Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Major (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/major/)
-   -   CAL scope (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/major/30386-cal-scope.html)

Free Flyer 08-28-2008 09:39 AM


Originally Posted by CALPilotToo (Post 451357)
None of this is true. Had nothing to do with 20, 30, 40, 50,70, 90, or 285 seaters. BS flag big guy.

Sorry for the misinformation then. I was just reiterating what was said from a LEC 170 council member.

Mason32 08-28-2008 09:51 AM


Originally Posted by Bond (Post 451299)
Bingo. CAL keeping their scope is a great thing for the industry. Management wants to sustain this ridiculous mentality that many have adopted that a 70-90 seater is a regional aircraft.....it's not!

Kudos to the CAL pilots for holding the line.


So under your rules the 70+ seat ATR and Q400 are not regional aircraft ?

USAir has the 170/175 at regionals, and the 190 at mainline... seems to work.

jdt30 08-28-2008 10:13 AM


Originally Posted by Mason32 (Post 451703)
So under your rules the 70+ seat ATR and Q400 are not regional aircraft ?

USAir has the 170/175 at regionals, and the 190 at mainline... seems to work.

You are correct. If it were left to me we would be flying the Q400s also. I don't know anything about USAir, but I would like any aircraft with more than 50 seats be flown by us for narrowbody rates.

dojetdriver 08-28-2008 10:23 AM


Originally Posted by jdt30 (Post 451717)
You are correct. If it were left to me we would be flying the Q400s also. I don't know anything about USAir, but I would like any aircraft with more than 50 seats be flown by us for narrowbody rates.


Kudos to you for that. But seriously, there was a time when pilots though the RJ was "beneath" them. What do you think would happen if a "mainline" pilot got put into the Q or an ATR?

I don't really see it going over too well.

Bond 08-28-2008 10:26 AM


Originally Posted by Mason32 (Post 451703)
So under your rules the 70+ seat ATR and Q400 are not regional aircraft ?

USAir has the 170/175 at regionals, and the 190 at mainline... seems to work.

So you're saying that just because an airline on the brink of bankruptcy is making it work, that it's ok? That CAL should do the same? I don't think so.

If those 170/175's were at mainline like AIR CANADA, then that would mean more jobs at mainline at a much better scale.

Please don't tell me you're one of those guys that is salivating for the chance to fly a 70 seater with a blue tail our IAH? Bad news friend, it doesn't look like it's going to happen.

The sooner we all in the industry start to recognize that anything over 50 seats belongs to mainline, the better we will all be.

jdt30 08-28-2008 11:07 AM


Originally Posted by dojetdriver (Post 451726)
Kudos to you for that. But seriously, there was a time when pilots though the RJ was "beneath" them. What do you think would happen if a "mainline" pilot got put into the Q or an ATR?

I don't really see it going over too well.

Man I'd fly a cessna 152 for narrowbody rates, and I would brag about being the highest paid cessna 152 pilot.:) I think job security has replaced ego, and some of the best job security is placing Q400 and E-170-190 flying at mainline.

jtf560 08-28-2008 02:05 PM

I'm curious what the scope is on 50+ seat turboprops for CAL regionals. Is there a limit on how many Q400s or ATR72s the regionals fly for them?

Roper92 08-28-2008 04:14 PM

Not to my knowledge

Mason32,
As for "it" working for US Airways, they have a lot of CRJ-900s in the US Airways Express system, which is not right by any means

I don't know if the majors will ever get their scopes back unless the pilots are willing to give up quite a bit. I don't see that happening. The only thing they can do is make sure the scopes are not relaxed anymore.

G-Dog 08-28-2008 06:38 PM


Originally Posted by Bond (Post 451730)
So you're saying that just because an airline on the brink of bankruptcy is making it work, that it's ok? That CAL should do the same? I don't think so.

If those 170/175's were at mainline like AIR CANADA, then that would mean more jobs at mainline at a much better scale.

Please don't tell me you're one of those guys that is salivating for the chance to fly a 70 seater with a blue tail our IAH? Bad news friend, it doesn't look like it's going to happen.

The sooner we all in the industry start to recognize that anything over 50 seats belongs to mainline, the better we will all be.

170/175s at Air Canada is great. It would seem that they did not cave on scope, like many of our own guys did here in the States. So lets forget about 170/175s at mainline. Those days were put to bed when mainline guys gave up the scope. There is still hope at CAL though.

Personally, I think the 175 in CAL colors would look great. If CAL were to get them, I hope CAL pilots can hold on to them.

As for the 190s at Airways, well, it may not be long before they are no longer Airways. Too many rumors have them giving them up. I will now pray for this not to happen. Dear Lord, please here me when I say..........

Ottopilot 08-29-2008 03:36 AM

Scope is 50 seat jet or 70 seat turboprop. ATR-72's had only 64 or 68 seats, and most (-42's) only had 46 seats. The Q is 70 or less, or it wouldn't be flying for CAL.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:58 PM.


Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands