Industry Outlook: - Page 2

Doug Taylor · February 9th, 2003, 23:26

[ QUOTE ]
Even though this may piss off Doug....I have a little problem with answer B though......the RJs have been offered to mainline pilots,however they turned their noses up at the payscales and schedules needed to make these airplanes profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would piss me off if it were true and I had feelings on the issue, but that is the goofiest urban legend on earth.

We were willing to negotiation RJ-50 and RJ-70 wages, but management had absolutely no interest in entering talks back in 1999.

They had all the intentions in the world of creating several various pilot groups which could be whipsawed against one another in order to keep the entire wage structure depressed.

Whoever told you that we supposedly "thumbed our nose" at the RJ doesn't know what the hell he's talking about and if he disagrees, have him contact me about his sources.

And I'm serious.

A320_DUDE · February 10th, 2003, 00:17

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even though this may piss off Doug....I have a little problem with answer B though......the RJs have been offered to mainline pilots,however they turned their noses up at the payscales and schedules needed to make these airplanes profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would piss me off if it were true and I had feelings on the issue, but that is the goofiest urban legend on earth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kinda like the urban legend that JBlu doesn't pay for it's airplanes? (low blow,sorry!)

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?

aloft · February 10th, 2003, 01:22

That raises an interesting question: what would a rate acceptable to mainline pilots for 50 and 70 seat jets look like? I don't know the formula used now to determine rates for larger jets--Doug?

flyguy · February 10th, 2003, 01:26

[ QUOTE ]
Let me tell you a little story flyguy,.....one day back when I was a neophyte CSA at American Airlines I was booking as passenger to Fayetteville AR(XNA). At the time AA (actually AE) was running a mix of S340s and ERJs. The passenger has a shot at a reduced one way fare of about 650 bucks if he connected to the Saab......or pay full fare of over 1000 bucks for the RJ. He paid for the RJ......he didn't want anything to do with one of those "propeller planes". I'm gonna say this (please nobody take offense to this!) but 99.9% of the time passengers have NO CLUE what kind of airplane they are getting on......

[/ QUOTE ]

That's my point. Most people don't know the difference between a CRJ and a 737. They know the difference between jets and props. Tell them they are getting on a jet and they will be happy - until they get on the jet and realize that the seats are smaller, don't recline as far, there is no entertainment whatsoever, minimal beverage/snack service etc.etc.etc., i.e., not much different than a turboprop. And why do they hate the turboprops anyway? Because they think they are unsafe? Perhaps, but more likely because they are uncomfortable. By the way, one passenger dosn't represent 99.9% of the population. Also, you didn't see that passenger after he got on the plane. How do you know he was satisfied? Tell them they're getting on a jet and they are okay until they realize that the inside is not much different than those props that they hate so much. Not many people have been on RJs so they don't know the difference, but more and more they are going to start to realize that they are nothing more than jet versions of the little props that they used to refuse to get on.

I agree with you that they are here to stay, but I disagree that they are going to replace domestic mainline aircraft. They are going to replace the turboprops and serve the same niche that the turboprops served. They do have more extended routes than turboprops, but the only reason for that is that they are faster and can go farther in the same amount of time. It used to be that turboprops would get a pax from Smalltownville A to a major city where the pax connected to a mainline to another major city where they would get on another turboprop to get to Smalltownville B. Now we have regional jets that get a pax from Smalltownville A directly to the second major city, eliminating a leg from the trip. It beats driving from Smalltownville to a major city but people want comfort if they are going to be on the plane for a pretty long time. Now, if airlines were to renovate thier RJs so that they are as comfortable and enjoyable to fly on as a 737 or comporable, and add first class sections, then they might have something, but that would mean eliminating seats so there goes the cost effectiveness.

Timbuff10 · February 10th, 2003, 03:15

I sat in a CRJ last week for the first time and I have to say the window seats were pretty uncomfortable. I am 6'5" and its not just that my legs dont fit in the seat (that is nothing new to me on airplanes) but my head doesnt fit. I have to lean over into the seat beside me because the roof is so low over the window seats.

I could deal with that for maybe an hour but after that I would rather go to the back and sit on the can for the rest of the trip!

I do however fit perfectly fine in the seat that matters... the cockpit

) plenty of room once the seat is reclined.

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?

aloft · February 10th, 2003, 13:02

What are/were the rates for the DC-9 series 10?

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

I'm not sure because I don't have Northwest's current pay rate sheet.

Snow · February 10th, 2003, 22:34

[ QUOTE ]
That's my point. Most people don't know the difference between a CRJ and a 737

[/ QUOTE ]

Hum well I think the lack of air stairs is a pretty good indication that it's not a major airliner, espically if you have to run out in the rain to board the plane! People may not know a great deal about planes but they certianly would notice the differences of boarding a mainline and a regional aircraft.

Plus I must be in the .1 % because I love flying on turboprops

pavelump · February 11th, 2003, 09:48

[ QUOTE ]
Hum well I think the lack of air stairs is a pretty good indication that it's not a major airliner, espically if you have to run out in the rain to board the plane! People may not know a great deal about planes but they certianly would notice the differences of boarding a mainline and a regional aircraft.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but to the people in the smaller airports that's nothing new... What is attractive is the possiblility of not having to fly to a hub and wait around for a couple of hours for your connecting flight and hoping that your luggage made it from one plane to the next.

I think that people would rather sit in a CRJ for 3-4 hours to get to their destination than have to fly for 1-2 to a hub, wait for another 2 and then finallly board the plane and sit on the taxi way for 45 minutes and finally fly for another 2 ro 3 hours to thier destination. At least I would.

The upside to this approach is that there would be a need for more RJs to form new direct routes and pilots to fly them. The downside is that there probably won't be as many large flights from hub to hub which means fewer 'mainline' flights/pilots.

Throw in the growth of the fractionals and that might prove for a very different looking industry over the next several years.

On that subject, does anybody believe the "60,000 pilots will retire over the next few years (or whatever it is)" spiel? What about that? How does that fit into things? I've been hearing that thrown around for the last 15 years.

Dave

flyguy · February 11th, 2003, 14:32

[ QUOTE ]
Hum well I think the lack of air stairs is a pretty good indication that it's not a major airliner, espically if you have to run out in the rain to board the plane! People may not know a great deal about planes but they certianly would notice the differences of boarding a mainline and a regional aircraft.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shush...You know what I meant.

I meant at the ticket counter they won't know what kind of plane it is until they see it at the gate.

Androol · February 12th, 2003, 07:45

People DO notice a difference. I was talking to a Delta crew in the hotel van the other day and they said Delta had lost some travel contracts with some Atlanta companies because Delta had pulled a lot of mainline aircraft off the routes and replaced them with RJs. AirTran got the contracts because the 717/DC-9s have a first class section whereas the RJs don't.

I used to work a real job that required a lot of traveling and my associates considered the ability to use frequent flier miles to upgrade to first class a VERY important perk. They would go out of their way to avoid RJs because of that reason (it was easier to do that back then). This company and my co-workers were the types who make up the bread and butter of the full-fare airline industry - the short notice, frequent flier, full fare business traveler.

Personally I think you will begin to see an RJ backlash in this country. They ARE great for thin routes, bypassing hubs, and to suppliment service. But all too often they are increasingly being used to fly between hubs and major cities and on longer routes. I think Air Tran has the right idea and a great airplane to compete against the RJs. I don't think it will be too long before others catch on.

As for the theme of this threas, I think the recovery will depend largly on Iraq. If this two year occupation of Iraq that was mention yesterday comes true, I think you will see several airlines file Chapter 11 and one or two biggies fail. I also think you will begin to see a major collapse of the economy. If this thing is over quickly you will begin to see things turn around for most airlines. I think most industry analysts predict Continental, Northwest and Delta, in that order, will be the first to return to profitability. United, USAirways and American being the last - if they survive.

Doug Taylor · February 12th, 2003, 07:53

Air Tran ordered 100 717's recently. Wow!

stuckingfk · February 12th, 2003, 10:56

I read somewhere that the 717's are one of the cheapest operating airplanes per seat mile, even cheaper than the regional jets. Has anyone else heard this?

pavelump · February 12th, 2003, 10:58

[ QUOTE ]
Air Tran ordered 100 717's recently. Wow!

[/ QUOTE ]

isn't that basically the MD-80 (or 90?)

A320_DUDE · February 12th, 2003, 12:16

Actually the 717 is a updated version of the DC-9-30 series.

Doug Taylor · February 12th, 2003, 21:39

[ QUOTE ]
I read somewhere that the 717's are one of the cheapest operating airplanes per seat mile, even cheaper than the regional jets. Has anyone else heard this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, MD-80s and 757s have a lower seat cost per mile than an RJ.

DCI RJ's are around 14 cents and an aircraft like a 757 is around 9 to 10 cents

BrettInLJ · February 13th, 2003, 15:19

What are everyone's thoughts on what would happen if the average airline pilot's salary was half of what it is these days? Lets say budget airlines with much lower payscales and less pilot-friendly contracts dominate the industry in five to ten years. Do you think there would be a shortage of pilots?

Personally I don't think so, because there will always be people waiting in line for an airline job because it is such a passion for so many pilots. Maybe the average experience level when they are hired will be lower, but I don't think safety would be compromised given proper training. I grew up in an airline family and I know pilots are not overpaid, so I don't know what the result would (will?) be.

I hope the economy gets even more global after it recovers and people start making friends overseas more so there will always be a growing demand for the big-iron transoceanic flights. That way after flying CRJ's for 15-20 years, a senior captain can hope to move up to those flights and start making a salary in the low 100's (scary thought but that's what the future may hold).

Doug Taylor · February 13th, 2003, 15:29

I dunno, if I was paid half of what I earn, knowing what I know now and seeing what I've seen over the years, I'd probably look into a different field.

This job is hard on your personal life, physical condition and most airline pilots only live a few years after mandatory retirement. The "Death Notice" boards at work are filled with captains that retired a few years ago that died of various reasons.

$50,000/year seems like a lot of money to kids fresh out of college, but considering a Honda will run you $30,000 and an average starter home in PHX is roughly $200,000, $1,300 every two weeks after taxes doesn't go very far.

Yes, I still have a burning passion for aviation, but by no means am I going to let my desire to fly be manipulated by some geek MBA that wants me to work for appreciably less money so he can get a bonus from the board of directors.

A320_DUDE · February 13th, 2003, 22:24

[ QUOTE ]
I dunno, if I was paid half of what I earn, knowing what I know now and seeing what I've seen over the years, I'd probably look into a different field.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know when I tell people (non-aviation folks) what I plan to do for a living....thats exactly the what they tell me...."look into something else". When I tell people that are in the industry what my plans are.....the reaction is totally different. They're telling me their own stories,and give out some great advice. Hell I've made more friends in the last 4 years than I can count! That's one thing that will help this industry pull though.....the people. No matter how bad the news is....layoffs,paycuts,bankruptcies....whatever we still bust ass to keep our planes flying.

That's why I'm really not worried.....UA ans US may fall,nobody wants to see that but it is a possibilty.....but the industry as a whole will stay somewhat intact. What people don't relize is that this happens every 10 to 15 years....the industry goes though a very bad slump. The last time Pan Am and Eastern fell. But the industry got better and stronger. It will happen again.......sure the pay will be lower than before,and will be flying smaller airplanes than before....but the industry will survive.

secretapproach · February 14th, 2003, 04:21

[ QUOTE ]
This job is hard on your personal life, physical condition and most airline pilots only live a few years after mandatory retirement. The "Death Notice" boards at work are filled with captains that retired a few years ago that died of various reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa! That's a new one for me. Hey, I'm all for low pay, and eating mac and cheese (mmmmmmm...mac and cheese) for a while because I think I would enjoy the private to instructor to airline route. But death!?! Are there any statistics on that anywhere? What are they dying of? Any specific diseases? Loneliness after having a tough personal life? Being alone can make people sick.

mpenguin1 · February 14th, 2003, 08:56

One of the Boeing 717 instructors is standing over my shoulder, here is a little bit about the 717, Cliff you are on:

Major differences on the 717,
Full Glass Cockpit with six 8"x"8 liquid crystal displays.
FADEC controlled Engines (tremendous fuel savings).
Primary Navigation provided by Two ADIRU using satellite
Unlinking communications.
Dependent FMS Aircraft (FMS must be functional for
Dispatch -Boeing Style FMS- No European).
Totally re-designed Electrical System.
Totally re-designed overhead, center instrument, pedestal
Panels.
Factory equipped with mandatory installed Cargo Smoke
Detection system.
Alerting system is incorporated in the Electronic Display
System on DU (Display Unit) # 3.

Doug Taylor · February 14th, 2003, 11:18

Well, the theories are:

a. Extreme amounts of "basic?" radiation
b. More exposure to UV radiation
c. Bad effects of having a broken circadian rhythm (especially true with me)
d. More exposure to pathogens (de-ice fluid, passenger-borne viruses, etc)
e. Big time stress.
f. Diet (or lack thereof)

AirborneMedic_ANGa10 · February 14th, 2003, 14:02

Not to mention the basic day of a pilot...

1)Get up and report
2)do paperwork
3)do walk-around (the most physically strenuous activity of the day)
4)sit down and fly for hours
5)get to layover city
6)boy, I'm hungry; grab greasy prepared food
7)sure am tired...go to bed
8)wake up...start at #1 and repeat for 3 more days
9)Get home; eat 'real' food...go back to bed

It's a friggin' recipe for disaster

Doug Taylor · February 14th, 2003, 14:08

I think the worst part of the whole 'rest' issue is that when I get to a layover city, my brain is still traveling at 550 mph. So I get into Kansas City at 11:30pm at night, spend another 30 minutes deplaning and putting the aircraft "to sleep", usually arrive at the hotel at 12:15am (short layover hotel), then get checked in and get to the room (12:30am).

Then I spend the next 2 to 3 hours wide awake flipping thru the 8 cable channels the hotel has, or peruse the latest posting on jetcareers, force myself to go to sleep around 3:00am. Sleep until about 9am, #####/shower/shave, and be ready for pickup downstairs at 9:30am for a 10:55am pushback.

Keep in mind that my body is in west coast time and we do a lot of east coast flying at times! Ack!

Or my favorite is a 4:45 pickup in NYC for a 6:15am pushback. My body thinks it's 1:45am at pickup and 3:15am at pushback.

February 9th, 2003, 23:26	#26
Doug Taylor Agent Smith Join Date: Dec 1969 Location: KSDL Posts: 39,931 Blog Entries: 1	Re: Industry Outlook: [ QUOTE ] Even though this may piss off Doug....I have a little problem with answer B though......the RJs have been offered to mainline pilots,however they turned their noses up at the payscales and schedules needed to make these airplanes profitable. [/ QUOTE ] It would piss me off if it were true and I had feelings on the issue, but that is the goofiest urban legend on earth. We were willing to negotiation RJ-50 and RJ-70 wages, but management had absolutely no interest in entering talks back in 1999. They had all the intentions in the world of creating several various pilot groups which could be whipsawed against one another in order to keep the entire wage structure depressed. Whoever told you that we supposedly "thumbed our nose" at the RJ doesn't know what the hell he's talking about and if he disagrees, have him contact me about his sources. And I'm serious.

February 10th, 2003, 00:17	#27
A320_DUDE Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Hartford,CT Posts: 203	Re: Industry Outlook: [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Even though this may piss off Doug....I have a little problem with answer B though......the RJs have been offered to mainline pilots,however they turned their noses up at the payscales and schedules needed to make these airplanes profitable. [/ QUOTE ] It would piss me off if it were true and I had feelings on the issue, but that is the goofiest urban legend on earth. [/ QUOTE ] Kinda like the urban legend that JBlu doesn't pay for it's airplanes? (low blow,sorry!) 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?

February 10th, 2003, 01:22	#28
aloft Old Skool Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Inside your OODA loop Posts: 6,737	Re: Industry Outlook: That raises an interesting question: what would a rate acceptable to mainline pilots for 50 and 70 seat jets look like? I don't know the formula used now to determine rates for larger jets--Doug?

February 10th, 2003, 01:26	#29
flyguy Old Skool Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 2,074	Re: Industry Outlook: [ QUOTE ] Let me tell you a little story flyguy,.....one day back when I was a neophyte CSA at American Airlines I was booking as passenger to Fayetteville AR(XNA). At the time AA (actually AE) was running a mix of S340s and ERJs. The passenger has a shot at a reduced one way fare of about 650 bucks if he connected to the Saab......or pay full fare of over 1000 bucks for the RJ. He paid for the RJ......he didn't want anything to do with one of those "propeller planes". I'm gonna say this (please nobody take offense to this!) but 99.9% of the time passengers have NO CLUE what kind of airplane they are getting on...... [/ QUOTE ] That's my point. Most people don't know the difference between a CRJ and a 737. They know the difference between jets and props. Tell them they are getting on a jet and they will be happy - until they get on the jet and realize that the seats are smaller, don't recline as far, there is no entertainment whatsoever, minimal beverage/snack service etc.etc.etc., i.e., not much different than a turboprop. And why do they hate the turboprops anyway? Because they think they are unsafe? Perhaps, but more likely because they are uncomfortable. By the way, one passenger dosn't represent 99.9% of the population. Also, you didn't see that passenger after he got on the plane. How do you know he was satisfied? Tell them they're getting on a jet and they are okay until they realize that the inside is not much different than those props that they hate so much. Not many people have been on RJs so they don't know the difference, but more and more they are going to start to realize that they are nothing more than jet versions of the little props that they used to refuse to get on. I agree with you that they are here to stay, but I disagree that they are going to replace domestic mainline aircraft. They are going to replace the turboprops and serve the same niche that the turboprops served. They do have more extended routes than turboprops, but the only reason for that is that they are faster and can go farther in the same amount of time. It used to be that turboprops would get a pax from Smalltownville A to a major city where the pax connected to a mainline to another major city where they would get on another turboprop to get to Smalltownville B. Now we have regional jets that get a pax from Smalltownville A directly to the second major city, eliminating a leg from the trip. It beats driving from Smalltownville to a major city but people want comfort if they are going to be on the plane for a pretty long time. Now, if airlines were to renovate thier RJs so that they are as comfortable and enjoyable to fly on as a 737 or comporable, and add first class sections, then they might have something, but that would mean eliminating seats so there goes the cost effectiveness.

February 10th, 2003, 03:15	#30
Timbuff10 Old Skool Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Coloradan in Orange County, CA Posts: 3,234	Re: Industry Outlook: I sat in a CRJ last week for the first time and I have to say the window seats were pretty uncomfortable. I am 6'5" and its not just that my legs dont fit in the seat (that is nothing new to me on airplanes) but my head doesnt fit. I have to lean over into the seat beside me because the roof is so low over the window seats. I could deal with that for maybe an hour but after that I would rather go to the back and sit on the can for the rest of the trip! I do however fit perfectly fine in the seat that matters... the cockpit ) plenty of room once the seat is reclined.

February 10th, 2003, 08:13	#31
Doug Taylor Agent Smith Join Date: Dec 1969 Location: KSDL Posts: 39,931 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?

February 10th, 2003, 13:02	#32
aloft Old Skool Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Inside your OODA loop Posts: 6,737	Re: Industry Outlook: What are/were the rates for the DC-9 series 10?

February 10th, 2003, 13:13	#33
Doug Taylor Agent Smith Join Date: Dec 1969 Location: KSDL Posts: 39,931 Blog Entries: 1	Re: Industry Outlook: I'm not sure because I don't have Northwest's current pay rate sheet.

February 10th, 2003, 22:34	#34
Snow Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 869	Re: Industry Outlook: [ QUOTE ] That's my point. Most people don't know the difference between a CRJ and a 737 [/ QUOTE ] Hum well I think the lack of air stairs is a pretty good indication that it's not a major airliner, espically if you have to run out in the rain to board the plane! People may not know a great deal about planes but they certianly would notice the differences of boarding a mainline and a regional aircraft. Plus I must be in the .1 % because I love flying on turboprops

February 11th, 2003, 09:48	#35
pavelump Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 790	Re: Industry Outlook: [ QUOTE ] Hum well I think the lack of air stairs is a pretty good indication that it's not a major airliner, espically if you have to run out in the rain to board the plane! People may not know a great deal about planes but they certianly would notice the differences of boarding a mainline and a regional aircraft. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, but to the people in the smaller airports that's nothing new... What is attractive is the possiblility of not having to fly to a hub and wait around for a couple of hours for your connecting flight and hoping that your luggage made it from one plane to the next. I think that people would rather sit in a CRJ for 3-4 hours to get to their destination than have to fly for 1-2 to a hub, wait for another 2 and then finallly board the plane and sit on the taxi way for 45 minutes and finally fly for another 2 ro 3 hours to thier destination. At least I would. The upside to this approach is that there would be a need for more RJs to form new direct routes and pilots to fly them. The downside is that there probably won't be as many large flights from hub to hub which means fewer 'mainline' flights/pilots. Throw in the growth of the fractionals and that might prove for a very different looking industry over the next several years. On that subject, does anybody believe the "60,000 pilots will retire over the next few years (or whatever it is)" spiel? What about that? How does that fit into things? I've been hearing that thrown around for the last 15 years. Dave

February 11th, 2003, 14:32	#36
flyguy Old Skool Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 2,074	Re: Industry Outlook: [ QUOTE ] Hum well I think the lack of air stairs is a pretty good indication that it's not a major airliner, espically if you have to run out in the rain to board the plane! People may not know a great deal about planes but they certianly would notice the differences of boarding a mainline and a regional aircraft. [/ QUOTE ] Shush...You know what I meant. I meant at the ticket counter they won't know what kind of plane it is until they see it at the gate.

February 12th, 2003, 07:45	#37
Androol Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 35	Re: Industry Outlook: People DO notice a difference. I was talking to a Delta crew in the hotel van the other day and they said Delta had lost some travel contracts with some Atlanta companies because Delta had pulled a lot of mainline aircraft off the routes and replaced them with RJs. AirTran got the contracts because the 717/DC-9s have a first class section whereas the RJs don't. I used to work a real job that required a lot of traveling and my associates considered the ability to use frequent flier miles to upgrade to first class a VERY important perk. They would go out of their way to avoid RJs because of that reason (it was easier to do that back then). This company and my co-workers were the types who make up the bread and butter of the full-fare airline industry - the short notice, frequent flier, full fare business traveler. Personally I think you will begin to see an RJ backlash in this country. They ARE great for thin routes, bypassing hubs, and to suppliment service. But all too often they are increasingly being used to fly between hubs and major cities and on longer routes. I think Air Tran has the right idea and a great airplane to compete against the RJs. I don't think it will be too long before others catch on. As for the theme of this threas, I think the recovery will depend largly on Iraq. If this two year occupation of Iraq that was mention yesterday comes true, I think you will see several airlines file Chapter 11 and one or two biggies fail. I also think you will begin to see a major collapse of the economy. If this thing is over quickly you will begin to see things turn around for most airlines. I think most industry analysts predict Continental, Northwest and Delta, in that order, will be the first to return to profitability. United, USAirways and American being the last - if they survive.

February 12th, 2003, 07:53	#38
Doug Taylor Agent Smith Join Date: Dec 1969 Location: KSDL Posts: 39,931 Blog Entries: 1	Re: Industry Outlook: Air Tran ordered 100 717's recently. Wow!

February 12th, 2003, 10:56	#39
stuckingfk Old Skool Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: El Forko Grande Posts: 2,556	Re: Industry Outlook: I read somewhere that the 717's are one of the cheapest operating airplanes per seat mile, even cheaper than the regional jets. Has anyone else heard this?

February 12th, 2003, 10:58	#40
pavelump Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 790	Re: Industry Outlook: [ QUOTE ] Air Tran ordered 100 717's recently. Wow! [/ QUOTE ] isn't that basically the MD-80 (or 90?)

February 12th, 2003, 12:16	#41
A320_DUDE Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Hartford,CT Posts: 203	Re: Industry Outlook: Actually the 717 is a updated version of the DC-9-30 series.

February 12th, 2003, 21:39	#42
Doug Taylor Agent Smith Join Date: Dec 1969 Location: KSDL Posts: 39,931 Blog Entries: 1	Re: Industry Outlook: [ QUOTE ] I read somewhere that the 717's are one of the cheapest operating airplanes per seat mile, even cheaper than the regional jets. Has anyone else heard this? [/ QUOTE ] Actually, MD-80s and 757s have a lower seat cost per mile than an RJ. DCI RJ's are around 14 cents and an aircraft like a 757 is around 9 to 10 cents

February 13th, 2003, 15:19	#43
BrettInLJ Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Home:SFO Work:MSP Posts: 1,035	Re: Industry Outlook: What are everyone's thoughts on what would happen if the average airline pilot's salary was half of what it is these days? Lets say budget airlines with much lower payscales and less pilot-friendly contracts dominate the industry in five to ten years. Do you think there would be a shortage of pilots? Personally I don't think so, because there will always be people waiting in line for an airline job because it is such a passion for so many pilots. Maybe the average experience level when they are hired will be lower, but I don't think safety would be compromised given proper training. I grew up in an airline family and I know pilots are not overpaid, so I don't know what the result would (will?) be. I hope the economy gets even more global after it recovers and people start making friends overseas more so there will always be a growing demand for the big-iron transoceanic flights. That way after flying CRJ's for 15-20 years, a senior captain can hope to move up to those flights and start making a salary in the low 100's (scary thought but that's what the future may hold).

February 13th, 2003, 15:29	#44
Doug Taylor Agent Smith Join Date: Dec 1969 Location: KSDL Posts: 39,931 Blog Entries: 1	Re: Industry Outlook: I dunno, if I was paid half of what I earn, knowing what I know now and seeing what I've seen over the years, I'd probably look into a different field. This job is hard on your personal life, physical condition and most airline pilots only live a few years after mandatory retirement. The "Death Notice" boards at work are filled with captains that retired a few years ago that died of various reasons. $50,000/year seems like a lot of money to kids fresh out of college, but considering a Honda will run you $30,000 and an average starter home in PHX is roughly $200,000, $1,300 every two weeks after taxes doesn't go very far. Yes, I still have a burning passion for aviation, but by no means am I going to let my desire to fly be manipulated by some geek MBA that wants me to work for appreciably less money so he can get a bonus from the board of directors.

February 13th, 2003, 22:24	#45
A320_DUDE Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Hartford,CT Posts: 203	Re: Industry Outlook: [ QUOTE ] I dunno, if I was paid half of what I earn, knowing what I know now and seeing what I've seen over the years, I'd probably look into a different field. [/ QUOTE ] You know when I tell people (non-aviation folks) what I plan to do for a living....thats exactly the what they tell me...."look into something else". When I tell people that are in the industry what my plans are.....the reaction is totally different. They're telling me their own stories,and give out some great advice. Hell I've made more friends in the last 4 years than I can count! That's one thing that will help this industry pull though.....the people. No matter how bad the news is....layoffs,paycuts,bankruptcies....whatever we still bust ass to keep our planes flying. That's why I'm really not worried.....UA ans US may fall,nobody wants to see that but it is a possibilty.....but the industry as a whole will stay somewhat intact. What people don't relize is that this happens every 10 to 15 years....the industry goes though a very bad slump. The last time Pan Am and Eastern fell. But the industry got better and stronger. It will happen again.......sure the pay will be lower than before,and will be flying smaller airplanes than before....but the industry will survive.

February 14th, 2003, 04:21	#46
secretapproach Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Hollywood, FL Posts: 278	Re: Industry Outlook: [ QUOTE ] This job is hard on your personal life, physical condition and most airline pilots only live a few years after mandatory retirement. The "Death Notice" boards at work are filled with captains that retired a few years ago that died of various reasons. [/ QUOTE ] Whoa! That's a new one for me. Hey, I'm all for low pay, and eating mac and cheese (mmmmmmm...mac and cheese) for a while because I think I would enjoy the private to instructor to airline route. But death!?! Are there any statistics on that anywhere? What are they dying of? Any specific diseases? Loneliness after having a tough personal life? Being alone can make people sick.

February 14th, 2003, 08:56	#47
mpenguin1 Old Skool Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Seattle Posts: 9,906 Blog Entries: 5	Re: Industry Outlook: One of the Boeing 717 instructors is standing over my shoulder, here is a little bit about the 717, Cliff you are on: Major differences on the 717, Full Glass Cockpit with six 8"x"8 liquid crystal displays. FADEC controlled Engines (tremendous fuel savings). Primary Navigation provided by Two ADIRU using satellite Unlinking communications. Dependent FMS Aircraft (FMS must be functional for Dispatch -Boeing Style FMS- No European). Totally re-designed Electrical System. Totally re-designed overhead, center instrument, pedestal Panels. Factory equipped with mandatory installed Cargo Smoke Detection system. Alerting system is incorporated in the Electronic Display System on DU (Display Unit) # 3.

February 14th, 2003, 11:18	#48
Doug Taylor Agent Smith Join Date: Dec 1969 Location: KSDL Posts: 39,931 Blog Entries: 1	Re: Industry Outlook: Well, the theories are: a. Extreme amounts of "basic?" radiation b. More exposure to UV radiation c. Bad effects of having a broken circadian rhythm (especially true with me) d. More exposure to pathogens (de-ice fluid, passenger-borne viruses, etc) e. Big time stress. f. Diet (or lack thereof)

February 14th, 2003, 14:02	#49
AirborneMedic_ANGa10 Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: DFW Posts: 213	Re: Industry Outlook: Not to mention the basic day of a pilot... 1)Get up and report 2)do paperwork 3)do walk-around (the most physically strenuous activity of the day) 4)sit down and fly for hours 5)get to layover city 6)boy, I'm hungry; grab greasy prepared food 7)sure am tired...go to bed 8)wake up...start at #1 and repeat for 3 more days 9)Get home; eat 'real' food...go back to bed It's a friggin' recipe for disaster

February 14th, 2003, 14:08	#50
Doug Taylor Agent Smith Join Date: Dec 1969 Location: KSDL Posts: 39,931 Blog Entries: 1	Re: Industry Outlook: I think the worst part of the whole 'rest' issue is that when I get to a layover city, my brain is still traveling at 550 mph. So I get into Kansas City at 11:30pm at night, spend another 30 minutes deplaning and putting the aircraft "to sleep", usually arrive at the hotel at 12:15am (short layover hotel), then get checked in and get to the room (12:30am). Then I spend the next 2 to 3 hours wide awake flipping thru the 8 cable channels the hotel has, or peruse the latest posting on jetcareers, force myself to go to sleep around 3:00am. Sleep until about 9am, #####/shower/shave, and be ready for pickup downstairs at 9:30am for a 10:55am pushback. Keep in mind that my body is in west coast time and we do a lot of east coast flying at times! Ack! Or my favorite is a 4:45 pickup in NYC for a 6:15am pushback. My body thinks it's 1:45am at pickup and 3:15am at pushback.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode