Originally Posted by
Bucking Bar
... and that is what I think most of this MD90 talk is. Playing Boeing off a paper airplane.
There is considerable frustration in the marketplace on a 100 to 130 seat solution. I don't know why Airlines had no problem shifting half their domestic flying to a Bombardier / Embraer platform, but they now seem hesitant to give them the next 30%.
My very strong suspicion remains that the long term solution hinges on scope negotiations and the current uncertainty results in paralysis when making a 25 year commitment to the trunk of an airline's fleet.
IMHO, ALPA simply needs to make it clear that more scope sales are not not on the table and will never be on the table. The FACT ALPA will not make this statement is just as telling as their denials that they are not CURRENTLY talking about scope.
With the uncertainty about who's operating the C Series cleared up, airlines would be able to better evaluate the product's real operational costs.
1. The Embraers and Bombardier products are at the "regional" level, and IMO management isn't going to "mix" between the two sides. Either the larger Embraers and Bombardiers will go to the regionals, or they simply won't get them. Your scope language can stop them from putting them at the regionals, but you can't force them to buy them and put them at the mainline.
2. ALPA can't "make it clear that scope sales aren't on the table"...They have to represent both sides in this debate, and they are worried about further legal action.
3. You are correct, that the commitment is hinged to scope negotiations. Without concessions in this area, I suspect they won't pull the trigger....It's kinda a catch 22.....