|
Will RJs and the new series of E-jets (don't know if thats the right term) florish? I remember reading in the Boyd report that RJs were going to be parked in Arizona in the future.
-LAFF |
I tend to think that RJ's and other small jets (100 seats) are here to stay and will continue to take over routes. Boeing did a study before giving the thumbs up on the 787. This was in response to Airbus developing the 380. They found out that the traveling public wants more flight frequency to better suite their schedule.
This is why I think it's important for mainline pilots to start getting scope on these aircraft and flying them. |
Originally Posted by Velocipede
(Post 78952)
But there's no way any non-Union or scab pilot will sit on my flight deck.
. |
Originally Posted by Ziggy
(Post 79909)
I tend to think that RJ's and other small jets (100 seats) are here to stay and will continue to take over routes.
The 100 seater RJs are, IMO, outside of the RJ definition as they are simply smaller jets. But as long as the company gets away with labelling them RJs they gain leverage in keeping costs down. I've seen Jet Blue's EMB-190s at JFK, and IMO they are not regional jets, they are just smaller jets. JMHO. |
Up here Air Canada is using the E-jets to replace the DC-9, now would that honestly be considered a regional jet?:mad:
|
Originally Posted by fatmike69
(Post 79692)
I doubt it.
Jumpseat agreements today are negotiated by company, and serves as a benefit to all involved. I have union pilots ride my jumpseat all the time, and if union pilots began denying me I would do the same. I know that there are more than a handful of pilots of legacy carriers that live in the outlying cities we serve and commute to work on us, just as many of us here at skyw rely on union carriers for the same. To begin denying jumpseats for this union/non-union thing would just amount to a stupid pi$$ing contest that would create an undue hardship for alot of people. |
Originally Posted by Ziggy
(Post 79909)
I tend to think that RJ's and other small jets (100 seats) are here to stay and will continue to take over routes. .
Hmm small jet with 100 seats. F-100, DC-9, MD-80 , 737-200. I don't consider those small jets. |
Originally Posted by fireman0174
(Post 80187)
Sales of "true" RJs are down - the 50 seaters. Turbo-props will most likely make a comeback due to the economics.
The 100 seater RJs are, IMO, outside of the RJ definition as they are simply smaller jets. But as long as the company gets away with labelling them RJs they gain leverage in keeping costs down. JMHO. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:28 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands