Search

Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

CAL scope

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 08-29-2008 | 04:53 AM
  #31  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
From: In the doghouse
Default

The Colgan Q's are configured with 74 seats.
Reply
Old 08-29-2008 | 07:27 AM
  #32  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
From: e190
Default

Originally Posted by Ottopilot
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.
your kidding right? read up on your scope clause and you will find there is no limit to the size of turboprops in CAL colors. Bombardier is looking into a 90 seat turboprop. this reminds me of the CAL captain who asked me

him: "how are those new turboprops to fly?"
me: "xjt doesnt fly them"
him: "what do you mean???"

Ignorance is bliss.
Reply
Old 08-29-2008 | 08:00 AM
  #33  
Killer51883's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
From: E-170
Default

why was the scope limited to 50 seat jets? i am still trying to figure out who came up with this contract out our feed flying idea. if the airplane regardless of the size has usair or cal or american or what ever airline paint job on it, it should be flown by a mainline crew with mainline rates. obviously the rates wouldnt be the same but there should never have been any regionals to start with.
Reply
Old 08-29-2008 | 08:47 AM
  #34  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
From: 737/FO
Default

Originally Posted by newarkblows
your kidding right? read up on your scope clause and you will find there is no limit to the size of turboprops in CAL colors...

Ignorance is bliss.
CAL may fly, with certain restrictions on the numbers, "small turboprops" and "small jets". Small turboprops are defined in the contract specifically as turboprops with 79 seats or less (not 70). It's in the definitions of the scope section. Colgans' Q400's seat 74. They do fall within scope of the current contract.
Reply
Old 08-29-2008 | 09:11 AM
  #35  
Ottopilot's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 2,576
Likes: 0
From: 737 CA
Default

Originally Posted by newarkblows
your kidding right? read up on your scope clause and you will find there is no limit to the size of turboprops in CAL colors. Bombardier is looking into a 90 seat turboprop. .
I took your advice and read my scope clause. It has been awhile since I read it. You are wrong. There is a limit. Someone already said it.

"Z. "Small turboprop" means turboprop aircraft with an FAA certification of 79 seats or fewer.

Part 3, A. continues to say that all aircraft, not small jet or small turboprops will be flown by CAL pilots. I knew there was a limit, but I remembered the wrong number.

I'm still a believer in all CAL flying will be done by CAL pilots. I don't care what plane it is. That would create more jobs for the majors and we could hire all the pilots currently flying those "small" planes.
Reply
Old 08-29-2008 | 06:02 PM
  #36  
ToiletDuck's Avatar
Thread Starter
Che Guevara
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,408
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by newarkblows
your kidding right? read up on your scope clause and you will find there is no limit to the size of turboprops in CAL colors. Bombardier is looking into a 90 seat turboprop. this reminds me of the CAL captain who asked me

him: "how are those new turboprops to fly?"
me: "xjt doesnt fly them"
him: "what do you mean???"

Ignorance is bliss.
Reply
Old 08-29-2008 | 06:04 PM
  #37  
ToiletDuck's Avatar
Thread Starter
Che Guevara
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,408
Likes: 0
Default

.....................................
Reply
Old 08-29-2008 | 06:37 PM
  #38  
usmc-sgt's Avatar
Moderator
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,080
Likes: 42
Default

Reply
Old 08-29-2008 | 07:25 PM
  #39  
ToiletDuck's Avatar
Thread Starter
Che Guevara
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,408
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by usmc-sgt
Those will be at a regional within 6 months fly CAL colors! I heard XJTs getting L100s!
Reply
Old 08-29-2008 | 08:24 PM
  #40  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,772
Likes: 1
From: 744 CA
Default

Well lets get something straight.... Companies like RAH, SKW, AE and the like flying 50-76 seat jets hardly rank as regional companies.... ATL to Kingston or ATL to Guadalajara .. or ORD to MIA is NOT REGIONAL flying..... these are JET/National airlines. REGIONAL was when EAGLE ( they are a good example ) was composed of 5 carriers ( i worked for one ) ... and each flew its area... Metro.....texas and adjoining states... Flagship ....east coast.... Simmons... etc.... SKW flew ONLY outwest..... Companies then flew specific regions of the country and that was that.... Hell at RDUs Eagle base the shorts and Jetstreams and Saabs flew to every damn airport in NC, SC and VA...... few if any flights were over an hour... Hell I flew the ATR and the LONGEST flight in our system was RDU to JFK and it was really only flown to move aircraft thru the system. JFK based ATRs flew JFK, BOS, DCA and ALB.... and that was about it...

Buts its a different business today.......

Originally Posted by Killer51883
why was the scope limited to 50 seat jets? i am still trying to figure out who came up with this contract out our feed flying idea. if the airplane regardless of the size has usair or cal or american or what ever airline paint job on it, it should be flown by a mainline crew with mainline rates. obviously the rates wouldnt be the same but there should never have been any regionals to start with.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
flybynuts
Major
55
08-19-2008 08:35 AM
Daytripper
Major
5
08-19-2008 06:01 AM
757Driver
Major
15
08-17-2008 10:02 AM
grant123
Major
1
08-07-2008 07:59 AM
Swedish Blender
Major
1
07-29-2008 02:49 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices