Originally Posted by
LizzyBorden
Does not answer the question I posed. How does the take off weights on the 550 impact your job security? And as far as putting money in your pockets, these types of things actually keep money out of your pocket. If mainline pilots cannot do it for a profit, then you have two options. Don't do it at all and lose out completely, or have it done at a lower cost which generates revenue for the mainline carrier, which puts money in your pocket.
For one, please provide a case that mainline pilots cannot operate smaller aircraft profitably. Generally, our pay rates increase with aircraft size. It stands to reason that mainline rates for 50 or 76 seat jets would be lower than those of the 737. What, in your opinion, makes the magic line of mainline profitably be drawn below 100 or 120 seats? Where, exactly, is that line?
Regarding your question of takeoff weights on the 550, management came up with the idea for removing seats from 700s to make 550s because they hit the 70/76 seat limit of our scope clause. You now want the union to grant relief on MTOW to allow them to make their end-around decision more profitable? And you think this weight limitation takes money out of your pocket? I'm stunned. Think of all the money "you" could make if we removed scope language altogether! We could do unlimited regional flying and have Skywest perform 100 seat or possibly 737/320 flying at a more profitable level. Heck, think about the profit potential of no restrictions on international revenue/code sharing! We could probably serve "our" passengers more profitably by putting all of them on ANA, Lufthansa, or Air New Zealand.
So again, please back up your claims that our scope clause takes money out of "our" pockets, or that the mainline cannot fly something smaller than a 737 profitably.