A quick look at the 737-600

[ahsmatt7 1,199]

Wow. That's market protectionism, if I've ever heard it. +1 Precisely.

Whats wrong with protecting Major airlines' flying? Are you saying you have no problem losing your seat to another pilot who gets paid a third of what you do and has a an eight of he experience just so your company can save a buck? Mainline pilots have been furloughed because airlines are trying to cut costs by outsourcing flying to the regionals. With that, the regionals bid against eachother and the lowest bid wins.......how is that good for the mainline guys. The more regional flying and less mainline flying means that a regional is where most pilots will start and end their careers because there isn't enough mainline flying anymore to give everyone a chance at flying for higher wages and a better QOL. The pay at the regional level is not pay that one can live off of as an FO or can support a family as a CA. I realize mainline needs to cut costs and regionals need to be around to support that cause. However, too much outsourcing is a bad thing. Too the fellow who said that "without regionals there wouldn't be as many pax for mainline carriers...". How is that possible. With less outsourcing means more mainline flying. That means that those pax who would normally be a on route that a CRJ was outsourced to fly would now be on the mainline carrier instead. Regionals don't do anything to attract more pax to mainline. It never has and it never will. as I said before, since most markets that used to be traditionally only mainline now have been outsourced to regionals, putting mainline back in those cities would jsut mean more pax on mainline flights.

[Flamin_Squirrel 71]

Whats wrong with protecting Major airlines' flying? Are you saying you have no problem losing your seat to another pilot who gets paid a third of what you do and has a an eight of he experience just so your company can save a buck? Mainline pilots have been furloughed because airlines are trying to cut costs by outsourcing flying to the regionals. With that, the regionals bid against eachother and the lowest bid wins.......how is that good for the mainline guys. The more regional flying and less mainline flying means that a regional is where most pilots will start and end their careers because there isn't enough mainline flying anymore to give everyone a chance at flying for higher wages and a better QOL. The pay at the regional level is not pay that one can live off of as an FO or can support a family as a CA. I realize mainline needs to cut costs and regionals need to be around to support that cause. However, too much outsourcing is a bad thing. Too the fellow who said that "without regionals there wouldn't be as many pax for mainline carriers...". How is that possible. With less outsourcing means more mainline flying. That means that those pax who would normally be a on route that a CRJ was outsourced to fly would now be on the mainline carrier instead. Regionals don't do anything to attract more pax to mainline. It never has and it never will. as I said before, since most markets that used to be traditionally only mainline now have been outsourced to regionals, putting mainline back in those cities would jsut mean more pax on mainline flights.

Two seperate issues there. Major US carriers should be allowed to die. They can't turn a profit and should no longer be protected from their own incompetance. As for regional pilots being paid (less than?) minimum wage, that's another problem altogether. Not sure how you'd solve that one. Doesn't seem to be a problem in Europe though.

[Lawyer+Pilot 126]

Whats wrong with protecting Major airlines' flying? Are you saying you have no problem losing your seat to another pilot who gets paid a third of what you do and has a an eight of he experience just so your company can save a buck? Mainline pilots have been furloughed because airlines are trying to cut costs by outsourcing flying to the regionals. With that, the regionals bid against eachother and the lowest bid wins.......how is that good for the mainline guys. The more regional flying and less mainline flying means that a regional is where most pilots will start and end their careers because there isn't enough mainline flying anymore to give everyone a chance at flying for higher wages and a better QOL. The pay at the regional level is not pay that one can live off of as an FO or can support a family as a CA. I realize mainline needs to cut costs and regionals need to be around to support that cause. However, too much outsourcing is a bad thing. Too the fellow who said that "without regionals there wouldn't be as many pax for mainline carriers...". How is that possible. With less outsourcing means more mainline flying. That means that those pax who would normally be a on route that a CRJ was outsourced to fly would now be on the mainline carrier instead. Regionals don't do anything to attract more pax to mainline. It never has and it never will. as I said before, since most markets that used to be traditionally only mainline now have been outsourced to regionals, putting mainline back in those cities would jsut mean more pax on mainline flights.

That's capitalism. What you're advocating -- protecting the less efficiently operating market players for the sake of advancing purely social objectives -- is a tenet of socialism. And, you can look no farther than the Soviet Union to see where that will land an economy and it's people. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a focus on maintaining safety standards (training, etc.) amongst regional airlines. Especially here in the U.S., that's been a major source of concern lately. Paying regional pilots more will ensure that they no longer have to work 3 jobs in addition to flying. The increased regulatory scrutiny and focus on safety will naturally ensure that. So long as they can operate more efficiently, however, it's irrelevant that they cause other less efficient market players and their employees to suffer. The market drives this evolution. This happens in every industry. It's not unique to pilots.

[ahsmatt7 1,199]

Two seperate issues there. Major US carriers should be allowed to die. They can't turn a profit and should no longer be protected from their own incompetance. As for regional pilots being paid (less than?) minimum wage, that's another problem altogether. Not sure how you'd solve that one. Doesn't seem to be a problem in Europe though.

The only way major airlines to turn a profit or at least break even would be for ticket prices to rise back to where they were. Will that happen? never......If major Carriers werent protected by scope from their pilots, then whats left? A bunch of RJs. I am not advocating Govt. subsidies, I am advocating a MGT that knows what to do with money and their assets. On that note, I can agree with your statement about incompetence. However, a CRJ shouldn't be sued when the mainline carriers have done the job before and could easily do it now. It is extremely unfair to lose one's seat to a 23 yr old with 500 hrs. and to a crew that gets paid a third of what you would. Like you said though, two different issues. The problem is that I agree with way to much of this post. Its MGT fault,

[Flamin_Squirrel 71]

The only way major airlines to turn a profit or at least break even would be for ticket prices to rise back to where they were.

Not sure if that's true. Budget airlines in Europe are making a profit with ticket prices that are comparible (maybe less?) than those in the US.

[ahsmatt7 1,199]

That's capitalism. What you're advocating -- protecting the less efficiently operating market players for the sake of advancing purely social objectives -- is a tenet of socialism. And, you can look no farther than the Soviet Union to see where that will land an economy and it's people. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a focus on maintaining safety standards (training, etc.) amongst regional airlines. Especially here in the U.S., that's been a major source of concern lately. Paying regional pilots more will ensure that they no longer have to work 3 jobs in addition to flying. The increased regulatory scrutiny and focus on safety will naturally ensure that. So long as they can operate more efficiently, however, it's irrelevant that they cause other less efficient market players and their employees to suffer. The market drives this evolution. This happens in every industry. It's not unique to pilots.

I am coming from the pilot's POV and not the MGT or paying public. the pilot must protect his seat at all costs. MGT will try everything to screw with that while the paying public demand a 50 dollar ticket to from east to west. I think its interesting that a lot of the simmers on here would love to fly the 737 or whatever in the real world yet they don't care that there is a high chance that they never will.......due to the way the system is set up today. The funny thing is that everyone says the weaker players should be dealt with accordingly (left to run dry)..........what about midwest airlines. Republic ( i believe) came in and took over all the midwest flying..........finny thing is that the RJs had the midwest livery on them. The pax would be a ticket with midwest on it and the whole experience would be midwest......except it wasnt being operated by midwest. It would be different if Republic was their own branded airline doing the flying. That would mean a overall better company ran another out of business. However, Midwest gave the flying to republic. One can argue that its partly the pilots' fault for voting away scope and voting on bad contracts.......i can agree with that. My main point is that major carriers don't need to outsource flying. The major airlines shouldn't be putting RJs on routes that were once flown by mainline. Mainline should use the regionals as a way to reach the markets that wouldn't even fill up a mainline aircraft or just wouldn't be able to get into the smaller airports. Regionals should be used as regionals....not a cost cutting method for major airlines. from a pilot's perspective.....the way this industry had become is wrong on so many levels. From the MGT perspective......its business.....deal with it. From the public's perspective......they have no idea whats going on and they thing becasue it says "delta" on it......it has delta crew......which is wrong.

Not sure if that's true. Budget airlines in Europe are making a profit with ticket prices that are comparible (maybe less?) than those in the US.

European airlines are run way more efficiently due to smarter MGT. its no comparison.

[xAlpha 1]

That's capitalism. What you're advocating -- protecting the less efficiently operating market players for the sake of advancing purely social objectives -- is a tenet of socialism. And, you can look no farther than the Soviet Union to see where that will land an economy and it's people. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a focus on maintaining safety standards (training, etc.) amongst regional airlines. Especially here in the U.S., that's been a major source of concern lately. Paying regional pilots more will ensure that they no longer have to work 3 jobs in addition to flying. The increased regulatory scrutiny and focus on safety will naturally ensure that. So long as they can operate more efficiently, however, it's irrelevant that they cause other less efficient market players and their employees to suffer. The market drives this evolution. This happens in every industry. It's not unique to pilots.

Really? We're having a discussion about economic philosophy here?

[Flamin_Squirrel 71]

European airlines are run way more efficiently due to smarter MGT. its no comparison.

That's my point. Stop protecting the (current) major carriers to let those companies who are capable of running a business take their place.

[cuconegron 0]

Are we still talking about flight simulator here? Good grief!!!

[ahsmatt7 1,199]

That's my point. Stop protecting the (current) major carriers to let those companies who are capable of running a business take their place.

What are you saying....let KLM fly me from Houston to Dallas? you can't be serious..... When it comes to International markets....by all means come over here becasue all the US based carriers have no cool amenities compared to the European and middle eastern counterparts

[Lawyer+Pilot 126]

Really? We're having a discussion about economic philosophy here?

Does it make you nervous?

[Jigsaw 8]

Does it make you nervous?

I don't think that it makes him nervous, but many people like simming, because they can forget all the troubles of real life. The developer forum of an add-on aircraft isn't the place for the depressing topic "economy" and all those things that ruin the romance of flying more and more, nor is a preview thread about an upcoming add-on expansion.

[Lawyer+Pilot 126]

Ok, I know you guys aren't going to like this, but I'm just going to put it out there. [Robert Paul (xAlpha), here comes more "philosophy".] Ultimately, there is an imbalance in the airline industry. I submit that the imbalance was caused by labor unions. Labor unions make the airlines operate less efficiently, which creates a vacuum in the market and an opportunity for smaller market participants (who are up against smaller collective bargaining interests) to come in and make life miserable for the less efficiently operated companies.

[fakeflyer737 992]

Sorry, but the last thing I want too see/read on this forum is Politics, Unions etc etc, please please stop,, go to CNN or Fox or something.

[Lawyer+Pilot 126]

I don't think that it makes him nervous, but many people like simming, because they can forget all the troubles of real life. The developer forum of an add-on aircraft isn't the place for the depressing topic "economy" and all those things that ruin the romance of flying more and more, nor is a preview thread about an upcoming add-on expansion.

Hey, all I said was that the 600 was no replacement for a CRJ. I'm just going along with the conversation about protecting major carriers that someone else started. I have kleenex if anybody needs it while they are simming tonight. My guess is, however, that this discussion won't affect your sim experience in the slightest.