new 30 Embraer 175 aircraft to US Airways Express

[autofixer]

That is how the merchant marine does it. The rate is the rate and the bigger the ship you work, the more you make. Companies can't whipsaw employees. Pilots are not smart enough or they do not have the guts to put such a system in place. It is no wonder that management looks at us as a bunch of loosers.

 

[exB717Flyer]

Pilots are not smart enough or they do not have the guts to put such a system in place.

Well, we all know that if we were smart enough to do a desk job we wouldn't have to fly airplanes, but I don't think intelligence or guts is the issue. The issue is that we work for dozens of different airlines which compete with each other. Another airline's growth could mean furloughs for ours. Airline management still has the ability to shut down their airline just to spite the unions and shift the flying elsewhere. ALPA (like any union) has the reponsibility to maintain jobs as well as trying to improve wages, but these days it's hard to do both.

It is no wonder that management looks at us as a bunch of loosers.

I'm not above a typo myself but sometimes it's just too funny to not point out a glaring one. After a big meal I loosen my belt which would only then make me a "looser".

 

[Freighterguynow]

OK Folks help a stupid customer out here. This has bugged me since I joined.

My understanding is the primary reason for contract carriers is labor rates. I also am led to understand that most airlines guarantee a rate of return of 3 to 5 percent over cost.

Given the fact that unions are esentially businesses too, why don't the AFA & ALPA get creative and create wages rates that allow the M/L Carrier to do the flying?

Why can't it be that way. Something like this for a TOS Pilot/

A330 - $125/Hr
B767 - $120/Hr
A321 - $115/Hr
B757 - $115/Hr
A320 - $110/Hr
A319 - $105/Hr
B737 - $100/Hr
E195 - $ 95/Hr
E190 - S 95/Hr
E170/5 $ 90/Hr
E145 - $ 75/Hr

That way you have the same work rules, one company or two. Possibly M/L and Wholly Owned.

All new hire start on the EMB145 and move up based on seniority and qualifications. This way you have a career path and you could limit the amount of time the EMB folks can stay on an EMB to say ten years. Same for F/A's

You have total control of all your flying, uniform health coverage, streamline administration. I wonder if anyone had ever done a cost analysis on what it cost to administer all those contracts?

NOTE: On the wage rates I just pulled numbers out of the sky.

Why wouldn't this work for the company and the workers?

Great idea but when you factor in the cost of buying the aircraft, training etc it gets expensive fast. It's also easy for the flight crew pay but how about the rest? Hard to tell an Agent/ MX/ Ramp " we'll pay you X to work the 320 but Y when you're working the smaller 145".

 

[TechBoy]

That led to anomalies like F100 pilots being paid far more per passenger than big jet pilots.

I've never really heard a logical explanation for why pilot salaries are tied to equipment size. The skills required for flying a 747 are similar to a 737. The training is similar and the workrules are identical. I do understand paying more for pilots with more experience and more for a captain than an FO. But equipment differences have no rational tie to skill or difficulty of work.

ALPA would argue that pilots of larger planes are more "productive" and deserve to be paid more, but that doesn't make sense either. I get paid the same (per hour) whether I am working on a $1m deal or a $100m deal. My pay is a function of my specific skills and experience. Pilots should be paid the same way.

Getting rid of equipment pay differences would have other huge benefits. Airlines pay far too much to retrain pilots as they move up the chain of equipment over their careers. And rational mergers are avoided because of difficulties in integration.

 

[FWAAA]

Techboy: As usual, you raise good, thought-provoking points. And I'm inclined to agree with most of your post. Still, if you're gonna pay an experienced pilot lots more money than a new hire, there is some emotional appeal to tying that pay to the equipment size. Experienced flight attendants make more $$$ than new-hires, but their productivity is capped at 50 pax per FA, no matter how experienced.

 

[TechBoy]

Such a plan might be difficult to implement from the current system, but I think that the airlines would save considerable amounts in training which would make it worthwhile.

Of course, the pilots would have to deal with the ego issues involved -- who has the biggest plane. I suppose the same can be said about my corner office, but it costs the company very little to move employees among offices whereas retraining pilots is very expensive.

 

[autofixer]

Most pilots I know (inclucing me) could care-a-less about the size of the plan we fly, but rather pay. I would fly a Cessna 150 and wear a pink uniform if the pay was right.

 

[luvn737s]

Getting rid of equipment pay differences would have other huge benefits. Airlines pay far too much to retrain pilots as they move up the chain of equipment over their careers. And rational mergers are avoided because of difficulties in integration.

Many airlines have broken their pay scales down to groups of aircraft. There are other ancillary benefits to be had by switching aircraft,especially when one type is shrinking while another is growing. Given that the simulators and instructional staff are fixed costs, there is little difference in cost between training 100 vs 200 pilots, aside from the money spent to pay them during training when they are unproductive. I do foresee a day when type ratings will be a prerequisite for employment and upgrades will be required to pay for their own training (payroll deducted, of course) under the mantra of portability of credentials.

 

[sfb]

With the cost advantage that U will have, they can begin dominating markets and setting the standards for price and service

Except...the only cost advantage to operating the E175 versus mainline aircraft is in trip cost, not CASM. Even US East's mainline CASM was lower than Republic's last quarter, and Republic doesn't pay for fuel under its contract with US Airways. And the real low-cost carriers (WN, FL, B6) will be even lower on CASM.

What are people going to choose? 31" pitch on an E175 or 32-33" pitch on a WN 737-700?

Given the fact that unions are esentially businesses too, why don't the AFA & ALPA get creative and create wages rates that allow the M/L Carrier to do the flying?

Why can't it be that way.

Well, from the airline perspective, this has the potential to dramatically increase pilot costs by eliminating a new hire cycle. In the current scheme, the major airlines (when they hire) get to pay "new" pilots hired in from the regionals at lower wages for several years. Under your scheme, they'd be several years up the pay scale upon transitioning from smaller jets to narrowbody mainline equipment.

Can anybody tell me why these aircraft must go to Republic. There is a furloughed workforce in excess of 1500 who have not been able to come back yet. Why are these aircraft being outsourced.

I suppose this will sound pessimistic, but if US Airways is turning in strong profits when the pilot (or flight attendant) contracts come up for renegotiation in a few years, operating those aircraft in-house could prove to be far more costly down the road. This tends to offload labor cost escalation issues to the regionals. Moreover, staffing these aircraft with furloughed mainline pilots means paying top-of-scale for many/most pilot positions, while pilots at Republic would generally be at lower steps on the scale.

 

[Old PSA]

What may be a major point at this time is the initial cost and liability of aircraft. While US maybe financially treading water right now and buying new aircraft, EMB-190, adding even more new aircraft may increase the cash flow out and the strain on the balance sheet to an unacceptable level. Also by changing from 50 to 86 seats adds additional available seats at what will probably be a small incremental cost. In fact, US might not even be adding new aircraft. The last 10 can used to replace existing 50 seaters. Another thought is, which is going to better to fly on, the 86 seat EMB175 or the 86 seat CJ90?

 

[chichi]

"Please remember we still have 1,594 pilots on furlough" .... from the ALPA code a phone.

Same ole S##T, different giveaway !

Thanks ALPA....thanks MECs.....thanks USAIRWAYS. I guess they will not stop until ALL FLYING is done by CONTRACT CARRIERS. What a freaking joke this company is. Instead of CACTUS.....the new call sign should be "SCREWED"

 

[Nebucanezzar]

I can see all of the "cost advantages" to outsourcing this flying but it just isn't right when folks are on the street. Why isn't there any value to doing what is "right" in corporate America. I guess business ethics went the way of the do do.

This isn't about pilot ego or pay...really it isn't...most want to be home with their families as much as possible, keep the jobs and the flying in house, and be paid a industry average wage that is commensurate with the amount of responsibility they bear.

I want US Airways to be the best airline in the world...that is my foremost desire. In my view that cannot be done by cutting out the men and women that make it possible. Alienating the folks who "do the work" by franchising out their jobs (on any scale)in order to set up a whipsaw labor negotiating tool is poor poor form. It is better to deal with worker/unions with transparency and collaborative spirit. Workers need to be viewed as "business associates" and not liabilities. Where there is harmony there will be the productivity neccessary to make US Airway great.

 

[EMBFA]

Just a couple quick points... one its cheaper to operate these 60 planes in house. Theres an EMB pay acale for pilots and the fact that youd bring back about 800 F/As (pretty much all the furloughess) that are B scale which is similar pay to commuters anyhow. Until the recall of 200 everyone was A scale. And right now these planes are still ground handled by mainline so they are not saving money that way. This is just a way to get rid of thier own employees and its disgusting.

I dont know why the MidAtlantic fiasco wasnt the last straw for me like it was for alot of other people. I stupidly thought maybe these West people were different- I've lost the ability to care about US Airways new or old! I'm not sitting on reserve making less than 20 grand a year for 20 years, being called a new hire by my co-workers, while I watch new hires get a block and a Pittsburgh base to fly my planes. Im not willing to go any lower I wont do it for 16K a year. If they want to go for it and if thats the kind of airline US wants to be I want no part of it---- I am so looking for a new job right now--

 

[Nebucanezzar]

Doug...if you are listening...please please please submit these aircraft for competitive bid by in house workgroups.

This would go a long way to making US Airways not only profitable but great.

If these aircraft go to Republic they will be operated by less experienced crews for costs that could be achieved "in house" In house would not only mitigate risk but add value to to the balance sheet and put us on track to being #1 in DOT statistics for a long long time.

Please do not give these aircraft away.

 

[700UW]

Too late, he all ready did.