Spot on post.

That's all my company understands. Scanning and e-mailing are WAAAAAY to complicated for our fine folks at HQ.

Says the UAL pilot with unlimited 70 seat scope? :confused:

This is good information that I wasn't aware of, can you direct us
to the scope language at UAL that allows for unlimited 70 seat RJ's?

Apples to crabapples. While a mistake, its a major stretch to say that they would have just landed on top of airplanes. While the incidents you mention did in deed require some luck, how many regional incidents have there been in the same time period?

The fact is there is more pilot pushing, longer days, higher cycles, worse rest rules and generally less experience at all critical levels compared to majors. That said, of course an accident could happen anywhere at anytime. But the regionals push the envelope of safety even more because of the nature of their low bidder cost structure especially when pilot costs and staffing are one of, if not their biggest, "controllable" costs to get the next bid.

DALPA contract comparison. United contract allows no limit to aircraft with 70 seats or less and a MGTOW of up to 80,000 lbs.

Yet LCAL is 50 and under seats for jets. Let's see if their JCBA can trump ours on scope.

Although I'm against one more DC-9 replacement jet at DCI, if it happens I would at least hope that there is an iron clad sunset clause in a reasonable timeframe to eliminate and park or better yet to transfer all RJ's over 50 seats to mainline.

It would be incredulous for our MEC to allow more than today's 255 DC-9-10 replacement fleet at the labor busting outsource providers and make it permanent.

AA wants 100 seaters at Eagle (86 seats including first class) and if DL caves, especially not in BK with billions rolling in for profits with more projected, that would be bad for UCAL pilots in any effort to fix scope on their end.

Gloopy,

I know the Delta crew wouldn't land on a taxiway full of aircraft.

However, all normal safeguards were bypassed when the pilot began the flare over the taxiway. At that point, the landing crew would be powerless to prevent an accident had another aircraft entered the eastern third of taxiway Mike. It is not a major stretch to say that this would have been a disaster.

At that time of day, a taxiing crew "clearing left" would have thought the distant aircraft lights were landing on the parallel runway, and a good chance they would have proceeded onto the taxiway.

It was pretty much dumb luck that no other aircraft pulled onto the taxiway during their landing roll. That said, I don't question the professionalism or experience of the pilots involved.

No facts to back this up, but I'm thinking this will be OBE.

Right, 70 seat airframes, not 70 seat scope.
Number of aircraft is just a part of overall scope.
LOA 2003 has no limit to the number of 70 seat airframes, but clear limitations to the
allowable block hours those airframes can fly for UAL. 2003 LOA 1-C-1
Therefore it is not unlimited 70 seat scope. Airframes yes. Unlimited 70 seat scope, no.

Exactly. One would be hard pressed to find a LUAL or LCAL pilot
who believes the vote back in '03 to allow any 70 seaters was the right one.
However, we now have the benefit of hindsight, profitability and seeing the true colors of our management teams.
And whether the DAL pilots want to admit it or not, their vote on overall scope
will affect all US major airline operations going forward, so will the vote at UAL, AA etc. down the line. We are not isolated.
Hopefully we stand strong to get back toward the 50 seat scope LCAL has and away from our mistake at LUAL.
And yes, any pilot at DAL/LUAL/LCAL/AA/US etc. that votes to increase the 76+ seat flying/outsourcing the company can do
at the expense of mainline operations, to line their own pockets, is a mega-tool.