CAL scope
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
From: e190
him: "how are those new turboprops to fly?"
me: "xjt doesnt fly them"
him: "what do you mean???"
Ignorance is bliss.
#33
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.
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
From: 737/FO
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.
#35
"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.
#36
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.
him: "how are those new turboprops to fly?"
me: "xjt doesnt fly them"
him: "what do you mean???"
Ignorance is bliss.
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,772
Likes: 1
From: 744 CA
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.......
Buts its a different business today.......
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post



