USAirUnited
Advanced
- Dec 17, 2002
- 235
- 0
What was wrong with the F100. I know it was always breaking down but not as much as these erj's. And wern't they the right size for the markets we serve?
Midatlantic Rjs Qre Crap, We're Going Down!
- Thread starter isthisok
- Start date
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #62
I didn't realize that the Eagle (all express?) f/o rate topped out at 8 years. The Group 4 rate (pre-concessions, again) for 8 years was about $67-$68 per hour.
For mweiss, I don't know why the f/o rates (compared to capt) are so different. Pure speculation is that the express (which used to be called commuters) tended to be something of a training ground where pilots built time on the road (hopefully) of landing a job with the "majors". Presumably, the enticement to stay around long enough to get in the left seat was the capt pay. Again, pure speculation.
Jim
For mweiss, I don't know why the f/o rates (compared to capt) are so different. Pure speculation is that the express (which used to be called commuters) tended to be something of a training ground where pilots built time on the road (hopefully) of landing a job with the "majors". Presumably, the enticement to stay around long enough to get in the left seat was the capt pay. Again, pure speculation.
Jim
jimntx
Veteran
Bad typing. The sentence was supposed to read "rjs are crap..." Since correct spelling, punctuation, and sentence construction are looked upon as elitist and snobbish by many on this board, sometimes you have to figure out what the writers meant not what they wrote.atlantis said:
I have been thinking the very same thing. Thanks for asking and clearing this mysterious "qre" thing up. 
I can help shed a little light on this subject. The main reason the FO pay rates at most regionals only go up to 6 or 8 yrs is that very few regionals have (had) FO's for that long. In the past, regionals were places you went to build time to move to a Major. Because of this, they always had steady movement (as guys left at the top). Negotiators didn't want to spend leverage (remember in contract negotiations you always have to give something to get something) to get FO rates of 10 or 15 yrs that would look good on paper but no FO would actually see. They were better off using this leverage to get better work rules, per diem or higher FO rates in yrs 1-6.BoeingBoy said:
This is obviously different then at the Majors or LLC as the only way there is movement is because of growth or retirements creating a much greater need for extended FO rates. Of course all the pilots at U understand this. -Cape
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #69
"In essence, it sounds like the payscale stops rising because people don't stay long enough to be topped out for long."
That and the fact that they're willing to work for less to build time.
It's something of a simplification, but in the olden days, there were basically two types of "commuter" pilots, with the differentation being caused by the majors age cutoff for hiring.
The first type has been discussed - those building time in order to qualify for a better job. The second was those who for whatever reason didn't get on with the majors before reaching the age cutoff.
Management knew that the first type (the time builders) would be gone in a few years - either to a major or to another job with bigger equipment, fancier equipment (turboprops etc), or wherever (resume building). Higher pay wouldn't necessarily keep this group around.
The second group was more stable, but they would leave for a better job - higher paying, corporate, etc. So higher paywas a suitable incentive to offer to keep this group around and limit training costs. (there were no sims for the typical "commuter" planes, so training cost about as much an hour as revenue service).
Jim
That and the fact that they're willing to work for less to build time.
It's something of a simplification, but in the olden days, there were basically two types of "commuter" pilots, with the differentation being caused by the majors age cutoff for hiring.
The first type has been discussed - those building time in order to qualify for a better job. The second was those who for whatever reason didn't get on with the majors before reaching the age cutoff.
Management knew that the first type (the time builders) would be gone in a few years - either to a major or to another job with bigger equipment, fancier equipment (turboprops etc), or wherever (resume building). Higher pay wouldn't necessarily keep this group around.
The second group was more stable, but they would leave for a better job - higher paying, corporate, etc. So higher paywas a suitable incentive to offer to keep this group around and limit training costs. (there were no sims for the typical "commuter" planes, so training cost about as much an hour as revenue service).
Jim
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #71
Diogenes,
From my perspective, you right - it's not the plane but what MDA potentially represents.
To tie several things together, a little history might be in order...
Into the 90's, US was ahead of the industry in "RJ's". The BAC-111 and F-28 were the equivalent of the CRJ-701 and E-170 in their day.
When the modern RJ's appeared on the scene in numbers, where were we? Ordering lots of A320 series and (unknown to the employees) apparently being groomed for a merger. The fleet was being simplified, and our "RJ's" disappeared. However, while other airlines were adding the early small RJ's, our management expressed no interest - presumably because there was no need with the merger looming. To be fair, on the other side of the table sat ALPA, with members on furlough and seeing "RJ's" being parked. If management has been interested in acquiring modern RJ's for the express operation, I doubt that ALPA would have been falling over itself to co-operate to any substantial degree.
By the end of the 20th century, we were getting (read affiliate) some modern RJ's, but management wasn't excercising their full rights under Scope - they weren't flying as many small jets as the contract allowed.
Now to bankruptcy I and Siegel's Plan of Recovery. Aside from the concessions, it centered around a smaller mainline fleet and lots of RJ's (potentially over 400), with many of them the smaller ones (ERJ-145's and CRJ-200's). Unfortunately by this time, voices were being heard (including Mike Boyd leading the chorus) saying that the era of the small RJ was beginning to end.
Now we're up to the present....
The E-170 is by all accounts a good airplane (or will be once the teething problems are worked out, hopefully sooner rather than later). Not having ridden on either it or the CRJ-701, I presume that the CRJ is a reasonably close second. Both are definitely better (teething problems aside) than the smaller RJ's, with better economics being among the factors.
But now management is talking about 90+ seaters (E-190) - that's F-100 territory - and 110+ seaters (E-195) - that's DC9, 737-200/300 territory. Is it any wonder that many employees fear a role reversal? Instead of Express feeding Mainline, will it become a reduced Mainline feeding Express?
Jim
From my perspective, you right - it's not the plane but what MDA potentially represents.
To tie several things together, a little history might be in order...
Into the 90's, US was ahead of the industry in "RJ's". The BAC-111 and F-28 were the equivalent of the CRJ-701 and E-170 in their day.
When the modern RJ's appeared on the scene in numbers, where were we? Ordering lots of A320 series and (unknown to the employees) apparently being groomed for a merger. The fleet was being simplified, and our "RJ's" disappeared. However, while other airlines were adding the early small RJ's, our management expressed no interest - presumably because there was no need with the merger looming. To be fair, on the other side of the table sat ALPA, with members on furlough and seeing "RJ's" being parked. If management has been interested in acquiring modern RJ's for the express operation, I doubt that ALPA would have been falling over itself to co-operate to any substantial degree.
By the end of the 20th century, we were getting (read affiliate) some modern RJ's, but management wasn't excercising their full rights under Scope - they weren't flying as many small jets as the contract allowed.
Now to bankruptcy I and Siegel's Plan of Recovery. Aside from the concessions, it centered around a smaller mainline fleet and lots of RJ's (potentially over 400), with many of them the smaller ones (ERJ-145's and CRJ-200's). Unfortunately by this time, voices were being heard (including Mike Boyd leading the chorus) saying that the era of the small RJ was beginning to end.
Now we're up to the present....
The E-170 is by all accounts a good airplane (or will be once the teething problems are worked out, hopefully sooner rather than later). Not having ridden on either it or the CRJ-701, I presume that the CRJ is a reasonably close second. Both are definitely better (teething problems aside) than the smaller RJ's, with better economics being among the factors.
But now management is talking about 90+ seaters (E-190) - that's F-100 territory - and 110+ seaters (E-195) - that's DC9, 737-200/300 territory. Is it any wonder that many employees fear a role reversal? Instead of Express feeding Mainline, will it become a reduced Mainline feeding Express?
Jim
700:700UW said:
And that is a bad thing, HOW? The company
needs to get their costs permanently lowered
and if they can use MDA as the way to increase
mailine flying with MDA wages, then that is
an excellent start on permanently lowering
costs. You REALLY don't get it, do you?
