CO 1E

I'm sure they would, but for the scope clause.

PSU Mudder

Wouldn't operating them as mainline mean they are allowed within the scope clasue?

rtiggi

I have, sadly, already these cuts in the available CLE to LAX flights... It is portion of the cycle that we are currently in. Hopefully, we are approaching the bottom of the bell curve.

CO 1E

If they operated them with CO mainline pilots and paid those pilots CO mainline wages, I think it would be allowed; but that would never happen, because it would defeat the cost savings that operating such RJ's normally seeks to achieve.

Offhand, I do not know the actual language of the scope clause; but in essence, it prohibits CO from operating or contracting to operate any aircraft with between 50 and 100 (or so) passengers, in order to protect the mainline pilots from losing hours to regional/contract carrier pilots by a shift of capacity away from smaller 737's to aircraft like the E190. I do not know whether it actually allows them to use mainline pilots if they elected to operate such aircraft, or if they would have to amend the pilots' contract and negotiate such a provision before going forward with a plan to operate such aircraft with mainline pilots.

WR Cage

The missing perspective is that CO pilots would want 735 rates for flying the E90/E70/CR9/CR7. The pilots re of the opinion that replacing the flying is okay, but the pilot rates will not be going down. Therefore its generally better, from a cost perspective, to fly the larger a/c unless the operating trip costs are reduced.

What AC (Air Canada) did was to reduce the pilot wages for the E75/E90 comensurate with the reduction in seats from 319 to E90. The rates are a little higher than regional pilots get, but not much higher.

This is what CO pilots should do. They need to create a new class of short haul flying to accomodate the E90 and then staff rates adjusted to that level. But the pilots will not allow this approach.

T/BE20/G

The scope clause does not prohibit CO from operating any aircraft, though it does prohibit them from contracting the operation of aircraft under certain circumstances. I also don't know the specifics of ALPA's scope clause at CO, but the main restriction generally relates to aircraft size. There is absolutely nothing stopping CO from operating aircraft with 50-100 (or more) seats; they just need to be operated by CO, using CO crews, and not by contract companies or subsidiaries.

The only thing they would need to negotiate is a new set of pay rates. While I'm sure the pilots would be happy to accept the current Small Narrowbody payrate, the company is almsot certainly not willing to pay that much for an airplane that is so much lower capacity.

As noted elsewhere, the E190 is flown as a mainline aircraft at USAirways, where the scope clause, while more relaxed than at CO, still does not permit an aircraft that size to be conracted out. The pilots negotiated a mainline pay rate for it, albeit a lower pay rate than they get for the 737/A320.

Bonehead

DEN-CLE is down to one flight a day...yikes.

rkkwan

I was also a bit surprised. But they just invested in a new PC there, and held the poker tournament as well. Clearly, they want to increase marketshare at LAS.

supermasterphil

doobierw, maybe you can also enlighten the following for me/us.

What happens with the crew of CO110 that worked on last nights flight? EWR-CGN?

Will they deadhunt home CO111 of today or will the take a flight tomorrow by the way of AMS or take a train to FRA or something?

MBM3

I believe the crews deadhead back on the same aircraft.

HeadInTheClouds

If the fare is there, the fare is there with or without the connection. Your problem is that now you need to find your fare bucket on four flights instead of two, so it's harder to find those lowest fares.

By removing flights, there are fewer seats available at the lowest fares, which causes average fares to rise... which btw is the whole point of the exercise of removing capacity in the first place. You're just witnessing the desired outcome first hand.

COFlyerCLE

Just to clarify - I have seen mention of only one daily CLE-BOS flight going forward - but I don't see that in the timetable at all. Searching for CLE-BOS flights is showing 4-a-day non-stops in Oct/Nov.

Anyway - my question is this: If the price of oil stays where it is today or goes lower - what is the timetable or probability that some of this service will be restored.

My guess is that stations closed will remain so, but frequency can be adjusted easier.

Any thoughts?

RoboBR

I work for one of the large casinos and recently asked our marketing folks about this. Their response was that our fly in guests, particularly from the East Coast and Eurpoe is still quite strong. Presumably/hopefully Co is getting a lot of this traffic. Even though the $$ has picked up strength recently it is still a pretty deal for Europeans to come here (LAS).

The thing that is really impacting Vegas right now and the main reason for the 1-3% drop is our So Cal drive in for the weekend traffic. Not so many of those folks around.

I personally would not be surprised to see cuts in LAS flights in the coming months though. Convention trafic will drop off as companies and tradeshows take their business elsewhere. Big shows are usually booked a couple of years in advance so the impact of their departure will not be felt for a while.

radonc1

Hi everyone
I stand corrected. However, when I was booking my BOS flight, there was only one flight available (9AM). I suspect the other 2 flights were sold out (since these are Kenjets, that is not surprising).

What is really distressing is that I now have to take (gasp!!) US to go to CHM from ROC. Again, it is a timing issue and CO has no AM flights on Sun from ROC to CLE (where I could drive down). An aside. They do have an early AM flight on Sat so go figure.

A second aside. Sometimes, some flights have not been showing up on CO.com when I am trying to book flights. I have to go to OHR and I could not find a mid-PM return, which was strange. My assistant was getting one on her computer so I logged out and rebooked the flight and there was the flight. Very strange.

channa

While there are fewer seats which means fewer cheap seats, inventory is not as simple as you describe.

If Segment 1 has the bucket, and Segment 2 has the bucket, it doesn't mean that Segment 1 connecting to Segment 2 has the bucket (or vice versa).

In fact, with CO, CO often uses different buckets for non-stop vs. connecting flights, so a flight with a zeroed out bucket on one segment, but that same bucket open when married to another flight, is quite common.