Originally Posted by
Wheel Landing
Maybe I'm naive but...
I can't believe what I'm reading! How eroded has this industry become because of statements just like that?
The worst part is that there may be people from this thread on the radio broadcasting snide remarks about all the RJs you see lined up for takeoff ahead of you.
You want to talk strategy? Try this: Don't give up one more aircraft or seat in scope. Convince your company that they should right size the aircraft to the market. An E-190 sized aircraft makes good sense in certain markets. Flown by pilots at your airline, aircraft like that will help return this industry to stronger proffitts. If a 76 seater is truely needed in certain markets then it should be a good fit to put a 175 where needed as it is a common type with the 190 and shares 90 percent common parts with the 190. It appears to be working well for Air Canada. Then, begin the process of removing the 50 seat jet. It never really made sense and it certainly doesn't now with fuel costing as much as it does. Explore the possibilities of larger turboprops.
Last and most importantly, please don't consider the idea of giving up additional scope an option.
I'm looking forward to hearing your constructive ideas on how to increase proffittability and raise top end wages to what they should be.
Why Lein started this thread was to talk about the top end scooe issues, all of which are far more unique and as far as I know new territory. It's a global airline operating in a global market with friends and alliances that we agree are critical and can be mutually beneficial... as long as our scope clause handles this correctly.
Right now, we're not getting the warm fuzzies. We have a problem of seemingly being replaced by AF/KLM. Just look at ATL-CDG. Hence, the need to figure this out and provide the correct solution.
The benefit of having this done properly is it could mean international growth. Having it wrong means the opposite. We have no intention of burning the candle at either end much less at both. Swapping 70 seaters for 76 seaters is a disgusting thought, but, as Lein correctly said we have to consider the section 1 package. It would be nuts to say no more converting 70 seaters to 76 seaters and lose out on the top end. That's all he means by that and I think that's wise to review everything in its entirety.
That said, I hooe we push for a section 1 that makes the company sick, not us.