SKW getting 100 MRJs?
07-11-2012 | 12:27 PM
#51
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
Nothing black in my life but rain clouds. You do not have to announce at Farnborough. Many don't unless they want the press.
07-11-2012 | 12:30 PM
#52
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
Bill,
Doesn't this order concern you? It is for deliveries of 90 seat aircraft in a few years (Just in time for another section 6). The audacity of an airline to order these, or shall I say their arrogance and "gamble" that we, Delta Pilots, will allow them to fly the 90 seaters with the dangling of "extra money in our pockets".
The likely hood of the DCI flying these 90 seaters are High, why else would they gamble and order them?
TEN
Doesn't this order concern you? It is for deliveries of 90 seat aircraft in a few years (Just in time for another section 6). The audacity of an airline to order these, or shall I say their arrogance and "gamble" that we, Delta Pilots, will allow them to fly the 90 seaters with the dangling of "extra money in our pockets".
The likely hood of the DCI flying these 90 seaters are High, why else would they gamble and order them?
TEN
RJET has the C-Series on order
TSH has the MRJ on order
Now SKW has the MRJ on order. Only one of them got a cutout.
Two things solve this. CSeries and CS 100 order for a major flown by their pilots
Dumping DCI carriers that want to fly these.
07-11-2012 | 12:32 PM
#53
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
From Brad Rich's memo:
"These 100 aircraft would be replacement aircraft for current ExpressJet and SkyWest Airlines fleets and are fully intended to fly under contract with major partners. They are not growth aircraft. The aircraft identified in the agreement in principle include the MRJ70 or MRJ90, which range from 70 to 90 seats. The configuration of seats would be determined by scope limitations and airline requirements at the time of delivery.
The intended delivery time frame would be from 2017 to 2020. While specific allocations are yet to be determined, we anticipate that aircraft would be delivered to both of SkyWest, Inc’s operating entities. I cannot overemphasize how important it is to remain competitive in our ability to accept these or any aircraft."
The nerve of Skywest management to try to run an airline.
"These 100 aircraft would be replacement aircraft for current ExpressJet and SkyWest Airlines fleets and are fully intended to fly under contract with major partners. They are not growth aircraft. The aircraft identified in the agreement in principle include the MRJ70 or MRJ90, which range from 70 to 90 seats. The configuration of seats would be determined by scope limitations and airline requirements at the time of delivery.
The intended delivery time frame would be from 2017 to 2020. While specific allocations are yet to be determined, we anticipate that aircraft would be delivered to both of SkyWest, Inc’s operating entities. I cannot overemphasize how important it is to remain competitive in our ability to accept these or any aircraft."
The nerve of Skywest management to try to run an airline.
The large ones are over our limits.
07-11-2012 | 12:33 PM
#54
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
The way I see it, Skywest/ExpressJet could operate the MRJ-70ER for DCI.
It is under the 86,000 lb limit and can be configured with 76 seats just like the E-175 or CRJ-900 that can seat pitch torture in their max configuration 88 or 90 passengers respectively.
Now when Section 1.B defines the 76-seater (and 70-seater) as an aircraft certified in the United States with a MGTOW of 86,000 lbs or less. Obviously there are variants of the E-175 (including in Compass' fleet) that exceed that MGTOW but yet the E-175 is still permitted as long as it is certified below that MGTOW.
So I have to say that the MRJ-70ER is a permitted aircraft type.
It is under the 86,000 lb limit and can be configured with 76 seats just like the E-175 or CRJ-900 that can seat pitch torture in their max configuration 88 or 90 passengers respectively.
Now when Section 1.B defines the 76-seater (and 70-seater) as an aircraft certified in the United States with a MGTOW of 86,000 lbs or less. Obviously there are variants of the E-175 (including in Compass' fleet) that exceed that MGTOW but yet the E-175 is still permitted as long as it is certified below that MGTOW.
So I have to say that the MRJ-70ER is a permitted aircraft type.
07-11-2012 | 12:35 PM
#55
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
Now, could Skywest branch off and create Big Skywest Airlines flying MRJ-90s that is a competitor to Delta while at the same time flying and receiving income from MRJ-70s operating for DCI? The way I read it, yes.
The MRJ-90 is certified for 106 or fewer and configured for 97 or fewer and the MRJ-90 would be a 92 seater. As long as they abide by the rest of Section 1.D.2 then it's permitted. Maybe there is a reasoning to the size of the MRJ just like there was a reason Embraer built the ERJ-140.
This is the problem with outsourcing in general and especially with outsourcing these far more profitable regional jets, we're growing and funding our future competition. This is why I think outsourcing, especially large jumbo not so regional regional-jets but not just limited to that, is bad not only for us as pilots but for our airline.
It was the reason many of us were livid about RAH. When they were found to be a single transportation system by the NMB in terms of class and craft, I thought we should've pressed to have them found just to be a single transportation system. And that the language in our contract would say they are in violation of Section 1 by operating Airbuses under their Frontier brand and therefore CHQ and Shuttle must be tossed from DCI.
We were told the language in Section 1 was insufficient to do so and nothing happened. The language was addressed in the TA to make sure this type of RAH operation was not permitted, but CHQ and Shuttle were given an exemption anyways. Frustratingly weak on our part.
But this won't be a problem for Skywest with the MRJ-90. So if they want to go off and create Big Skywest Airlines running MRJ-90s while also flying MRJ-70s for DCI, as long as they abide by the other language in 1.D.2, it's all permissible.
The MRJ-90 is certified for 106 or fewer and configured for 97 or fewer and the MRJ-90 would be a 92 seater. As long as they abide by the rest of Section 1.D.2 then it's permitted. Maybe there is a reasoning to the size of the MRJ just like there was a reason Embraer built the ERJ-140.
This is the problem with outsourcing in general and especially with outsourcing these far more profitable regional jets, we're growing and funding our future competition. This is why I think outsourcing, especially large jumbo not so regional regional-jets but not just limited to that, is bad not only for us as pilots but for our airline.
It was the reason many of us were livid about RAH. When they were found to be a single transportation system by the NMB in terms of class and craft, I thought we should've pressed to have them found just to be a single transportation system. And that the language in our contract would say they are in violation of Section 1 by operating Airbuses under their Frontier brand and therefore CHQ and Shuttle must be tossed from DCI.
We were told the language in Section 1 was insufficient to do so and nothing happened. The language was addressed in the TA to make sure this type of RAH operation was not permitted, but CHQ and Shuttle were given an exemption anyways. Frustratingly weak on our part.
But this won't be a problem for Skywest with the MRJ-90. So if they want to go off and create Big Skywest Airlines running MRJ-90s while also flying MRJ-70s for DCI, as long as they abide by the other language in 1.D.2, it's all permissible.
07-11-2012 | 12:45 PM
#57
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 432
Likes: 0
It has to be a good deal overall, one that actually helps mainline. People will disagree with this new contract and the scope, but overall it reduced the numbers of total RJs and put limits (caps) and ratios to favor mainline. That is why this one passed. The next offer would have to do the same, but this last one didn't add any extra seats to the 76 seat limit. The company supposedly wanted that, and of course it didn't happen. Money didn't buy additional seats on any RJ.
Delta pilots have once again proven that scope is for sale. These MRJs will be flown for Delta. The only question is how much money will have to be given to the Lumbergs of Delta in 2015 to allow it.
07-11-2012 | 12:58 PM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,039
Likes: 0
From: 7ERB
Explain the ramifications or possible future phase-in of this cutout, please. Thanks.
Why did Rjet get this?
TEN
Last edited by TenYearsGone; 07-11-2012 at 12:59 PM. Reason: Rjet
07-11-2012 | 01:17 PM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,883
Likes: 198
They got it because they already operate those aircraft. Had it not been in the contract all RAH flying for Delta would have to be terminated at contract signing. Not something management was likely to do. I recall on these boards how many predicted they would be flying the A319's for DCI within a year of the purchase of Frontier. Somehow that never happened and they are now looking to dump the operation.
07-11-2012 | 01:29 PM
#60
:-)
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Likes: 1
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
