Originally Posted by iahflyr

I did not say those words.

I support a good scope clause. I support us having a 76 seat limit and a limit on the number of aircraft that have 76 seats or less at regionals.

The issue I have is that our union intentionally kneecapped the performance of these CRJ-550’s. The CRJ-550 is a replacement for our 50 seat jets that have no replacement. 50 seat feed is good when used correctly. It brings in lots of premium revenue on routes that have no competition.

A passenger pays significantly more for a flight like SBA-LAX-HNL than just LAX-HNL. There is no competition for SBA-LAX-HNL, so United charges a lot more, whereas LAX-HNL has a ton of competition and fares are extremely low. These are typically business travelers who don’t care about the extra cost. Instead we are making them drive 2 hours to a primary hub instead of flying, and we lose hundreds and hundreds of dollars of revenue and profit on the SBA-LAX leg, and often lose their business on the LAX-HNL leg.

Customers do not hate smaller jets, JSX has no problem filling up 50 seat sized planes (with 30 seats), and with very premium customers. They hate 70 people crammed into a 70 seat sized jet. They like 50 people/seats in a 70 seat sized jet. JSX is already poaching our customers on routes like LA-Vegas, LA-SF Bay Area, etc… They will keep expanding both on the regional routes we give up and eventually more of our actual mainline routes. We need a competitive product in the 50 seat market, and the CRJ-550 without those restrictions is the answer. It doesn’t take away mainline jobs but actually creates mainline jobs.

Less 50 seat feed = less mainline jobs needed.

Oh well. Too many “they took ‘er jobs” people who can’t see the forest through the trees.

I cannot stand that our union intentionally hurt our product, our revenue, our feed, our PS...