F/C in CRJs?

[Winglet]

First Class seats on Eagle planes isn't by itself bad; the bad part is that Eagle is acquiring 22 more 70-seat RJs (which I thought would violate the APA Scope Clause) and flying them on what look like mainline routes. These new RJs symbolize the refusal of AA and the APA to come to agreement on larger RJs (like 90-110 seaters) which AA really needs to bridge the size gap between 70 seat CR7s and 160 seat 738s (once the MD-80s are all gone).

I'd prefer that AA buy 73Gs, outfitted with about 12F/102Y and reach agreement with the APA that places the 73G on the mainline certificate and flown by APA pilots at reasonable rates.

Other airlines feature a few FC seats on their larger RJs - AA's actually at a disadvantage relative to DL and UA, both of which have first class cabins on larger RJs.

The 22 more RJs was grieved because the apparent options expired which ended the ability of the company to purchase them. However, AA contended successfully to an arbitrator (draw you own conclusion) that the options still exist due to a secret verbal agreement with Bombardier.

With regards to anything beyond the now 47 70-seaters, there's nothing to come to agreement about. That flying belongs solidly to AA pilots via the scope contract (as solid as any agreement is with the current company friendly NMB). If AA wants 90 seaters, there's already a "reasonable" contract payscale for that . . . the F100. In fact, AA appears not interested in anything between 76 seats and the MD80. They (only) demanded the APA give up ALL scope on up 76 seat configuration, but no mention of above that.

 

[Mach85ER]

I'd prefer that AA buy 73Gs, outfitted with about 12F/102Y and reach agreement with the APA that places the 73G on the mainline certificate and flown by APA pilots at reasonable rates.

FWAAA,

There is already a "reasonable rate" on the books for APA to fly a 737 like you mentioned. Even an absolute "low ball" "cr%p " depression level payrate by APA would only save maybe $25-30 hour. That pay gets you a cockpit crew that is pissed off, and probably tired most of the time from working a second job.

I'd suggest you also look at another part of the working flightcrew in your example. Minimum FA crew would be 3 per the FAA. Today's max APA payrate for your example would be $250 hour total for the pilots (no bennies included). Max pay for the FA crew with be somewhere around $150-160 hour (correct me if wrong).

 

[jimntx]

Top of Scale for f/as under the current contract is $46.00/hr. I don't know what pilot and f/o rates are currently, but let's assume the $250/hr is split evenly. OMG, they are going to have to make do on only $125/hr. No wonder they will have to work a 2nd job.

Also, let's not forget that the routes and sequences that plane would be used on would probably not be bid by senior f/as. So, the $138/hr for the cabin crew is optimistic at best.

 

[Bob Owens]

A few weeks back we were told that Premium class revenue was down 47%, now we are talking about adding more to this delining revenue stream.

SWA, the only airline that has been consistantly profitable for decades, and is the highest paying doesnt have premium class. maybe we should be considering getting rid of it altogether.

Cattle cars and premium pay and profits or first class and slave wages and losses-the choice is obvious for us.

I'd rather put my efforts to make flying safe and reliable for the flip-flop and tank top wearing crowd that provides me a good wage than the suits who think thet they are the only ones who deserve a living wage.

 

[MTheory]

A few weeks back we were told that Premium class revenue was down 47%, now we are talking about adding more to this delining revenue stream.

SWA, the only airline that has been consistantly profitable for decades, and is the highest paying doesnt have premium class. maybe we should be considering getting rid of it altogether.

Cattle cars and premium pay and profits or first class and slave wages and losses-the choice is obvious for us.

I'd rather put my efforts to make flying safe and reliable for the flip-flop and tank top wearing crowd that provides me a good wage than the suits who think thet they are the only ones who deserve a living wage.

Bob;

Adding premium class service is probably a good thing for AMR's bottom line. Now they can offer the same level of service on an CRJ rather than flyng a mainline MD-80 or 737. DFW-ORD s a good example.
Whether or not that translates into employee benefits is a different story.

 

[jimntx]

Bob, as a f/a who works F/C a lot, I rarely if ever run across the kind of "suits" that you speak of. Most F/C business travelers just want a comfortable seat and a quiet place to work, and they are willing to pay for those amenities. The reality is that 70% of our revenue comes from 20% of our passengers. (That bit about F/C revenue being down 47% is not the whole story. The fact is that ALL revenue is down substantially right now.)

Are you willing to risk that in the hope that we can compete with WN for the flip-flops and tank top crowd? We haven't been able to do it up until now. The pulldown at STL is nothing more than AA ceding another station and destination to WN, IMHO.

Furthermore, as someone who commutes on WN frequently, let me also say that the flip-flops and tank top crowd doesn't make up as much of their passenger load as you might think. A big percentage of the typical load--not a majority, but not a small number either--are men and women wearing suits and carrying laptops and briefcases. On DAL-STL route, as we continue to cut capacity, the percentage of suits on WN is increasing. Better frequency, a LOT more comfortable seat, and that priority boarding is going gangbusters.

Also, a lot of our bills get paid by revenue from the International operations. We can not compete in that arena without premium cabins. And, those passengers are not going to fly cattle car to connect to International if one of our competitors (UAUA, LCC, DL) is offering them f/c even on rjs for the domestic segment of their trip.

I had an EP tell me recently that he is fed up with AA. He said something like "if those accountants in Dallas think I'm going to fly rjs to DFW and ORD in order to get to where I need to go, they have another think coming." (I didn't correct him that Centreport is actually in Ft. Worth. ) I've noticed that when we fly into ORD lately, most of the connections are to AE. We may be saving money, but I think we are shooting ourselves in the foot.

 

[Barfbag]

flip-flop and tank top wearing crowd

This crowd isn't buying up Manhattan condos, or shopping on Rodeo Drive. The suits who work for these folks will bounce back from this economy, even sooner.

 

[jimntx]

This crowd isn't buying up Manhattan condos, or shopping on Rodeo Drive. The suits who work for these folks will bounce back from this economy, even sooner.

From what I read in the papers no one is buying those condos or shopping on Rodeo these days. The point is not that those suits will recover financially sooner or later. The point is "Will they be flying AA or WN when they do recover?"

More and more are failing to see the point in paying premium prices and getting poor to mediocre service--and I'm not just talking about f/a service. Our airplanes are dirty. Maintenance is deferred until someone catches them at it. (Nothing says elegant like F/C seats covered in duct tape with a hand-lettered sign that says "Do not use.") If they can't get an upgrade to F/C they are stuck in cramped, uncomfortable seats. On WN, they get the most pitch in the industry, a leather seat, a smiling, friendly cabin crew, and a cheaper ticket. Which would you choose?

 

[Mach85ER]

OMG, they are going to have to make do on only $125/hr.

jimntx,

$100K can give a decent standard of living in TX for a pilot with a non-working spouse + kids.
Just about every other AA pilot base has a cost of living that bleeds that salary real fast. No doubt more
than a few readers may disagree, but here's my 2 cents in my case;
For the investment and length of time to get the 25 plus years flying jets, I would have found something
else to do and fly on the side. I also could have avoided the risks involved in getting flight experience. Airline flying is safe, many other civilian and military pilot jobs aren't. In the average job enviroment (not today's low point), I'd seriously consider doing something else, taking a paycut, wifey goes to work, and make do with 25% less family income with the advantage of sleeping in my own bed every night, having summer vacations, Xmas and T-Gvng off as well as most weekends. I'd also avoid traveling by air as much as possible. I wouldn't relax
much if one of the pilot's up front can only afford to live in their parents basement.
Trying to avoid serious thread drift here, just one guys pragmatic view on what might occur with some
of the small narrow body jet (they aren't RJ's ) fleet plan ideas.

 

[jimntx]

Well, you implied that 3 f/as splitting $138 (you actually put the low end at $150) was out of proportion if the cockpit only had $250 to work with. Did you think that the f/as who live in those high cost bases don't have the same economic issues that you do? Or, did you think that only you deserve the "luxury" of a non-working spouse when you have a family to raise. And, therefore it is the responsibility of the company and the rest of us to provide you the financial wherewithal to accomplish that? In this day and age, a non-working adult in the household is a luxury out of the reach of most people.

 

[Mach85ER]

jimntx,

There was no implied thought by me that the FA pay is "out of proportion". My original response to FWAA's post was based on FAA staffing requirements for his example of a 73G with a 114 seat capacity. Like it or not, >100 seat number requires a 3rd FA, and in the current AMR enviroment, it may have 17 year FA's crewing it. With a new JBLu or VA company, or rapidly expanding fleet, the additonal cost of a new hire FA is very low. At AA, depending where it's based, it could have 3, 17 year FA's in back. I surely don't know the fleet buying analysis, but I'm sure this plays into any AA aircraft buy between 99 and 115 seats due to manning requirments.

Feel free to start a seperate thread about income in high cost of living areas. I tried to pragmatically state what my personal bottom line was. One selling points on my job was the ability to live nicely on one income in even the high cost areas without commuting. The Major airline pay traditonally was high enough to do it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but did the FA job ever pay enough to enable someone to be the sole breadwinner in the family in those areas?

 

[FWAAA]

The 22 more RJs was grieved because the apparent options expired which ended the ability of the company to purchase them. However, AA contended successfully to an arbitrator (draw you own conclusion) that the options still exist due to a secret verbal agreement with Bombardier.

Well, I'm confused. There used to be an exception for the 67 large turboprops (Super ATR exception) which I thought included the original 25 CRJ700s but I didn't think that APA ever granted permission for the extra 25 options.

With regards to anything beyond the now 47 70-seaters, there's nothing to come to agreement about. That flying belongs solidly to AA pilots via the scope contract (as solid as any agreement is with the current company friendly NMB). If AA wants 90 seaters, there's already a "reasonable" contract payscale for that . . . the F100. In fact, AA appears not interested in anything between 76 seats and the MD80. They (only) demanded the APA give up ALL scope on up 76 seat configuration, but no mention of above that.

There is already a "reasonable rate" on the books for APA to fly a 737 like you mentioned. Even an absolute "low ball" "cr%p " depression level payrate by APA would only save maybe $25-30 hour. That pay gets you a cockpit crew that is pissed off, and probably tired most of the time from working a second job.

I'd suggest you also look at another part of the working flightcrew in your example. Minimum FA crew would be 3 per the FAA. Today's max APA payrate for your example would be $250 hour total for the pilots (no bennies included). Max pay for the FA crew with be somewhere around $150-160 hour (correct me if wrong).

Well, there you guys go, thinking inside the box again. I was thinking more along the lines of an agreement that would place the 738 and the (fantasy) 73G in the same pay group. 737 pilots would be trained and kept current on both types (I assume there's some very minor differences) and would thus be interchangeable.

Sure, the F100 rates are there, but I was thinking of simplifying the pay scales for the future into 777/787 (no real reason for them to pay different, since they're of similar size and will fly similar trips), 767, 757 and 737. Given the similarities between the 767 and 757, those could also be combined to make for three pay scales going into the future. Of course the MD-80 rates would remain until they're all gone.

Of course, somewhat generous pay for the 73Gs would have to be paid for somehow - perhaps someday the APA compromises and allows Eagle to fly more 70-80 seaters in exchange for mainline 114 seaters and relatively generous pay for them. Maybe free internet for the flight crew would help get it done.

Mach85ER, you're correct about the FAs, but I don't think it's a deal-killer. Those 14 extra seats would inevitably cost AA plenty, but then again, so do the last 10 new extra seats on the 738s. If 10 extra seats on a 738 are paid for by the incremental passengers (over a more sensible 150 passenger 738), then it seems elementary that those 14 passengers on the 73G would more than cover the relatively expensive FA. And I agree - I'd bet that FA manning requirements are considered, even though they appear to have been ignored in the new 160 seat configuration 738s. Or maybe those 10 seats will be full of high-enough paying pax often enough to pay for that fourth FA.

As an aside, I recently posted about the possibility that AA might try a Flushed Away option as to the FAs, although it's extremely unlikely that AA takes that scorched earth approach. And as many posted, it probably wouldn't work.

The real savings will come if the APA and AA agree on a contract that provides for more monthly flying 2008's average of 50.7 hours per month. If that could be increased to something closer to the pay guarantee (or even closer to 60 hours a month), there would be plenty of money to pay mainline rates for 73Gs or some other 100-120 seat airplanes. I'm not talking about flying 100 hours a month or 1,000 hours a year; just flying several more hours a month on average.

 

[goodgirl37]

Lets just get a few things straight here, IMO, allowing any Regional airline to allign their cabins with a first class cabin and product similar to their mainline counterpart is a DIRECT threat to outsource your flying to the regional. Lets look at UAL, they did this exact thing with Republic (gag) and the E175 a/c, shortly thereafter UAL said, bye bye to the 737s and are now having a LARGE RJ A/C operate these same routes from the same gates with the same product, probably even better since the planes are new.

I am going to every one of our union meetings PREACHING scope clause for pilots flight attendants and everyones sake, it is out of control.. We don't have to worry about being outsourced to foreign nationals anymore people, it is being done right under our noses in our own country.. Take a look at Midwest Airlines operating MD80s , OUTSOURCED To Republic Airways....

I don't think any RJ larger than 50 TOTAL seats should be allowed to operate in the fleet - Period, and this is something we as an industry need to stick together on. There also needs to be a ratio RJ/ML maximum. If you outsource your Regional flying to lets say 5 different carriers like UAL has, then the RJ should be painted in the Regional carrier that owns it (say Mesa, Skywest, CHQ, etc...) colors, not the mainline colors, and it should have a sticker on the side of the plane saying - "This flight has been contracted out to Mesa on behalf of United Airlines" AA, US, DL etc....

I remember at a meeting i went to one of the VPs came right out and said, " we dont want there to be a noticable difference when the customer transfers from mainline to RJ, etc... Well, if that isnt a slap in the face I dont know what is.. I want a max RJ count and nothing more than 50 seats period, and if you are not wholly owned by your mainline, you fly in your own colors so the customer can see exactly what the company is doing...

Putting first class in your RJs is a BAD sign, who CARES what the other carriers are doing, its not a competitive move, its a knife in your back.. JBLU sure isnt going out and putting FC in their cabins are they, how about SWA?? Bring it up in contract negotiations, all of these things needs to be addressed, trust me, I have seen what it can do and just last night i counted 8 E175s parked right at the mainline c gates at ORD where the 737 used to be parked, in the mainline terminal... SICK!!

 

[jimntx]

You are preaching to the choir, goodgirl. I'm based in STL, and when we fly to ORD these days over half the passenger connections are to American Eagle anyway. If the F/C cabins on the CRJ700s comes to fruition, I expect it will get even worse. How this does not violate the pilots' SCOPE clause is beyond me, but they don't seem to be kicking about it. Or, at least, not vocally and/or in public.

The only bright spot in the downsizing of STL (110 daily departures this summer, 36 daily departures next summer) is that they are eliminating American Connection service. All 4 of the regional departures will be on American Eagle.

 

[Mach85ER]

FWAAA,

Quick reply, heading out door.

The 25 options were long thought dead. They were never excercised, no written proof they existed or presented by Canadair. APA and everybody believed they were long dead. AA says now they do, a total flagrant slap in face. Guess what, arbitrator says yes too. So much for the "spirit" of the agreement.

As for getting flight hours up, I agree that a common fleet type of 737 could have a benefit. Low AA flight hours partly because of the multitude of fleet types. The training costs add up huge. The coverage needed for all of them lowers the hours as does jumping around fleet types. Guys also wouldn't mind some training by home (increased flight availability), but AA says do it for free. Just pay us for the time spent training. It goes on and on.

I asked a AA VP a question after he repeated over and over about AA Pilots stick time compared to CO, BLU and SWA. I asked him what percentage of our lower flight hours was due to our many fleet types and bases while two of the others had one fleet type, and CO had just 3 Boeing types with much commonality.
The VP told me CO had MD-80's, (no Mr. VP idiot, they'd been gone for 1.5 years), he then stared at the floor.