Network implications of an AA and US merger

[700UW]

That is a 12 year topped out pilot on the B6 scale.

 

[jimntx]

And, how many pilots at AA do you think are NOT topped out? There can't be many. Most of the pilots that have been recalled from furlough over the past year or so are former TW pilots who were given DOH for company benefits and pay purposes; so, there aren't many, if any, that are not top of scale.

 

[700UW]

I was more meaning how many B6 pilots are topped out.

And did you see B6 pilots get overtime pay also.

 

[jimntx]

Well, none of this is exact science. I was just responding to the person who implied that JB pilots are paid the same as AA MD-80 pilots (and, that JB is making a profit paying those rates). See Post #25 in this thread. According to the charts, that just ain't so.

 

[FWAAA]

BoeingBoy: Mach85ER has said (and I have no reason to disbelieve him) that the APA has offered since 2003 to fly large RJs at competitive rates at AA mainline but the sticking point has been everyone else's pay - the flight attendants, mechanics and fleet that are all significantly cheaper at Eagle (and all other commuters) than at AA or the other mainline carriers. The inability to make that mutually beneficial deal might be the complex choreography necessary to bring everyone together.

I can certainly appreciate that pilots might resist a plan that pays some captains of small jets just $80/hr or so while the widebody captains get $200/hr+. If the small jet captain has only a few years on the seniority list, that might make it easier to swallow. Problem is, AA hasn't hired a single pilot off the street in about 11 years and the most junior captain has over 20 years of company seniority. So everyone in the front seats at AA (just like at US East) possesses lots of experience.

Higher pay rates for larger equipment and higher pay rates for longevity serve as a rough proxy for productivity-based pay (even if that isn't the pilots' primary goal). The flight attendants, on the other hand, want paid more for longevity but don't get any more productive as they age due to the FAA's ratio on minimum FA staffing.

AFAIK, US is the only legacy flying the large RJs as mainline equipment but that is an anachronistic side effect resulting from the machinations to try to end-run the Nic decision. I don't think US is going to be successful at paying E190 and A320 pilots less than jetBlue pays theirs for much longer - especially if US and AA combine.

I certainly don't know what the solution is. Back in the very old days, long, long ago, AA flew its Convair 240s to places that did not warrant 727s and 707s. I remember reading a wiki article that claimed that AA flew twenty-some daily nonstops from LGA to each of BOS and DCA before jets in the late 1950s, mostly with 240s. Don't know how everyone handled the pay issues then, but of course, that was back when the CAB made all the pricing, scheduling and capacity decisions.

 

[BoeingBoy]

The point is still that the company wants a lot more big rjs; so, they can decimate domestic mainline except in cornerpost to cornerpost flying

Just look around the industry at what your competitors enjoy as far as pilot scope is concerned and their mainline flying. Even US (east) has up to 88 seat RJ's (before putting FC in) and the east pilots are doing a lot more than just hub to hub flying. The other day I added up the number of 70 and over seat RJ's that USX operates and it's like 120 or so with scope allowing more than that. So if an airline US' size still operates a lot of mainline why would AA only do hub-hub flying with mainline? Is Latin/South American flying going away? Is Europe flying going away? Is the desire for more Asian service going away? Are domestic markets that generate enough traffic for mainline sized aircraft going away?

Jim

 

[jimntx]

I believe that I said specifically that the company wants to decimate (not eliminate) domestic mainline flying--that pretty much leaves South America, Europe and Asia out of the discussion, does it not? Nor, did I say that mainline flying would be eliminated in domestic markets, did I?

As far as what other airlines are doing vis-a-vis the larger rjs, I suggest you take your argument to the AA pilots. They are the ones blocking movement in this area. Even though increased rj flying would more than likely eliminate my job, I don't much care one way or the other. Fortunately, my future (financial and otherwise) does not depend upon American Airlines.

However, the few young f/as I know are having to fly extremely high time (120+ hours/month) in order to make ends meet with children and mortgages to support. Cuts in pay will probably force them to seek other employment. Which will make the remaining f/a corps even more elderly than it is now. (And, I'm 67; so I can say that. ) I doubt seriously that even a generous buyout will get any of our dinosaurs to retire. They'll just die off to or from Narita and Beijing.

 

[FWAAA]

I may be mistaken, but I thought that the large RJs (70-88 seats or so) would be used more to replace the 37/44/50 seat RJs and not so much to replace 140-160 seat mainline planes. DL and UA both fly lots of large RJs (most, if not all, are two-class) and both continue to fly a very large number of domestic mainline Boeing and Airbus. DL has made no bones about reducing/eliminating its 50 seat fleet.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Decimate:
a - to reduce drastically, especially in number
b - to cause great destruction or harm to

To limit domestic mainline flying to hub-hub would decimate mainline flying.

Maybe you should stick to FA issues since you seem to know little about the pilot's term sheet. AA proposed a lower pay scale for the 88-110 seat planes at mainline, not the same rate as the MD80/737/Airbus. You're making a lot of claims with erroneous, little or no information.

Jim

 

[jimntx]

Well, Mr. Font of all Wisdom, a "cornerstone" of the Cornerstone Strategy is to fly lots of rjs to/from the outlying stations to the cornerstone hubs--smaller a/c with greater frequency. Note, I did not say that all flying to/from outlying stations would be rjs. The company has to fly MD-80s to a lot of these stations because we don't have anything smaller on mainline, and the AE scope is maxed out. However, I think anyone who really considers the AA airline orders realizes that they are not going to be able to afford all the purchases planned in this lifetime. Getting rid of the MD-80s may save a lot of gas, but not that much gas. I doubt seriously that all of the MD-80s will be replaced with anything close to 1 for 1 with 737s or AB319-320.

For instance, DFW-AUS could have mostly 757s or larger on the route and most days the planes would still be full/oversold. DFW-BHM right now has 3 flights/day, rarely full, which don't necessarily match up with connections at DFW all that well. With rjs the planes would be fuller and could be flown with more frequency. For every AUS, there are several ICT-BHM-MSY type stations.

 

[jimntx]

Decimate:
a - to reduce drastically, especially in number
b - to cause great destruction or harm to

To limit domestic mainline flying to hub-hub would decimate mainline flying.

Maybe you should stick to FA issues since you seem to know little about the pilot's term sheet. AA proposed a lower pay scale for the 88-110 seat planes at mainline, not the same rate as the MD80/737/Airbus. You're making a lot of claims with erroneous, little or no information.

Jim

I am well aware that the company has a pay rate for the 88-110 seat a/c. But, that is like the asking price on a house you are selling. You can ask any amount you want to. Getting it is another issue. You should talk to the pilots as to whether or not they are even considering that pay rate. From what I am being told by pilots I fly with, if the company gets it, it will have to be imposed by the court.

P.S. I was an English major in college. I used the word decimate advisedly. Go back and look at your definition. Does it say eliminate, or just reduce drastically. Reduce drastically is what the company wants to do with mainline full-size a/c flying. And, they want to replace it with 88-110 seat a/c with AE type wages for pilots and f/as.

 

[FWAAA]

Well, Mr. Font of all Wisdom, a "cornerstone" of the Cornerstone Strategy is to fly lots of rjs to/from the outlying stations to the cornerstone hubs--smaller a/c with greater frequency. Note, I did not say that all flying to/from outlying stations would be rjs. I think anyone who really considers the AA airline orders realizes that they are not going to be able to afford all the purchases planned in this lifetime. Getting rid of the MD-80s may save a lot of gas, but not that much gas.

For instance, DFW-AUS could have mostly 757s or larger on the route and most days the planes would still be full/oversold. DFW-BHM right now has 3 flights/day, rarely full, which don't necessarily match up with connections at DFW all that well. With rjs the planes would be fuller and could be flown with more frequency. For every AUS, there are several ICT-BHM-MSY type stations.

The new 737s use 35% less fuel per seat mile than the MD-80s they replace. Effectively, that's like lowering the price of jet fuel from its current $3.40/gal down to $2.20/gal. That's a tremendous savings that alone almost covers the lease payments on the new 737s. Add in the heavy maintenance holiday (for the first 5-6 years) and the line maintenance savings since the 737s will have fewer everyday maintenance problems and every new 737 is a moneymaker for AA.

AA's announcement that it will implement its own version of UA's E+ will reduce the savings slightly as the 737s will probably feature just 150 seats rather than the current 160, but that's probably a year or two away.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Well, Mr. Font of all Wisdom

Think what you will and disregard everything that doesn't support your delusions. No other hub/spoke carrier had "drastically reduced" mainline flying because of the presence of larger RJ's but you don't seem very interested in facts...beyond "_______ (insert CEO's name) is scum and only wants to screw employees"

Jim

 

[ChockJockey]

P.S. I was an English major in college. I used the word decimate advisedly. Go back and look at your definition.

It's a little far fetched to think anyone's going to agree to anything that will require 10% of their mainline pilots be killed. :blink: That's pretty drastic.