in mortgage and taxes for a three bedroom condo when you live in it alone?
As to aircraft. Folks clearly prefer RJs over turboprops. There is no argument there. While folks do prefer a mainline aircraft over a RJ on equal time and equal flights, folks are willing to take the RJ 1) it increases travel flexibility through more frequencies and 2) when the RJ has a F class section as US''s CRJ-705s and ERJ-170s will have.
wings396
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,672
- 1,122
Let''s not get fooled here...the RJ''s were never REALLY going to replace the props. That was just a sales sham. Their true intent is to replace as much mainline flying as possible, and to screw as many employees as possible out of good paying jobs. This my friends is what the RJ''s are going to be used for. It would have been common sense to replace the props with them, and we all know common sense is never used at this company. All we heard is how much the passengers preferred RJ''s over props....did any passengers ever say how much they hated being on a mainline A/C, and wish they could be crammed on a flying sewerpipe for a 2 hour flight....
ITRADE
Veteran
----------------
On 6/2/2003 10:03:55 AM wings396 wrote:
ITrade, this has nothing to do with what anyone is entitled to. Case in point, mainline flights that are running with good loads on high yeild markets are being pulled in favor of an RJ with less than 1/2 the capacity. We all know as soon as the station gets whacked down to express wages, presto the 737''s and 319/20 will return to these routes...if this is not a back door approach to a screw job, you must have your head burried in the sand in some big station. Why is the same job now worth less pay...large 70+ seat RJ''s almost the size of an F-100, and we are expected to work as we did before...YEA RIGHT...let the company take over 12k a year away from you and want the same performance as before...wake up pal.
----------------
A 70+ seat ERJ-170 is 30% smaller than a large, inefficient, maintenance heavy, burdensome F-100. It seems that you''re running fully on emotion and completely empty on logic on this one.On 6/2/2003 10:03:55 AM wings396 wrote:
ITrade, this has nothing to do with what anyone is entitled to. Case in point, mainline flights that are running with good loads on high yeild markets are being pulled in favor of an RJ with less than 1/2 the capacity. We all know as soon as the station gets whacked down to express wages, presto the 737''s and 319/20 will return to these routes...if this is not a back door approach to a screw job, you must have your head burried in the sand in some big station. Why is the same job now worth less pay...large 70+ seat RJ''s almost the size of an F-100, and we are expected to work as we did before...YEA RIGHT...let the company take over 12k a year away from you and want the same performance as before...wake up pal.
----------------
wings396
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,672
- 1,122
ITrade, this has nothing to do with what anyone is entitled to. Case in point, mainline flights that are running with good loads on high yeild markets are being pulled in favor of an RJ with less than 1/2 the capacity. We all know as soon as the station gets whacked down to express wages, presto the 737''s and 319/20 will return to these routes...if this is not a back door approach to a screw job, you must have your head burried in the sand in some big station. Why is the same job now worth less pay...large 70+ seat RJ''s almost the size of an F-100, and we are expected to work as we did before...YEA RIGHT...let the company take over 12k a year away from you and want the same performance as before...wake up pal.
ONTHESTREET
Advanced
- Aug 20, 2002
- 198
- 0
To the company it is simple economics. If they could pay dirtbag RJ wages for 737''s and Airbus''s they would.
It has nothing to do with the airplane. Southwest does just fine with the 73 and no RJ''s. It is all about driving the wages down, for all involved, Ground and flight crews. Once the "normal wage is driven into the gutter I think you will see the company switch gears and bring back larger aircraft, or sell the company. It does appear that U is being transformed into someone elses RJ feeder.
I am sure that this whole company would welcome Southwest pay and work rules. Only problem is that Mgmt. would not have any idea what to do with it! And at least for the pilots Southwest wages would constitute a raise!
It has nothing to do with the airplane. Southwest does just fine with the 73 and no RJ''s. It is all about driving the wages down, for all involved, Ground and flight crews. Once the "normal wage is driven into the gutter I think you will see the company switch gears and bring back larger aircraft, or sell the company. It does appear that U is being transformed into someone elses RJ feeder.
I am sure that this whole company would welcome Southwest pay and work rules. Only problem is that Mgmt. would not have any idea what to do with it! And at least for the pilots Southwest wages would constitute a raise!
smallstFSA
Advanced
- Dec 22, 2002
- 124
- 0
----------------
On 6/2/2003 7:39:49 AM wings396 wrote:
Let''s not get fooled here...the RJ''s were never REALLY going to replace the props. That was just a sales sham. Their true intent is to replace as much mainline flying as possible, and to screw as many employees as possible out of good paying jobs. This my friends is what the RJ''s are going to be used for. It would have been common sense to replace the props with them, and we all know common sense is never used at this company. All we heard is how much the passengers preferred RJ''s over props....did any passengers ever say how much they hated being on a mainline A/C, and wish they could be crammed on a flying sewerpipe for a 2 hour flight....
----------------
Wings I agree with you, twice a day in the morning and afternoon we run 4 express a/c in a two hour period. 2 mainline a/c could replace 8 of these pieces of ****. If we are lucky enough that they are running on time then we have a weight problem. I had some folks from out of town visit not long ago say that after flying in express a/c on 3 out of 4 legs the coach section of a 319 was like first class.On 6/2/2003 7:39:49 AM wings396 wrote:
Let''s not get fooled here...the RJ''s were never REALLY going to replace the props. That was just a sales sham. Their true intent is to replace as much mainline flying as possible, and to screw as many employees as possible out of good paying jobs. This my friends is what the RJ''s are going to be used for. It would have been common sense to replace the props with them, and we all know common sense is never used at this company. All we heard is how much the passengers preferred RJ''s over props....did any passengers ever say how much they hated being on a mainline A/C, and wish they could be crammed on a flying sewerpipe for a 2 hour flight....
----------------
wings396
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,672
- 1,122
I am glad that someone gets my point here. ITRADE speaks from a management point of view, that makes me wonder just what his position is. Saying that I speak from emotion instead of facts is bull. I have worked 25 years and have a fair amount of industry knowlege...I know the difference between working together and getting screwed after this long. I would work for SWA rules and wages ANY day. and get a raise...I don''t think they RJ and Express
their employees to death as this outfit does. As I said ITRADE must be immune to this crap in a large station where his position is safe.
their employees to death as this outfit does. As I said ITRADE must be immune to this crap in a large station where his position is safe.
Why is the same job now worth less pay
Because today''s economy doesn''t support airline employees who have escalated their work rules and compensation packages into the ionosphere........Sept 11th has been the trigger for leveling the playing field in the airline business.....Back to Peoples Express again?
Because today''s economy doesn''t support airline employees who have escalated their work rules and compensation packages into the ionosphere........Sept 11th has been the trigger for leveling the playing field in the airline business.....Back to Peoples Express again?
