Changes In Scope
08-29-2016, 07:05 AM
#21
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,868
My 2 cents:
I could live with more 76 seaters if a far greater number of 50 seaters are parked and total RJ lift decreases and mainline lift increases - with the right deal. This mean no more seats, no higher MGTOW, just a few more 76 seaters.
I know allowing more large RJs is very distasteful, Me and 1100 of my closest buds had a unpaid vacation due to the RJ proliferation from 2000-2005, but times have changed.
We are hiring as fast as we can.
Guys are no longer stagnating at the regional.
Less RJ seats, less RJ Pilots is a good thing.
The Alaskan Code-share has withered.
Finally and by far most importantly, We have the C series order at mainline. The final lines of the RJ era have been drawn at 76 seats. We no longer have to worry about larger and larger RJs encroaching on mainline.
Lets not get hung up fighting the last war - RJs as an issue is dead - lets focus our efforts on JV scope and code-shares - that is were the section 1 threat lies in my opinion.
Scoop
I could live with more 76 seaters if a far greater number of 50 seaters are parked and total RJ lift decreases and mainline lift increases - with the right deal. This mean no more seats, no higher MGTOW, just a few more 76 seaters.
I know allowing more large RJs is very distasteful, Me and 1100 of my closest buds had a unpaid vacation due to the RJ proliferation from 2000-2005, but times have changed.
We are hiring as fast as we can.
Guys are no longer stagnating at the regional.
Less RJ seats, less RJ Pilots is a good thing.
The Alaskan Code-share has withered.
Finally and by far most importantly, We have the C series order at mainline. The final lines of the RJ era have been drawn at 76 seats. We no longer have to worry about larger and larger RJs encroaching on mainline.
Lets not get hung up fighting the last war - RJs as an issue is dead - lets focus our efforts on JV scope and code-shares - that is were the section 1 threat lies in my opinion.
Scoop
08-29-2016, 07:23 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: A350 Both
Posts: 7,292
Originally Posted by Scoop
My 2 cents:
I could live with more 76 seaters if a far greater number of 50 seaters are parked and total RJ lift decreases and mainline lift increases - with the right deal. This mean no more seats, no higher MGTOW, just a few more 76 seaters.
I know allowing more large RJs is very distasteful, Me and 1100 of my closest buds had a unpaid vacation due to the RJ proliferation from 2000-2005, but times have changed.
We are hiring as fast as we can.
Guys are no longer stagnating at the regional.
Less RJ seats, less RJ Pilots is a good thing.
The Alaskan Code-share has withered.
Finally and by far most importantly, We have the C series order at mainline. The final lines of the RJ era have been drawn at 76 seats. We no longer have to worry about larger and larger RJs encroaching on mainline.
Lets not get hung up fighting the last war - RJs as an issue is dead - lets focus our efforts on JV scope and code-shares - that is were the section 1 threat lies in my opinion.
Scoop
I could live with more 76 seaters if a far greater number of 50 seaters are parked and total RJ lift decreases and mainline lift increases - with the right deal. This mean no more seats, no higher MGTOW, just a few more 76 seaters.
I know allowing more large RJs is very distasteful, Me and 1100 of my closest buds had a unpaid vacation due to the RJ proliferation from 2000-2005, but times have changed.
We are hiring as fast as we can.
Guys are no longer stagnating at the regional.
Less RJ seats, less RJ Pilots is a good thing.
The Alaskan Code-share has withered.
Finally and by far most importantly, We have the C series order at mainline. The final lines of the RJ era have been drawn at 76 seats. We no longer have to worry about larger and larger RJs encroaching on mainline.
Lets not get hung up fighting the last war - RJs as an issue is dead - lets focus our efforts on JV scope and code-shares - that is were the section 1 threat lies in my opinion.
Scoop
08-29-2016, 07:33 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,943
Originally Posted by Scoop
My 2 cents:
I could live with more 76 seaters if a far greater number of 50 seaters are parked and total RJ lift decreases and mainline lift increases - with the right deal. This mean no more seats, no higher MGTOW, just a few more 76 seaters.
I know allowing more large RJs is very distasteful, Me and 1100 of my closest buds had a unpaid vacation due to the RJ proliferation from 2000-2005, but times have changed.
We are hiring as fast as we can.
Guys are no longer stagnating at the regional.
Less RJ seats, less RJ Pilots is a good thing.
The Alaskan Code-share has withered.
Finally and by far most importantly, We have the C series order at mainline. The final lines of the RJ era have been drawn at 76 seats. We no longer have to worry about larger and larger RJs encroaching on mainline.
Lets not get hung up fighting the last war - RJs as an issue is dead - lets focus our efforts on JV scope and code-shares - that is were the section 1 threat lies in my opinion.
Scoop
I could live with more 76 seaters if a far greater number of 50 seaters are parked and total RJ lift decreases and mainline lift increases - with the right deal. This mean no more seats, no higher MGTOW, just a few more 76 seaters.
I know allowing more large RJs is very distasteful, Me and 1100 of my closest buds had a unpaid vacation due to the RJ proliferation from 2000-2005, but times have changed.
We are hiring as fast as we can.
Guys are no longer stagnating at the regional.
Less RJ seats, less RJ Pilots is a good thing.
The Alaskan Code-share has withered.
Finally and by far most importantly, We have the C series order at mainline. The final lines of the RJ era have been drawn at 76 seats. We no longer have to worry about larger and larger RJs encroaching on mainline.
Lets not get hung up fighting the last war - RJs as an issue is dead - lets focus our efforts on JV scope and code-shares - that is were the section 1 threat lies in my opinion.
Scoop
The 76 seat jet is what the DC-9-10 was and that was mainline.
One additional 76 seater is an automatic no-vote, single issue, for many and for good reason.
The rest of the TA would be irrelevant.
08-29-2016, 07:37 AM
#24
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Originally Posted by Scoop
My 2 cents:
I could live with more 76 seaters if a far greater number of 50 seaters are parked and total RJ lift decreases and mainline lift increases - with the right deal. This mean no more seats, no higher MGTOW, just a few more 76 seaters.
I know allowing more large RJs is very distasteful, Me and 1100 of my closest buds had a unpaid vacation due to the RJ proliferation from 2000-2005, but times have changed.
We are hiring as fast as we can.
Guys are no longer stagnating at the regional.
Less RJ seats, less RJ Pilots is a good thing.
The Alaskan Code-share has withered.
Finally and by far most importantly, We have the C series order at mainline. The final lines of the RJ era have been drawn at 76 seats. We no longer have to worry about larger and larger RJs encroaching on mainline.
Lets not get hung up fighting the last war - RJs as an issue is dead - lets focus our efforts on JV scope and code-shares - that is were the section 1 threat lies in my opinion.
Scoop
I could live with more 76 seaters if a far greater number of 50 seaters are parked and total RJ lift decreases and mainline lift increases - with the right deal. This mean no more seats, no higher MGTOW, just a few more 76 seaters.
I know allowing more large RJs is very distasteful, Me and 1100 of my closest buds had a unpaid vacation due to the RJ proliferation from 2000-2005, but times have changed.
We are hiring as fast as we can.
Guys are no longer stagnating at the regional.
Less RJ seats, less RJ Pilots is a good thing.
The Alaskan Code-share has withered.
Finally and by far most importantly, We have the C series order at mainline. The final lines of the RJ era have been drawn at 76 seats. We no longer have to worry about larger and larger RJs encroaching on mainline.
Lets not get hung up fighting the last war - RJs as an issue is dead - lets focus our efforts on JV scope and code-shares - that is were the section 1 threat lies in my opinion.
Scoop
08-29-2016, 07:40 AM
#25
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,868
Originally Posted by Mesabah
Careful with the Cseries order, you are going to get hundreds of those things regardless of what deal you make. Also, the C100 could go away in favor of the 300/500 aircraft, the market certainly supports the larger aircraft, and the C100 has basically the same operational costs as the C300. The C100 was built for short field performance, it's not optimal weight for engine size.
The point is the once nebulous RJ/Mainline dividing line has now solidified. Once the C series of any model comes to mainline that is where all models will stay.
Scoop
08-29-2016, 07:41 AM
#26
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,868
Originally Posted by contrails
I don't care what's being bought that's larger, C-series, 717s, 737-600/700, whatever.
The 76 seat jet is what the DC-9-10 was and that was mainline.
One additional 76 seater is an automatic no-vote, single issue, for many and for good reason.
The rest of the TA would be irrelevant.
The 76 seat jet is what the DC-9-10 was and that was mainline.
One additional 76 seater is an automatic no-vote, single issue, for many and for good reason.
The rest of the TA would be irrelevant.
Fair enough - your vote counts just as much as mine. I trust the combined wisdom of 13,000 Pilots far more than I trust the judgement of any 1 individual - including myself.
Scoop
08-29-2016, 07:45 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2014
Position: DAL A320 CA
Posts: 558
Originally Posted by Scoop
My 2 cents:
I could live with more 76 seaters if a far greater number of 50 seaters are parked and total RJ lift decreases and mainline lift increases - with the right deal. This mean no more seats, no higher MGTOW, just a few more 76 seaters.
I know allowing more large RJs is very distasteful, Me and 1100 of my closest buds had a unpaid vacation due to the RJ proliferation from 2000-2005, but times have changed.
We are hiring as fast as we can.
Guys are no longer stagnating at the regional.
Less RJ seats, less RJ Pilots is a good thing.
The Alaskan Code-share has withered.
Finally and by far most importantly, We have the C series order at mainline. The final lines of the RJ era have been drawn at 76 seats. We no longer have to worry about larger and larger RJs encroaching on mainline.
Lets not get hung up fighting the last war - RJs as an issue is dead - lets focus our efforts on JV scope and code-shares - that is were the section 1 threat lies in my opinion.
Scoop
I could live with more 76 seaters if a far greater number of 50 seaters are parked and total RJ lift decreases and mainline lift increases - with the right deal. This mean no more seats, no higher MGTOW, just a few more 76 seaters.
I know allowing more large RJs is very distasteful, Me and 1100 of my closest buds had a unpaid vacation due to the RJ proliferation from 2000-2005, but times have changed.
We are hiring as fast as we can.
Guys are no longer stagnating at the regional.
Less RJ seats, less RJ Pilots is a good thing.
The Alaskan Code-share has withered.
Finally and by far most importantly, We have the C series order at mainline. The final lines of the RJ era have been drawn at 76 seats. We no longer have to worry about larger and larger RJs encroaching on mainline.
Lets not get hung up fighting the last war - RJs as an issue is dead - lets focus our efforts on JV scope and code-shares - that is were the section 1 threat lies in my opinion.
Scoop
They can use their existing permitted 76 seaters to replace 50's..and buy more C-series flown by mailing to cover the difference. Don't they still have 25 76 seaters available under the existing hard cap that they haven't used?
Jmho, CG
08-29-2016, 07:48 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: A350 Both
Posts: 7,292
Originally Posted by CGfalconHerc
Don't they still have 25 76 seaters available under the existing hard cap that they haven't used?
Jmho, CG
Jmho, CG
08-29-2016, 08:13 AM
#29
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,868
Originally Posted by CGfalconHerc
Good post, Scoop..but 1310 guys/gals got to take that vacation..and I just don't think I could vote for any increase in the number of 76 seaters..ever.
They can use their existing permitted 76 seaters to replace 50's..and buy more C-series flown by mailing to cover the difference. Don't they still have 25 76 seaters available under the existing hard cap that they haven't used?
Jmho, CG
They can use their existing permitted 76 seaters to replace 50's..and buy more C-series flown by mailing to cover the difference. Don't they still have 25 76 seaters available under the existing hard cap that they haven't used?
Jmho, CG
You are correct - 1310. I omitted the FM-2 guys since they were supposedly furloughed due to the Iraq war and not as directly related to the growth of RJs, but your number is probably better.
Scoop
08-29-2016, 08:27 AM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Position: Entitled rocket surgeon!
Posts: 193
Until the C series is on the property I see no value in allowing more 76 seaters. They could easily cancel the C series orders if we allow more 76 seaters. They are saying the 321 is now the 88 replacement due to its limited range.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
