Back to Squawk list
  • -3

New Pilot Contract Allows American Eagle to Add Larger Embraer Planes to Fleet

प्रस्तुत
 
American Eagle, American Airlines’ regional carrier, announced on Friday that it had reached an agreement with its pilots union that allows it to add 60 new Embraer 175 aircraft to its fleet. The agreement calls for the addition of the new Embraer planes starting in early 2015 and gives Eagle the option to add up to 90 addition Embraer 175 jets if desired.... (www.frequentbusinesstraveler.com) और अधिक...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 4
It would be wise for mainline pilots (and their unions, as applicable) to allow regional airlines to fly larger planes.

1. First, flying more passengers allows regionals to pay their pilots better. We all benefit from adequately paid pilots. Even first-year pilots (co-pilots usu.) for regionals should be paid enough to be able to pay tier bills, and still be able to afford an hotel room before duty time when necessary.

2. Second, larger planes allows the airline* to be able to offer lower fares an be able to better compete in the marketplace.
(* by the airline I mean the mainline airline)

3. A regional airline that doesn't have costs artificially increased through collective bargaining agreements, that artificially limit the size of its' airplanes won't feel as much pressure to eliminate service to some destinations, in order to maintain profitability.

4. And lastly, bigger regional planes provide more feeder traffic into the mainline airline, which means either bigger planes and/or more flights on the mainline airline. That directly means more pilots and higher incomes for mainline pilots.


Notice that all the above rationales increase profitability at the mainline airline (and regional too). These also tend to create a safer environment for airline crews an passengers. And they tend to increase the pay and employment of mainline pilots.

The only safeguards the pilots should consider asking for and/or implementing would be flexible controls that maintain a mainline fleet that is a percentage of the entire sum of mainline and regional fleets, and that there be a clear definable difference in size between mainline planes and regional planes. (eg. All mainline planes will be larger than all regional planes.)

Then give management flexibility to implement policies that allow both mainline and regional airlines to grow profitably together, unceasing employment and pay scales at both.

Allowing regionals to grow up a bit and pay their pilots better, is overall better and hurts no one (no even mainline pilots if fleet size percentages are enforced).
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
I suspect that at some point the 1500 hour requirement will have to be modified to allow some pilots with fewer hours to start working. Most likely co-pilots at regionals will have their hour requirement reduced.

This would only happen after the regionals run out of pilots to hire. After many flights are canceled to many regional destinations.

Keeping the artificial and tight limits on regional plane size, only makes the major less competitive in the marketplace. It will also greatly aggravate the pending pilot shortage that will greatly impact regional airline operations.
Musketeer1
Musketeer1 2
I can see the new contract discussions now "Ok so we can't afford to pay you any more than the pennies you're making now, but we will let you have a higher responsibility and workload, aren't we great?"
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
The regionals will get squeezed between the new 1500 hour requirement for new hires and the majors hiring away their pilots to replace the wave of retirees.

The intro pay at the regionals will have to go up. There is just a minimal level of pay below which many will not even consider.

When you have hundreds or thousands applying for each empty seat, the regionals can get away with paying crap. That will change when they will have to start to cancel flights and routes because they run out of pilots.

Slightly larger regional jets allows:
1) more passengers to be carried
2) more money for pilots to be paid more
3) less reduction in network/ frequency
4) fewer regionals that go broke
5) slightly less cost disadvantage between majors and point to point LCCs.

As a control, mainline pilots can request:
1. Main control being a fleet size percentage control allowing the regional(s) to grow in size in direct proportion to the major
2. Secondary control should be simple and minor, but effective:
All mainline pilots get paid more than all pilots at the regionals.
All mainline planes are larger than all regional planes.

Then give them the flexibility to manage the majors as best they can. Otherwise US aviation may become a bunch of LCCs feeding codeshare traffic into foreign airlines.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, it's not perfect by a long shot, but for a company that was on the shutdown/spinoff block prior to the merger, it may put the employees in better shape than some of the other regionals. As a wholly owned unit of American and with the flow through process for promotion, they may have an edge.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
The flow through would make it a favorite for pilot candidates.

But all (most?) regionals need to improve the starting pay for pilots. Pilots need to ve able to afford to live and bit worry that they ard not able to afford a room the night before their duty time. A bunk bed crash pad is not adequate for a pilot that needs to fly many segments the next day with many lives on the line.
preacher1
preacher1 2
I have heard all the horror stories about pay but STARTING PAY is what needs to be addressed specifically. I'm a thinkin' after you are there awhile that it is not starvation wages. It may not be main line standards but it ain't all that shabby. I know some guys that have been flying regional a long while and have no intention of trying to change. These guys are not beginners and I know they don't work cheap. By the same token, most of these guys have 10years+ and are Captains.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Steps up to over $100k after some years.

But starting pay is poor at many regionals.

When the regionals get squeezed, they'll have to entice new pilot candidates with increasing starting pay.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
* NOT worry about affording a room the night before flight duty.
chapmad
chapmad 1
It's important to note that the TA has not been ratified by the pilot group. The back-slapping shown in the article here and by a press release from the AE cabin crew union is premature. Sentiment among Eagle pilots is that the vote will be very, very close if not outright no, with high participation.

The upward pressure (in principle) on pilot wages from the 1500-hour rule is yet to be evidenced, especially since the pilots of one regional airline have already accepted lower compensation (PSA) and another just rejected a TA with lower compensation (ExpressJet). Furthermore, there is also a sentiment amongst Eagle pilots that ALPA is not providing adequate representation to regional interests because the senior leadership there consists mostly of mainline-affiliated pilots.

There is little basis to the assertion that flying larger equipment improves wages for regional pilots. Again, it's just a principle, one that is time honored at the majors only...you fly a larger airplane, you make more money. But, the entire structure and methodology of regional airlines is to compete for larger and larger contracts by undercutting other regionals. It is the precise example of an industry race to the bottom.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
> "There is little basis to the assertion that flying larger equipment improves wages for regional pilots."

I would concede that there is no guarantee.

But the relationship is easy to understand between the number of pasengers and the possible wages for the crew.

A 747 or 777 pilot can be paid much higher wage, than a pilot with 6 passengers (unless those 6 passengers pay a fare that is much higher than anyone on either airliner - each have way more than 6 first class seat). That's simply not a workable model as a feeder service.

Recently with higher cost of fuel, the fuel cost per pasengers on some of the smaller regional flights is unsustainable and unprofitable.

You can't pay your pilots more with non-existing money.

But if the regional can fly larger regional jets, the revenue from flying more passengers can help to not only pay for the extra fuel, but also contribute to better wages.

You can't get blood out of a stone. If the plane sizes are kept artificially low, there will continue to be pressure on wage concessions to bring the operations back to profitability.

In most businesses, you can't stay in business for long if you're losing money. Don't know how it was tolerated for so long in the airline industry, but it won't be tolerated going forward. Too many investors have lost most or all of their investments in airlines. The tolerance for losing money in airlines has disappeared.

The ULCC model is very profitable, but the low fares put pressure on the fares traditional airlines can get away with charging. That in turn, limits the salaries. Especially on regional airlines, where you have fewer people paying a share of the fuel. Having extra passengers makes the greatest impact on smaller planes, where every fare counts.

----
So basically: anyone who prevents the regionals from operating a larger plane, can't then complain about the wages.
preacher1
preacher1 2
That is one hellacious analogy. What will be interesting to see is where that extra money goes. Will it in fact go for wages or into the airline coffers. Pilots have been an expendable product to date. The future will be interesting.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Too often the saving goes toward the salaries of managers who have won concessions. I've have the belief that if concessions were necessary for workers because of market conditions, then the managers should face similar concessions. Recently the pendulum have swung too far in form of the incredulous disparity in pay between your average worker and top management.

But that doesn't excuse the laws of physics or basic mathematics.

If there isn't enough money to pay for fuel, then there's nothing extra for pilots, managers or profit.

Simple logic.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
As far as pilots being expendable, I haven't sewn a commercial passenger airliner take off without a pilot.

In an industry where pilots have stepped to over $200k salary a year is not an industry where pilots are expendable.

That both management and unions have both dealt with the high cost of flight crew costs by drastically reducing the starting pay if pilots (especially on regionals). Everyone, including the senior pilots on mainline airlines have turned their backs on the new pilots starting out at the regionals.
preacher1
preacher1 1
People in general are expendable in the eyes of a CEO or business owner. There is no security anymore. No, planes won't fly without pilots, but look at all the planes that are parked and pilots furloughed in the name of the bottom line.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
It's a balance of costs and fares.

If not enough passengers are willing to pay adequate fares to pay for regular operation of the flight, then it makes sense not to fly it.

If pilots bid up their pay so high that, the fares the market is willing to bare won't pay for the recent high fuel costs nor pay for cost of the crew, then the motivation to fly that plane is greatly diminished.

Newer more fuel efficient planes helps in this respect (for those airlines that own them) or makes the problem worse for airlines with gas guzzlers.

The same with labor cost. Concessions will make more flights economically feasible. In the alternative, airlines set up lower cost divisions, or use subcontract to regional airlines to make more flights in each respective category feasible.

Airlines with lower structural costs make life more difficult for airlines with higher IATA and their employees.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
To your other point, with the competive environment as it exists today globally, enterprises can't afford to keep employees around that aren't an essential part of their service offering.

Companies are not governmentalemployment programs. Those companies that keep late numbers of employees around that don't have important functions to perform, tend to get destined in the marketplace, and frequently find themselves in bankruptcy.
chapmad
chapmad 1
I think you're arguing in generalities which don't apply to regional airlines. LCC/ULCC models aren't relevant because regional airlines are not selling tickets to consumers. They are contractors attempting to out-bid each other for contracts to operate flights for mainlines. The only thing relevant is that LCCs and regionals both cut costs agressively.

Regionals are paid on what's basically a per-flight basis to operate flights under the mainline banner. The get the same revenue for a flight regardless of the number of tickets sold on the flight. Regionals can only increase profitability by cutting costs and getting new contracts, since their revenue is fixed per their contracts. Once lower costs for labor are established, the company can go after new contracts agressively. In other words, the management of a regional airline has the cynical end game of operating 90-seat jets and being paid 90-seats of revenue from mainline while offering 70-seat compensation to its pilots. This erodes compensation for pilots industry-wide, so basically, the Eagle pilots are saying they won't operate bigger jets more cheaply than their counterparts because that hurts all pilots in the industry.

You also mentioned scope. Scope refers to the clause in a pilot group's contract that lays out what kinds of airplanes the pilots will operate for the company, generally specified as a number of seats. Regional and mainline pilot groups each set their own scope appropriately. Mainline pilots want to keep as much flying in-house as possible and keep their seniority list from stagnating, but that's balanced by their desire to maintain their compensation and quality of life. Most (not all) regional pilots have the inevitable goal of moving on to a major airline to enjoy the better pay and quality of life, so there's something resembling collusion between major and regional pilot unions to maintain the largest balance of flying at the majors and keep regionals from operating "mainline equipment" more cheaply.

This isn't a debate about what's best for consumers who demand to fly cheaply. The issue is intolerable living conditions for pilots. These conditions have been created by something inherent to the business model of regional airlines. Yes, there are regional pilots who can make $100k, but those are people who have invested 15 years at the same airline waiting for flowthrough that never happened, or have been furloughed too many times and don't have enough years left in their careers to start over from the bottom again at a new company.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
A few points.

ULCC/LCC are very relevant. The regionals may not have to sell tickets, but the mainline does have to place butts in those seats to maintain the flight on the schedule.

Small regional jets have some of the highest per seat furl costs in the business. If Southwest can fly a passenger on a 737 and JetBlue on a A320 or a larger regional jet, for half the cost of a mainline airline flying that same passenger on a regional airline's small regional jet, eventually the proportion of flights will change as the market choose the better product for less money.

People hate small planes. They hate them even more when the fares are much more expensive.

Mainline pilots are just as responsible as management and the unions for the low starting salaries at the regionals. Everyone always seems more concerned about their own slice of cheese, but are willing to negotiate the other pilots' cheese. They're not around yet to object. Plus many will accept almost any employment condition to join the conveyor belt that leads to the lavish pay at the majors. Everyone is colluding to make the new guys suffer for future potential rewards.

The majors set up the regionals to find more competitive pricing. Note how the most financially successful airlines today are much more likely to be ULCCs or LCCs, and not mainline majors.

It's not like regionals low salaries are keeping the majors cost structure below that of the LCC/ULCC's. Even with cutting the regional's salaries to the bone, the majors still have higher cost structures, most having been forced through bankruptcy too.

Keeping regionals costs artificially high doesn't create more jobs at the mainline airlines. Ironically, it creates more jobs at Southwest, JetBlue, Emirates, and the vast myriad of every other domestic low cost airline and every other non-legacy new and expanding foreign carrier.

No amount of wishing it weren't true will change it. Any collective bargaining agreement that colludes to make any aspect of your organization's cost structure artificially high will have future costs in terms of reduced employment, salary and benefit concessions, financial stability and potential non-existence of the entire enterprise.

Some people want to force their collectively bargained rainbows and sunshine view on everyone else. The only problem is that no one else is willing to play along, least of which your more aggressive competitors. They are perfectly willing to create fast growing enterprises that are customer focused, providing excellence in service and lower fares, and work places that their employees enjoy working.

The whole world is unwilling to subjugate their well-being to whatever fantasy some negotiators are selling. If your management and union are willing to collude, and create an environment that is hostile, where the employees don't enjoy their work, where the customers don't feel appreciated, and where the costs are high and the fares too.

The collusion has already done much damage. Every participant is equally to blame.

The majors are experiencing a brief respite as the market shifts to adjust to the recent and massive consolidation in the industry over the last half decade. Now is not the time to feel complacent. The majors ard profitable for now. But many, many lower cost and/or higher service options or both, are coming online not only domestically, but also globally.

The current situation may not last long. It is not even certain that the majors will be able to exist in a future competitive landscape. Imagine many JetBlues feeding lots of traffic more efficiently to many Emirates. They can undermine the majors operational model. Lots of codeshares can provide the additional benefits of connections, without the additional costs of the majors' operations.

Making it hard for mainlines to control their total cost structure by keeping their regional costs artificially high, will only make majors less competive.

If the employees and managers collude to make their enterprise less relevant to customers, don't expect others to save your hide.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
A powerful control that mainline pilots could use us the 'no furlough' rule. As long as flights are being contracted out to regionals, mainline pilots won't be furloughed. Flight activity would have to moved up to mainline to sustain all mailline crew without need for furlough.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
It would be wise for mainline pilots (and their unions, as applicable) to allow regional airlines to fly larger planes.

1. First, flying more passengers allows regionals to pay their pilots better. We all benefit from adequately paid pilots. Even first-year pilots (co-pilots usu.) for regionals should be paid enough to be able to pay tier bills, and still be able to afford an hotel room before duty time when necessary.

2. Second, larger planes allows the airline* to be able to offer lower fares an be able to better compete in the marketplace.
(* by the airline I mean the mainline airline)

3. A regional airline that doesn't have costs artificially increased through collective bargaining agreements, that artificially limit the size of its' airplanes won't feel as much pressure to eliminate service to some destinations, in order to maintain profitability.

4. And lastly, bigger regional planes provide more feeder traffic into the mainline airline, which means either bigger planes and/or more flights on the mainline airline. That directly means more pilots and higher incomes for mainline pilots.


Notice that all the above rationales increase profitability at the mainline airline (and regional too). These also tend to create a safer environment for airline crews an passengers. And they tend to increase the pay and employment of mainline pilots.

The only safeguards the pilots should consider asking for and/or implementing would be flexible controls that maintain a mainline fleet that is a percentage of the entire sum of mainline and regional fleets, and that there be a clear definablee
justindpilot
justindpilot 1
Vote NO! Don't help bring down the industry.

लॉगिन

क्या आपका कोई खाता नहीं है? अनुकूलित विशेषताओं, फ्लाइट अलर्टों,और अधिक के लिए अब(नि:शुल्क) रजिस्टर करें!
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.
Dismiss