southwestguru wrote:

Bear in mind that pilots incur huge amounts of debt just to get their practically-minimum-wage salaries at the regionals

I started 4 years ago at my regional at no less than $60k a year. As a captain, I make six figures. Hardly minimum wage.

I know you're trying to be sympathetic, but don't talk about things you know nothing about unless you list a source.

Ask the people that have been at your regional a few years longer what they started at. Good starting pay at regionals is a very recent phenomenon. One that may reverse soon as well as regionals won’t need signing bonuses to attract pilots.

When I started at my last regional almost 13 years ago minimum guarantee would have paid me $17,118 per year plus per-diem. Part way through that first year we secured a raise that raised minimum guarantee to $20,700. Technically neither was minimum wage but it’s pretty close.

My pay amount has never had a sign on bonus attached to it, and I've found most all sign-up offers have shady operations attached to them...

The OP made it sound as though minimum wage is still the norm. Its not... Nor will it be again in the future. I'm simply trying to dispel this myth that exists still today that we regional pilots live on food stamps. We haven't been close to that for about a decade.

Alias1024 wrote:

southwestguru wrote:

Bear in mind that pilots incur huge amounts of debt just to get their practically-minimum-wage salaries at the regionals

I started 4 years ago at my regional at no less than $60k a year. As a captain, I make six figures. Hardly minimum wage.

I know you're trying to be sympathetic, but don't talk about things you know nothing about unless you list a source.

Ask the people that have been at your regional a few years longer what they started at. Good starting pay at regionals is a very recent phenomenon. One that may reverse soon as well as regionals won’t need signing bonuses to attract pilots.

When I started at my last regional almost 13 years ago minimum guarantee would have paid me $17,118 per year plus per-diem. Part way through that first year we secured a raise that raised minimum guarantee to $20,700. Technically neither was minimum wage but it’s pretty close.

Dependent on the carrier, many did away with signing bonuses and improved hourly rates/rigs. Smart move knowing things can change on a dime and it’s better to have locked in rates than a time dependent bonus.

Cubsrule wrote:

FlyHossD wrote:

IAH901RT wrote:

This was strictly a business decision. Right now, UAL is doing everything they can to cut their "daily cash burn." The decision had nothing to do with reliability, performance or who was the better choice to run an operation. I'm sure that UAL knows they will have to take some hits on performance and reliability with this decision but it is what will save them the most money for now...

I hope UAL reviewed C5's record on safety, too. Do you remember what Smisek said to Congress about the Colgan Q400 tragedy?

I've been on EV flights, but never C5. Last year's C5 accident in Maine didn't make any more confident in C5: https://www.avherald.com/h?article=4c4f9a68&opt=0

I’m confused by your second paragraph. Doesn’t any accident make you less confident in the involved carrier’s safety? I mean, by the same logic shouldn’t we question UA’s safety because of the 737 they trashed in the snow at DEN a decade ago or so, an accident that IIRC was pretty much exclusively a result of pilot error?

There's a big difference between last year and 12 years ago. There's an even bigger difference between not even finding the runway (and trying to land anyway) and starting on the runway and being blasted by a huge crosswind. It's clear you haven't read the accident reports and/or data. Go ahead, it won't take too long.

This will not end well......

FlyHossD wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

FlyHossD wrote:

I hope UAL reviewed C5's record on safety, too. Do you remember what Smisek said to Congress about the Colgan Q400 tragedy?

I've been on EV flights, but never C5. Last year's C5 accident in Maine didn't make any more confident in C5: https://www.avherald.com/h?article=4c4f9a68&opt=0

I’m confused by your second paragraph. Doesn’t any accident make you less confident in the involved carrier’s safety? I mean, by the same logic shouldn’t we question UA’s safety because of the 737 they trashed in the snow at DEN a decade ago or so, an accident that IIRC was pretty much exclusively a result of pilot error?

There's a big difference between last year and 12 years ago. There's an even bigger difference between not even finding the runway (and trying to land anyway) and starting on the runway and being blasted by a huge crosswind. It's clear you haven't read the accident reports and/or data. Go ahead, it won't take too long.

This seems like classic recency bias, no? Expressjet's corporate constituents have had many more (and many just as egregious or more egregious) accidents as has Commutair. We can't live in a world where the most recent carrier to have had an accident that meets your or my definition of "bad" is the least safe.

southwestguru wrote:

Bear in mind that pilots incur huge amounts of debt just to get their practically-minimum-wage salaries at the regionals

I started 4 years ago at my regional at no less than $60k a year. As a captain, I make six figures. Hardly minimum wage.

I know you're trying to be sympathetic, but don't talk about things you know nothing about unless you list a source.

I certainly am not an insider on the issue, and my apologies. I was going by a governmental study (https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/f ... 3-2-17.pdf). What is unclear is whether signing bonuses and the like were excluded from these figures. I am not a pilot and therefore have no expertise in the area. What I can say is that I don't feel that pilots have been paid what they should. Perhaps I'm digging my grave deeper here, as I am simply an enthusiast, but I DO feel for the people who have invested a lot of time, money, and effort and who are in this position. In other words, I was going by information from what I would consider an official source, but I am far from an expert, that is for sure!

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Im guessing C5 will have to open bases in Denver, Houston, and Chicago then?

Doubtful - UA will likely re-focus their ER4 flying back east while moving more CR2s out west to fill the void from AX being shutdown. IAH will be a hodgepodge and really the only base I could see C5 opening if they are able to build some substantial flow through from the rest of the network.

EssentialBusDC wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

QueenoftheSkies wrote:

They can’t even protect their very own mainline employees. You think they care much about these non-UA people? HA!

Even worse, because of scope rules, UA must be extra brutal with the regionals to get the flights break even.

Lightsaber

This should be good.

Please explain how scope rules relates to break even profitability with the regionals?

While Lightsaber is the one who made the original comment, I would say UA has a much harder time making the regional side profitable due to their specific scope clause. They are the ones with the smallest number of 65/70/76 seat jets and biggest batch of 50-seaters. That makes cost that much more important. That doesn't impact DL or AA to nearly the same impact.

I certainly am not an insider on the issue, and my apologies. I was going by a governmental study (https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/f ... 3-2-17.pdf). What is unclear is whether signing bonuses and the like were excluded from these figures. I am not a pilot and therefore have no expertise in the area. What I can say is that I don't feel that pilots have been paid what they should. Perhaps I'm digging my grave deeper here, as I am simply an enthusiast, but I DO feel for the people who have invested a lot of time, money, and effort and who are in this position. In other words, I was going by information from what I would consider an official source, but I am far from an expert, that is for sure!

No problem! I, and I’m sure many of my colleagues out there are grateful for your words. It’s people like you (and others) that have improved our situation over the last decade. I completely agree- pay equal to the skill required for a profession equals an output of safety and quality equal to what the laborer is being paid.

That study is interesting. Based on the numbers presented, I would say not everything in a pilots paycheck is represented there. Some companies pay sign on bonuses for several years of a pilots career. Others, like mine, have operational and performance financial rewards, as well as profit sharing checks that are cut quarterly. At my company, this easily paid out an additional $10K+ a year. That is, before COVID hit....

The truth is, an airline pilots salary is more confusing than filing taxes. Getting a loan for something like a home or car is very frustrating, as I usually find myself having have to sit down with the loan department and explain how an airline pilots pay works....

PowerJet wrote:

toltommy wrote:

PowerJet wrote:

I Certainly do NOT think that is an ignorant statement. ExpressJet at one time flew nearly 5,000 flights daily. It was one of the largest airlines in the world based on departures The ONLY hull loss accident ExpressJet had was in the 90's, while they were TRAINING on it and that aircraft is even still being used as an emergency trainer in Houston.

I stand by my statement. And you are being selective in what you choose to include. Today's Expressjet is made up of multiple carriers including ASA and Britt. Both of whom had substantial accidents.

Sure, if you wish to go all the way back to every accident at every airline that came together to make these current airlines, then yes. However, I'm talking about this current airline, which only flew Embraer jets and later Canadair jets, under its current name, and another that transitioned from propeller planes to ERJ-145s. I once flew on a CommutAir 145, and for whatever reason, they left the flaps down the entire flight. The flight between Newark and Washington D.C. took nearly 2 hours. I will forever say this wasn't the best decision by United to keep a less experienced carrier to do ALL their ERJ flying

WOW you aren’t even a pilot yet you know SOPs, Maintenance and ATC procedures!!! Impressive!

CriticalPoint wrote:

PowerJet wrote:

toltommy wrote:

I stand by my statement. And you are being selective in what you choose to include. Today's Expressjet is made up of multiple carriers including ASA and Britt. Both of whom had substantial accidents.

Sure, if you wish to go all the way back to every accident at every airline that came together to make these current airlines, then yes. However, I'm talking about this current airline, which only flew Embraer jets and later Canadair jets, under its current name, and another that transitioned from propeller planes to ERJ-145s. I once flew on a CommutAir 145, and for whatever reason, they left the flaps down the entire flight. The flight between Newark and Washington D.C. took nearly 2 hours. I will forever say this wasn't the best decision by United to keep a less experienced carrier to do ALL their ERJ flying

WOW you aren’t even a pilot yet you know SOPs, Maintenance and ATC procedures!!! Impressive!

How do you know about my personal life? How do you know what I do? Please don't make assumptions. I AM a pilot, thank you very much, I have just a right to post my opinion as everyone else.

PowerJet wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

PowerJet wrote:

Sure, if you wish to go all the way back to every accident at every airline that came together to make these current airlines, then yes. However, I'm talking about this current airline, which only flew Embraer jets and later Canadair jets, under its current name, and another that transitioned from propeller planes to ERJ-145s. I once flew on a CommutAir 145, and for whatever reason, they left the flaps down the entire flight. The flight between Newark and Washington D.C. took nearly 2 hours. I will forever say this wasn't the best decision by United to keep a less experienced carrier to do ALL their ERJ flying

WOW you aren’t even a pilot yet you know SOPs, Maintenance and ATC procedures!!! Impressive!

How do you know about my personal life? How do you know what I do? Please don't make assumptions. I AM a pilot, thank you very much, I have just a right to post my opinion as everyone else.

Because a pilot would not question another pilot for flying with the flaps down. A pilot would trust that a pilot is operating within the parameters of their aircraft. A pilot would not base their assumption of safety on what you do.

You maybe a GA pilot but you don’t know anything about 121 or the ERJ 145.

I’m sure you would say that airbus pilots are unsafe if they left the gear down for the first 5 minutes of the flight. Because I’m sure you know that that is done for brake cooling.

I’m sure you would call a 787 pilot unsafe for flying with the gear down for several minutes after takeoff. With your massive experience I’m sure you know this is due to a brake MEL.

I remamber a long time ago a plane that had pressurization issues that they couldn’t get fixed. They flew it for 3 straight days between DEN and COS at 9000 feet. Perfectly legal. I’m sure you know all about dispatch procedures and how sometimes a plane that is broken will still be flown and sometimes will just be flown on the shortest flights.

You can have an opinion but make sure it’s atleast based on some fact.

southwestguru wrote:

Bear in mind that pilots incur huge amounts of debt just to get their practically-minimum-wage salaries at the regionals

I started 4 years ago at my regional at no less than $60k a year. As a captain, I make six figures. Hardly minimum wage.

I know you're trying to be sympathetic, but don't talk about things you know nothing about unless you list a source.

You started at a regional “at no less than $60k a year.” Better than most majors for starting pay.

11C wrote:

southwestguru wrote:

Bear in mind that pilots incur huge amounts of debt just to get their practically-minimum-wage salaries at the regionals

I started 4 years ago at my regional at no less than $60k a year. As a captain, I make six figures. Hardly minimum wage.

I know you're trying to be sympathetic, but don't talk about things you know nothing about unless you list a source.

You started at a regional “at no less than $60k a year.” Better than most majors for starting pay.

Easily possible to make that at a regional last year. Republic, Skywest, Endeavor, offered that thereabouts. Major starting pay for probationary year is now somewhere around 80-90k, and usually makes a decent jump for year two. Looking at JetBlue, American, Southwest it broadly lines up.

Since 2015, regional pay went up sharply. Only at the handful of truly poor operations were the once-typical pitiful paychecks still seen.

Cubsrule wrote:

FlyHossD wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

I’m confused by your second paragraph. Doesn’t any accident make you less confident in the involved carrier’s safety? I mean, by the same logic shouldn’t we question UA’s safety because of the 737 they trashed in the snow at DEN a decade ago or so, an accident that IIRC was pretty much exclusively a result of pilot error?

There's a big difference between last year and 12 years ago. There's an even bigger difference between not even finding the runway (and trying to land anyway) and starting on the runway and being blasted by a huge crosswind. It's clear you haven't read the accident reports and/or data. Go ahead, it won't take too long.

This seems like classic recency bias, no? Expressjet's corporate constituents have had many more (and many just as egregious or more egregious) accidents as has Commutair. We can't live in a world where the most recent carrier to have had an accident that meets your or my definition of "bad" is the least safe.

So you admit that you haven't read the final report on CO1404 or studied the C5 massive screw-up last year..? "Massive shortcomings" is the expression I've heard people use to describe the training program at C5. Care to wager if training flaws and/or failures is mentioned in the final report?

alasizon wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Im guessing C5 will have to open bases in Denver, Houston, and Chicago then?

Doubtful - UA will likely re-focus their ER4 flying back east while moving more CR2s out west to fill the void from AX being shutdown. IAH will be a hodgepodge and really the only base I could see C5 opening if they are able to build some substantial flow through from the rest of the network.

EssentialBusDC wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Even worse, because of scope rules, UA must be extra brutal with the regionals to get the flights break even.

Lightsaber

This should be good.

Please explain how scope rules relates to break even profitability with the regionals?

While Lightsaber is the one who made the original comment, I would say UA has a much harder time making the regional side profitable due to their specific scope clause. They are the ones with the smallest number of 65/70/76 seat jets and biggest batch of 50-seaters. That makes cost that much more important. That doesn't impact DL or AA to nearly the same impact.

They are only sized that way because they have decided to be sized that way. The UALPA scope section with regards to outsourced Regionals is practically word for word a copy of Delta’s. UAL just never exercised the option to buy a NSNB (C series or EMB) that would unlock additional 76 seaters, and also mandate a drawdown of the 50 seaters. If they had, the end result would have matched the number of 76 seaters and 50 seaters that Delta has.

So again, how exactly did scope mean “UAL has to be extra brutal with regionals to get the flights break even” when the scope is the same as Delta’s? It is not scope’s fault, but due to management decisions if UAL regionals are more expensive then Delta’s. (A fact I’m not sure is actually true)

EssentialBusDC wrote:

alasizon wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Im guessing C5 will have to open bases in Denver, Houston, and Chicago then?

Doubtful - UA will likely re-focus their ER4 flying back east while moving more CR2s out west to fill the void from AX being shutdown. IAH will be a hodgepodge and really the only base I could see C5 opening if they are able to build some substantial flow through from the rest of the network.

EssentialBusDC wrote:

This should be good.

Please explain how scope rules relates to break even profitability with the regionals?

While Lightsaber is the one who made the original comment, I would say UA has a much harder time making the regional side profitable due to their specific scope clause. They are the ones with the smallest number of 65/70/76 seat jets and biggest batch of 50-seaters. That makes cost that much more important. That doesn't impact DL or AA to nearly the same impact.

They are only sized that way because they have decided to be sized that way. The UALPA scope section with regards to outsourced Regionals is practically word for word a copy of Delta’s. UAL just never exercised the option to buy a NSNB (C series or EMB) that would unlock additional 76 seaters, and also mandate a drawdown of the 50 seaters. If they had, the end result would have matched the number of 76 seaters and 50 seaters that Delta has.

So again, how exactly did scope mean “UAL has to be extra brutal with regionals to get the flights break even” when the scope is the same as Delta’s? It is not scope’s fault, but due to management decisions if UAL regionals are more expensive then Delta’s. (A fact I’m not sure is actually true)

United scope is different from Delta. United’s will shrink with a reduction of mainline block hours, so getting the cheapest cost for whatever jets are allowed to fly is the key.

FlyHossD wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

FlyHossD wrote:

There's a big difference between last year and 12 years ago. There's an even bigger difference between not even finding the runway (and trying to land anyway) and starting on the runway and being blasted by a huge crosswind. It's clear you haven't read the accident reports and/or data. Go ahead, it won't take too long.

This seems like classic recency bias, no? Expressjet's corporate constituents have had many more (and many just as egregious or more egregious) accidents as has Commutair. We can't live in a world where the most recent carrier to have had an accident that meets your or my definition of "bad" is the least safe.

So you admit that you haven't read the final report on CO1404 or studied the C5 massive screw-up last year..? "Massive shortcomings" is the expression I've heard people use to describe the training program at C5. Care to wager if training flaws and/or failures is mentioned in the final report?

I study transport accidents for a living (I spent an unfortunately large portion of my day today reading about allisions on the Lower Mississippi). I cannot think of an NTSB report on a Part 121 accident in the past decade that I haven’t read cover to cover.

The problem with judging carriers based on isolated accidents is that they are generally (with a few exceptions, like all of the EMB-120 prop loss accidents 20 in the 90s) sufficiently infrequent that they aren’t useful for drawing broader conclusions about relative safety. Virtually no one will say that WN has a training problem even though they had an accident where a deficiency in their training program was a clear causal factor.

Tailwinds wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

Independence Air did that to themselves!! Atlantic Coast was the original name and they were the United Darling out of IAD. United hit hard times and did a LOT of cutting in our OWN house so they HAD to do some external cutting or WE might have rebelled as well.

The speed with which United employees went from calling me and us a Piece of Excrement for undercutting them with low wages to being a Piece of Excrement for not taking a pay cut on their behalf astonishes me to this day/post.

Nobody I remember EVER called Atlantic Coast or independence air employees "Excrement" ! Now their Management? I don't hold them any Ill will and never did BUT? Senior management at United at the time? I'll bet sure as hell did and I know quite a few Ex Atlantic Coasters working for United At IAD and DCA. And? they're pretty Senior by now. At least one of my Cohorts wg=ho worked in Maintenance Control with me was a hard down Independence Air type and wore his jacket regularly. He was shocked to see me wear my Brown United Jacket as well. Their management? Made a calculated Gamble and Paid the price for it. .

TonyClifton wrote:

EssentialBusDC wrote:

alasizon wrote:

Doubtful - UA will likely re-focus their ER4 flying back east while moving more CR2s out west to fill the void from AX being shutdown. IAH will be a hodgepodge and really the only base I could see C5 opening if they are able to build some substantial flow through from the rest of the network.



While Lightsaber is the one who made the original comment, I would say UA has a much harder time making the regional side profitable due to their specific scope clause. They are the ones with the smallest number of 65/70/76 seat jets and biggest batch of 50-seaters. That makes cost that much more important. That doesn't impact DL or AA to nearly the same impact.

They are only sized that way because they have decided to be sized that way. The UALPA scope section with regards to outsourced Regionals is practically word for word a copy of Delta’s. UAL just never exercised the option to buy a NSNB (C series or EMB) that would unlock additional 76 seaters, and also mandate a drawdown of the 50 seaters. If they had, the end result would have matched the number of 76 seaters and 50 seaters that Delta has.

So again, how exactly did scope mean “UAL has to be extra brutal with regionals to get the flights break even” when the scope is the same as Delta’s? It is not scope’s fault, but due to management decisions if UAL regionals are more expensive then Delta’s. (A fact I’m not sure is actually true)

United scope is different from Delta. United’s will shrink with a reduction of mainline block hours, so getting the cheapest cost for whatever jets are allowed to fly is the key.

Is it?

Here is DALPA’s section regarding mainline to Regional flying:

“The Company will maintain a minimum ratio of revenue block hours of Company flying on all narrowbody aircraft and all B-767-300 (non – ER) aircraft (MBH) to revenue block hours of flying in category A and C operations (DBH) under the following chart:


The Company’s compliance with the minimum ratio of MBH to DBH will be measured for the first time on July 1, 2014 and then measured again each succeeding July 1 thereafter, in each instance for the preceding 12 months on a weighted basis by the number of 76-seat aircraft in category A or C operations each month.”


Here is UALPA’s relevant section:

1-C-1-f Scheduled Aircraft Block Hours of United Express Flying as Percentage of Block Hours of Company Flying on Single-Aisle Aircraft

1-C-1-f-(1) In any Rolling Twelve-Month Period ending the first full calendar month following date of signing of this Agreement or later, the Company shall not Schedule or permit the Scheduling of aircraft block hours of United Express Flying (excluding block hours operated by 37-Seat Turboprop Aircraft) exceeding the maximum percentage of Scheduled aircraft block hours of Company Flying on single-aisle Company Aircraft (“Max. % of UAXBH to SBH”) set forth in the following chart.

EssentialBusDC wrote:

TonyClifton wrote:

EssentialBusDC wrote:

They are only sized that way because they have decided to be sized that way. The UALPA scope section with regards to outsourced Regionals is practically word for word a copy of Delta’s. UAL just never exercised the option to buy a NSNB (C series or EMB) that would unlock additional 76 seaters, and also mandate a drawdown of the 50 seaters. If they had, the end result would have matched the number of 76 seaters and 50 seaters that Delta has.

So again, how exactly did scope mean “UAL has to be extra brutal with regionals to get the flights break even” when the scope is the same as Delta’s? It is not scope’s fault, but due to management decisions if UAL regionals are more expensive then Delta’s. (A fact I’m not sure is actually true)

United scope is different from Delta. United’s will shrink with a reduction of mainline block hours, so getting the cheapest cost for whatever jets are allowed to fly is the key.

Is it?

Here is DALPA’s section regarding mainline to Regional flying:

“The Company will maintain a minimum ratio of revenue block hours of Company flying on all narrowbody aircraft and all B-767-300 (non – ER) aircraft (MBH) to revenue block hours of flying in category A and C operations (DBH) under the following chart:


The Company’s compliance with the minimum ratio of MBH to DBH will be measured for the first time on July 1, 2014 and then measured again each succeeding July 1 thereafter, in each instance for the preceding 12 months on a weighted basis by the number of 76-seat aircraft in category A or C operations each month.”


Here is UALPA’s relevant section:

1-C-1-f Scheduled Aircraft Block Hours of United Express Flying as Percentage of Block Hours of Company Flying on Single-Aisle Aircraft

1-C-1-f-(1) In any Rolling Twelve-Month Period ending the first full calendar month following date of signing of this Agreement or later, the Company shall not Schedule or permit the Scheduling of aircraft block hours of United Express Flying (excluding block hours operated by 37-Seat Turboprop Aircraft) exceeding the maximum percentage of Scheduled aircraft block hours of Company Flying on single-aisle Company Aircraft (“Max. % of UAXBH to SBH”) set forth in the following chart.

UA and Delta have very similar scope clauses largely because UA copied delta scope in contract 2012 and scope has essentially not changed for any airline since then except united never bought the small mainline jet so they still have limited 76 and 70 seat jets but unlimited 50 seaters (basically no meaningful limit)

EssentialBusDC wrote:

TonyClifton wrote:

EssentialBusDC wrote:

They are only sized that way because they have decided to be sized that way. The UALPA scope section with regards to outsourced Regionals is practically word for word a copy of Delta’s. UAL just never exercised the option to buy a NSNB (C series or EMB) that would unlock additional 76 seaters, and also mandate a drawdown of the 50 seaters. If they had, the end result would have matched the number of 76 seaters and 50 seaters that Delta has.

So again, how exactly did scope mean “UAL has to be extra brutal with regionals to get the flights break even” when the scope is the same as Delta’s? It is not scope’s fault, but due to management decisions if UAL regionals are more expensive then Delta’s. (A fact I’m not sure is actually true)

United scope is different from Delta. United’s will shrink with a reduction of mainline block hours, so getting the cheapest cost for whatever jets are allowed to fly is the key.

Is it?

Here is DALPA’s section regarding mainline to Regional flying:

“The Company will maintain a minimum ratio of revenue block hours of Company flying on all narrowbody aircraft and all B-767-300 (non – ER) aircraft (MBH) to revenue block hours of flying in category A and C operations (DBH) under the following chart:


The Company’s compliance with the minimum ratio of MBH to DBH will be measured for the first time on July 1, 2014 and then measured again each succeeding July 1 thereafter, in each instance for the preceding 12 months on a weighted basis by the number of 76-seat aircraft in category A or C operations each month.”


Here is UALPA’s relevant section:

1-C-1-f Scheduled Aircraft Block Hours of United Express Flying as Percentage of Block Hours of Company Flying on Single-Aisle Aircraft

1-C-1-f-(1) In any Rolling Twelve-Month Period ending the first full calendar month following date of signing of this Agreement or later, the Company shall not Schedule or permit the Scheduling of aircraft block hours of United Express Flying (excluding block hours operated by 37-Seat Turboprop Aircraft) exceeding the maximum percentage of Scheduled aircraft block hours of Company Flying on single-aisle Company Aircraft (“Max. % of UAXBH to SBH”) set forth in the following chart.

The United language regarding "single aisle" is interesting. Makes me wonder if they'll replace the 772A's, 787s, and 767's operating domestic flights with wingtip 737's or Airbii to buff up "single hour" block hours. With the August schedule, while UA did keep the bank structure relatively the same from July and reintroduced very few routes, they did reinstate additional mainline frequencies on longer routes that were only being served 1x (like SEA-ORD) and also reintroduced mainline to some outstations (like ORD-PIT, EWR-ATL, ORD-ATL).

drdisque wrote:

EssentialBusDC wrote:

TonyClifton wrote:

United scope is different from Delta. United’s will shrink with a reduction of mainline block hours, so getting the cheapest cost for whatever jets are allowed to fly is the key.

Is it?

Here is DALPA’s section regarding mainline to Regional flying:

“The Company will maintain a minimum ratio of revenue block hours of Company flying on all narrowbody aircraft and all B-767-300 (non – ER) aircraft (MBH) to revenue block hours of flying in category A and C operations (DBH) under the following chart:


The Company’s compliance with the minimum ratio of MBH to DBH will be measured for the first time on July 1, 2014 and then measured again each succeeding July 1 thereafter, in each instance for the preceding 12 months on a weighted basis by the number of 76-seat aircraft in category A or C operations each month.”


Here is UALPA’s relevant section:

1-C-1-f Scheduled Aircraft Block Hours of United Express Flying as Percentage of Block Hours of Company Flying on Single-Aisle Aircraft

1-C-1-f-(1) In any Rolling Twelve-Month Period ending the first full calendar month following date of signing of this Agreement or later, the Company shall not Schedule or permit the Scheduling of aircraft block hours of United Express Flying (excluding block hours operated by 37-Seat Turboprop Aircraft) exceeding the maximum percentage of Scheduled aircraft block hours of Company Flying on single-aisle Company Aircraft (“Max. % of UAXBH to SBH”) set forth in the following chart.

The United language regarding "single aisle" is interesting. Makes me wonder if they'll replace the 772A's, 787s, and 767's operating domestic flights with wingtip 737's or Airbii to buff up "single hour" block hours. With the August schedule, while UA did keep the bank structure relatively the same from July and reintroduced very few routes, they did reinstate additional mainline frequencies on longer routes that were only being served 1x (like SEA-ORD) and also reintroduced mainline to some outstations (like ORD-PIT, EWR-ATL, ORD-ATL).

Certainly possible it will be interesting

I’ve heard that express jet might be partnering up with another airline. Has anyone heard anything?

Considering they're owned by UA, that's highly unlikely.

Aren’t they owned by sky west?

KLMatSJC wrote:

Considering they're owned by UA, that's highly unlikely.

The Mana Air holding company, controlled by Subodh Karnik, owns them. UA has a 49% stake.

There aircraft may be operating by another carrier...

There was the same rumor about Compass for months and nothing came of it.

Justjoshua wrote:

I’ve heard that express jet might be partnering up with another airline. Has anyone heard anything?

Do you have ANYTHING to back up what you've "heard". If so post it. I seriously doubt that you "heard" this anywhere.

Nobody, and I mean no-body needs additional regional capacity. Especially 50 seaters. United owns most of, if not all of the fleet and holds a 49% stake in the carrier.

KLMatSJC wrote:

Considering they're owned by UA, that's highly unlikely.

United's going to have to be pragmatic. If they want significant cuts in Express Jet flying for United - but don't want them to fold - they should be happy for whatever business Express Jet can pick up.

amcnd wrote:

There aircraft may be operating by another carrier...

"There" aircraft are owned by United so......

CaptCoolHand wrote:

Aren’t they owned by sky west?

No they sold it awhile back

I imagine some of the Expressjet E145's will end up at Commutair, especially if the latter opens up a base at IAH. UA has ownership stakes in both airlines.

This makes me wonder why UA didn't broker some sort of "shotgun marriage" merger between the two E145 operators, then work out how much service they would have going forward. As it was, UA forced a "face off" between the two where the cheapest was the winner. But as we usually find out, the cheapest solution is not always the best.

A merger would have kept the (soon-to-be) former EV base at IAH somewhat intact, but consolidated the corporate ops, which would have saved lots of money. As it is, C5 will have to expend overhead costs of having to set up an operating base at IAH on their own.

All this said, I think this simply is another step by UA to phase out 50 seat flying by the regionals. Those 50-seat jets are aging fast and there are no replacements coming in the foreseeable future.

Justjoshua wrote:

I’ve heard that express jet might be partnering up with another airline. Has anyone heard anything?

I saw this awhile back if it's any relevance:

Courtesy: Aviation Pros

United Cuts Ties to ExpressJet in Favor of CommutAir

https://www.aviationpros.com/airlines/news/21148611/united-cuts-ties-to-expressjet-in-favor-of-commutair

FLALEFTY wrote:

I imagine some of the Expressjet E145's will end up at Commutair, especially if the latter opens up a base at IAH. UA has ownership stakes in both airlines.

This makes me wonder why UA didn't broker some sort of "shotgun marriage" merger between the two E145 operators, then work out how much service they would have going forward. As it was, UA forced a "face off" between the two where the cheapest was the winner. But as we usually find out, the cheapest solution is not always the best.

A merger would have kept the (soon-to-be) former EV base at IAH somewhat intact, but consolidated the corporate ops, which would have saved lots of money. As it is, C5 will have to expend overhead costs of having to set up an operating base at IAH on their own.

All this said, I think this simply is another step by UA to phase out 50 seat flying by the regionals. Those 50-seat jets are aging fast and there are no replacements coming in the foreseeable future.

Commutair is opening a base in IAH, hiring for base staff there now as we speak. It’s cheaper to grow Commutair with a more junior pilot group, than shrink senior and built for size ExpressJet to acceptable levels, as we have seen.

Think this was the plan back in 2015, but Commutair’s issues growing led to XJT hanging around longer, and AWAC reentering the UAX fold. Now with relative stasis and no attrition, Commutair can once again try to grow.

MO11 wrote:

amcnd wrote:

There aircraft may be operating by another carrier...

"There" aircraft are owned by United so......

Who cares about the aircraft. That’s the easy part. Being an approved 121 carrier with the type on your certificate in the valuable part.

Unfortunately, XJT like Envoy, PSA, PDT, and CommutAir is just a staffing company. They don't have any assets, merely a "have pilots, will travel" business model. They have a very expensive seniority list that is all maxed out on payscale, vacation accrual, etc. I, unfortunately, believe the end is coming. Breeze secured the operating certificate from Compass for their operation, and there are no new 121 carriers proposing to start.

FLALEFTY wrote:

This makes me wonder why UA didn't broker some sort of "shotgun marriage" merger between the two E145 operators, then work out how much service they would have going forward. As it was, UA forced a "face off" between the two where the cheapest was the winner. But as we usually find out, the cheapest solution is not always the best.

So long as the result is, in the opinion of the major, safe and reliable, the majors care only about what is the cheapest regional solution. The only reason that regionals exist as a separate thing is to obtain cheap labor relative to what the major could do itself. Period, end of story. There is nothing to wonder about.

United has apparently determined that the Commutair solution is the cheapest (and it is not hard to understand why), while providing safety and reliability to the satisfaction of United. Mergers are costly and highly disruptive, the idea that United would ever want to merge these two carriers is nonsense. United controls the aircraft and even if they didn't, 50 seaters are cheap to obtain. United set the terms of this - it was either going to be ExpressJet or it was going to be Commutair, it was either or, a merger was never on the cards.

The end result is pretty brutal for anyone working at ExpressJet, and on a human level we can all sympathize. They didn't do anything wrong, they simply ended up on the wrong end of a vicious economic equation.

FLALEFTY wrote:

This makes me wonder why UA didn't broker some sort of "shotgun marriage" merger between the two E145 operators, then work out how much service they would have going forward. As it was, UA forced a "face off" between the two where the cheapest was the winner. But as we usually find out, the cheapest solution is not always the best.

A merger would have kept the (soon-to-be) former EV base at IAH somewhat intact, but consolidated the corporate ops, which would have saved lots of money. As it is, C5 will have to expend overhead costs of having to set up an operating base at IAH on their own.

Consolidating corporate ops, especially at a regional, isn't going to save a ton of money. Yes it would eliminate duplication, but not that much. If UA forced a merger between the two carriers, there would be very little savings. Both pilot groups are ALPA, both FA groups are IAM. That likely would result in a straight seniority list merge by seniority. The high cost senior EV pilots (and flight attendants) would remain. UA can achieve greater over all cost savings immediately by walking away from Expressjet, and building up Commutair with new hire crews. There wont be another regional merger for this very reason.

catiii wrote:

KLMatSJC wrote:

Considering they're owned by UA, that's highly unlikely.

The Mana Air holding company, controlled by Subodh Karnik, owns them. UA has a 49% stake.

You believe that UA doesn't actually own and control ExpressJet and that Mana Air is merely a construct to obfuscate that fact?

trueblew wrote:

catiii wrote:

KLMatSJC wrote:

Considering they're owned by UA, that's highly unlikely.

The Mana Air holding company, controlled by Subodh Karnik, owns them. UA has a 49% stake.

You believe that UA doesn't actually own and control ExpressJet and that Mana Air is merely a construct to obfuscate that fact?

Bingo. I believe it is due a flight attendant union workaround.

toltommy wrote:

FLALEFTY wrote:

This makes me wonder why UA didn't broker some sort of "shotgun marriage" merger between the two E145 operators, then work out how much service they would have going forward. As it was, UA forced a "face off" between the two where the cheapest was the winner. But as we usually find out, the cheapest solution is not always the best.

A merger would have kept the (soon-to-be) former EV base at IAH somewhat intact, but consolidated the corporate ops, which would have saved lots of money. As it is, C5 will have to expend overhead costs of having to set up an operating base at IAH on their own.

Consolidating corporate ops, especially at a regional, isn't going to save a ton of money. Yes it would eliminate duplication, but not that much. If UA forced a merger between the two carriers, there would be very little savings. Both pilot groups are ALPA, both FA groups are IAM. That likely would result in a straight seniority list merge by seniority. The high cost senior EV pilots (and flight attendants) would remain. UA can achieve greater over all cost savings immediately by walking away from Expressjet, and building up Commutair with new hire crews. There wont be another regional merger for this very reason.

Since Expressjet was part of UA's Aviate program, I imagine most of their captains were moving up to the Bigs at year 5 until COVID hit. There is just a $6 per flight hour difference between a 5th year EV E145 captain and a 5th year C5 captain. The difference between 5th year FO pay is just $3 per flight hour. C5 was somewhat cheaper in pilot pay, but not significantly.

C5 is less than 1/3rd the size of EV in terms of pilots, so for C5 to take over EV's routes, they will need to go to the expense of hiring and training more flight crews. In terms of training, by shutting down EV, UA Express will lose EV's 3 exclusive E145, full-motion simulators and fully-trained instructors in the airline's SOP's, where C5 most likely will have to rely on outside vendors like Flight Safety. The same goes for fleet size, where EV has 3 times the number of E145's, therefore, C5 will have to rapidly upscale their maintenance ops to accommodate the expected fleet growth. And C5 still has to set up a viable base in IAH, which will take time and money.

Having retired from the aerospace world I know how the competitive contract bidding game is played: "We bid to win and then figure out how the hell to do it for the budget and schedule we signed-up to after we win." C5 did this part well and United took the bait. The problems will come in a few years when (if UA doesn't decide to punt the E145 flying completely) the post-COVID recovery comes and C5 will be struggling to keep up.

FLALEFTY wrote:

toltommy wrote:

FLALEFTY wrote:

This makes me wonder why UA didn't broker some sort of "shotgun marriage" merger between the two E145 operators, then work out how much service they would have going forward. As it was, UA forced a "face off" between the two where the cheapest was the winner. But as we usually find out, the cheapest solution is not always the best.

A merger would have kept the (soon-to-be) former EV base at IAH somewhat intact, but consolidated the corporate ops, which would have saved lots of money. As it is, C5 will have to expend overhead costs of having to set up an operating base at IAH on their own.

Consolidating corporate ops, especially at a regional, isn't going to save a ton of money. Yes it would eliminate duplication, but not that much. If UA forced a merger between the two carriers, there would be very little savings. Both pilot groups are ALPA, both FA groups are IAM. That likely would result in a straight seniority list merge by seniority. The high cost senior EV pilots (and flight attendants) would remain. UA can achieve greater over all cost savings immediately by walking away from Expressjet, and building up Commutair with new hire crews. There wont be another regional merger for this very reason.

Since Expressjet was part of UA's Aviate program, I imagine most of their captains were moving up to the Bigs at year 5 until COVID hit. There is just a $6 per flight hour difference between a 5th year EV E145 captain and a 5th year C5 captain. The difference between 5th year FO pay is just $3 per flight hour. C5 somewhat cheaper in pilot pay, but not significantly.

C5 is less than 1/3rd the size of EV in terms of pilots, so for C5 to take over EV's routes, they will need to go to the expense of hiring and training more flight crews. In terms of training, by shutting down EV, UA Express will lose EV's 3 exclusive E145, full-motion simulators and fully-trained instructors in the airline's SOP's, where C5 most likely will have to rely on outside vendors like Flight Safety. The same goes for fleet size, where EV has 3 times the number of E145, therefore, C5 will have to rapidly upscale their maintenance ops to accommodate the expected fleet growth. And C5 still has to set up a viable base in IAH, which will take time and money.

Having retired from the aerospace world I know how the competitive contract bidding game is played: "We bid to win and then figure out how the hell to do it for the budget and schedule we signed-up to after we win." C5 did this part well and United took the bait. The problems will come in a few years when (if UA doesn't decide to punt the E145 flying completely) the post-COVID recovery comes and C5 will be struggling to keep up.

And you'd be wrong. EV had a very, very senior pilot group. Had they shrunk to nothing more than a 20 airplane fleet, they would have had 10-12 year pilots on reserve, as FOs.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

FLALEFTY wrote:

toltommy wrote:

Consolidating corporate ops, especially at a regional, isn't going to save a ton of money. Yes it would eliminate duplication, but not that much. If UA forced a merger between the two carriers, there would be very little savings. Both pilot groups are ALPA, both FA groups are IAM. That likely would result in a straight seniority list merge by seniority. The high cost senior EV pilots (and flight attendants) would remain. UA can achieve greater over all cost savings immediately by walking away from Expressjet, and building up Commutair with new hire crews. There wont be another regional merger for this very reason.

Since Expressjet was part of UA's Aviate program, I imagine most of their captains were moving up to the Bigs at year 5 until COVID hit. There is just a $6 per flight hour difference between a 5th year EV E145 captain and a 5th year C5 captain. The difference between 5th year FO pay is just $3 per flight hour. C5 somewhat cheaper in pilot pay, but not significantly.

C5 is less than 1/3rd the size of EV in terms of pilots, so for C5 to take over EV's routes, they will need to go to the expense of hiring and training more flight crews. In terms of training, by shutting down EV, UA Express will lose EV's 3 exclusive E145, full-motion simulators and fully-trained instructors in the airline's SOP's, where C5 most likely will have to rely on outside vendors like Flight Safety. The same goes for fleet size, where EV has 3 times the number of E145, therefore, C5 will have to rapidly upscale their maintenance ops to accommodate the expected fleet growth. And C5 still has to set up a viable base in IAH, which will take time and money.

Having retired from the aerospace world I know how the competitive contract bidding game is played: "We bid to win and then figure out how the hell to do it for the budget and schedule we signed-up to after we win." C5 did this part well and United took the bait. The problems will come in a few years when (if UA doesn't decide to punt the E145 flying completely) the post-COVID recovery comes and C5 will be struggling to keep up.

And you'd be wrong. EV had a very, very senior pilot group. Had they shrunk to nothing more than a 20 airplane fleet, they would have had 10-12 year pilots on reserve, as FOs.

When ExpressJet is liquidated who do you think is going to place bids for the e145 sims they are selling I would place good money on that either being commute air or united and given the limited flying schedule right now and the mass of trained and experienced pilots available commute air is going to have its pick of crew to hire and can get plenty of sim pilots ready for the recovery over the next 12 months without that much of a challenge, but realistically no one needs another regional right now unless they can come in massively under everyone else cost which ExpressJet isn't going to be able to do due to its senior workforce. Anyone who has CPA's coming up in the short term will get cut unless they underbid someone else who will then get minimum block until they match or underbid.

FLALEFTY wrote:

I imagine some of the Expressjet E145's will end up at Commutair, especially if the latter opens up a base at IAH. UA has ownership stakes in both airlines.

This makes me wonder why UA didn't broker some sort of "shotgun marriage" merger between the two E145 operators, then work out how much service they would have going forward. As it was, UA forced a "face off" between the two where the cheapest was the winner. But as we usually find out, the cheapest solution is not always the best.

A merger would have kept the (soon-to-be) former EV base at IAH somewhat intact, but consolidated the corporate ops, which would have saved lots of money. As it is, C5 will have to expend overhead costs of having to set up an operating base at IAH on their own.

All this said, I think this simply is another step by UA to phase out 50 seat flying by the regionals. Those 50-seat jets are aging fast and there are no replacements coming in the foreseeable future.

well? Put it like this. United cannot very well expand 50 seat express flying while laying off Pilots from the mainline. they would be asking for and seeking major league trouble from UAALPA if they didn't seem to be Screwing over Everybody to the same degree. Is it Fair? Hardly, But it's just Business, and "Rough Dog" business at that!

DiamondFlyer wrote:

FLALEFTY wrote:

toltommy wrote:

Consolidating corporate ops, especially at a regional, isn't going to save a ton of money. Yes it would eliminate duplication, but not that much. If UA forced a merger between the two carriers, there would be very little savings. Both pilot groups are ALPA, both FA groups are IAM. That likely would result in a straight seniority list merge by seniority. The high cost senior EV pilots (and flight attendants) would remain. UA can achieve greater over all cost savings immediately by walking away from Expressjet, and building up Commutair with new hire crews. There wont be another regional merger for this very reason.

Since Expressjet was part of UA's Aviate program, I imagine most of their captains were moving up to the Bigs at year 5 until COVID hit. There is just a $6 per flight hour difference between a 5th year EV E145 captain and a 5th year C5 captain. The difference between 5th year FO pay is just $3 per flight hour. C5 somewhat cheaper in pilot pay, but not significantly.

C5 is less than 1/3rd the size of EV in terms of pilots, so for C5 to take over EV's routes, they will need to go to the expense of hiring and training more flight crews. In terms of training, by shutting down EV, UA Express will lose EV's 3 exclusive E145, full-motion simulators and fully-trained instructors in the airline's SOP's, where C5 most likely will have to rely on outside vendors like Flight Safety. The same goes for fleet size, where EV has 3 times the number of E145, therefore, C5 will have to rapidly upscale their maintenance ops to accommodate the expected fleet growth. And C5 still has to set up a viable base in IAH, which will take time and money.

Having retired from the aerospace world I know how the competitive contract bidding game is played: "We bid to win and then figure out how the hell to do it for the budget and schedule we signed-up to after we win." C5 did this part well and United took the bait. The problems will come in a few years when (if UA doesn't decide to punt the E145 flying completely) the post-COVID recovery comes and C5 will be struggling to keep up.

And you'd be wrong. EV had a very, very senior pilot group. Had they shrunk to nothing more than a 20 airplane fleet, they would have had 10-12 year pilots on reserve, as FOs.

Nah, I'm not wrong. EV was in the Aviate Program and attracting pilots thanks to the flow to UA. I doubt they had that many 10+/year pilots on their roster who weren't flight ops managers, check airmen, sim instructors, etc.

And where did you come up with this "20-airplane fleet" when the combination of this "winner take all" competition combined EV's 95 E145's with C5's 35 E145's? The winner (C5) now has to grow nearly on an order of magnitute of 3 to do all the flying they now signed up for, but are now constrained by their rock-bottom bid. Good luck with that!

But I'll keep repeating this: UA and the other Big 3's want to get rid of 50-seat flying, just as they got rid of turboprop flying back 10 years ago. Their FF's don't like flying on them and the planes are getting old, with no modern tech replacements. This "hunger games" competition between EV & C5 was UA's big step in that direction. As for OO, they can simply park their CRJ2 fleet when UA gives the command since they hold most of the more lucurative E175 flying for UA.

dstblj52 wrote:

When ExpressJet is liquidated who do you think is going to place bids for the e145 sims they are selling

You also have to remember that the Legacy 600/650 shares a cockpit with the 135/140/145, so someone like FSI might pick them up.

strfyr51 wrote:

FLALEFTY wrote:

I imagine some of the Expressjet E145's will end up at Commutair, especially if the latter opens up a base at IAH. UA has ownership stakes in both airlines.

This makes me wonder why UA didn't broker some sort of "shotgun marriage" merger between the two E145 operators, then work out how much service they would have going forward. As it was, UA forced a "face off" between the two where the cheapest was the winner. But as we usually find out, the cheapest solution is not always the best.

A merger would have kept the (soon-to-be) former EV base at IAH somewhat intact, but consolidated the corporate ops, which would have saved lots of money. As it is, C5 will have to expend overhead costs of having to set up an operating base at IAH on their own.

All this said, I think this simply is another step by UA to phase out 50 seat flying by the regionals. Those 50-seat jets are aging fast and there are no replacements coming in the foreseeable future.

well? Put it like this. United cannot very well expand 50 seat express flying while laying off Pilots from the mainline. they would be asking for and seeking major league trouble from UAALPA if they didn't seem to be Screwing over Everybody to the same degree. Is it Fair? Hardly, But it's just Business, and "Rough Dog" business at that!

Actually they totally could and thats what just about ever major did between 2001 and 2009 it pissed a lot of people off but there was nothing that could be done about it