jetcareers - View Single Post

Doug Taylor · February 10th, 2003, 08:13

[ QUOTE ]
I've heard that urban legend from quite a few people. I'm not trying to start a RJ/Mainline debate(I'll go over to FlightInfo for that!)....but Doug,you kinda tipped toed around my question. Would the mainline guys be willing to fly RJs under the current payscale and workrules?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, no need to tiptoe around on my own personal website!

An airplane is an airplane is an airplane when it comes to pilots. What would be an acceptable rate to fly the RJ's at? I have no idea, but that does bring up an interesting conversation though.

First things first, however, what determines the current work rules/pay scales? Do we look at Chautauqua, ASA, Skywest or Comair that operates RJ's, or do we look at establishing RJ-70/90 rates, comparing those with DC-9 series 10 and Fokker-100 rates and then scaling them down to match CL-200 and CL-700 rates?

Why do I bring up the DC-9 series 10? That aircraft carries about 70 seats or so and has an established payscale to determine 70 seat rates. From that starting point, you can adjust the 50 and 90 seat pay scales based on the "baby nine".

Would I fly a CL-700 at Mesa rates at mainline? Considering a employee at In-n-Out burger earns more than a Mesa CL-700 FO, umm no.

Comair rates? Considering a large contingient of the pilot group voted against the TA because they felt it wasn't enough to reach the pre-established 70 seat scale, I really can't answer that question either.

However, the notion that us high and mighty mainline pilots thumbed our nose at considering flying RJ's is hot steaming fecal matter from flightinfo.

Was the above a tip-toed response?

February 10th, 2003, 08:13	#31
Doug Taylor Agent Smith Join Date: Dec 1969 Location: KSDL Posts: 40,571 Blog Entries: 1	Re: Industry Outlook: [ QUOTE ] I've heard that urban legend from quite a few people. I'm not trying to start a RJ/Mainline debate(I'll go over to FlightInfo for that!)....but Doug,you kinda tipped toed around my question. Would the mainline guys be willing to fly RJs under the current payscale and workrules? [/ QUOTE ] Nah, no need to tiptoe around on my own personal website! An airplane is an airplane is an airplane when it comes to pilots. What would be an acceptable rate to fly the RJ's at? I have no idea, but that does bring up an interesting conversation though. First things first, however, what determines the current work rules/pay scales? Do we look at Chautauqua, ASA, Skywest or Comair that operates RJ's, or do we look at establishing RJ-70/90 rates, comparing those with DC-9 series 10 and Fokker-100 rates and then scaling them down to match CL-200 and CL-700 rates? Why do I bring up the DC-9 series 10? That aircraft carries about 70 seats or so and has an established payscale to determine 70 seat rates. From that starting point, you can adjust the 50 and 90 seat pay scales based on the "baby nine". Would I fly a CL-700 at Mesa rates at mainline? Considering a employee at In-n-Out burger earns more than a Mesa CL-700 FO, umm no. Comair rates? Considering a large contingient of the pilot group voted against the TA because they felt it wasn't enough to reach the pre-established 70 seat scale, I really can't answer that question either. However, the notion that us high and mighty mainline pilots thumbed our nose at considering flying RJ's is hot steaming fecal matter from flightinfo. Was the above a tip-toed response?