Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major
ERJ-190 really a "regional" jet? >

ERJ-190 really a "regional" jet?

Search

Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

ERJ-190 really a "regional" jet?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 01-26-2007, 11:00 AM
  #11  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 116
Default

It used to be that Mainline flew jets, and Commuters flew props.
hangaber is offline  
Old 01-26-2007, 11:01 AM
  #12  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: CRJ-200 Captain
Posts: 170
Default

APC uses the term Small Narrowbody for 70 to 110 seaters, which is a much better description to use than Regional
CRJammin is offline  
Old 01-26-2007, 12:07 PM
  #13  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
RedBaron007's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: E-190 Leftist
Posts: 300
Default

Originally Posted by CRJammin
APC uses the term Small Narrowbody for 70 to 110 seaters, which is a much better description to use than Regional
This seems to be an appropriate term. Thanks for the insight

Originally Posted by saab2000
I agree with some of what you say and disagree with the rest.

I agree that we are not here to have cushy jobs. The company exists for its owners. But employees and customers are never far from the equation.

With that said, I don't believe that flying RJs around is in fact the most efficient way of doing business. They are for certain markets.

But at which point do we say that an RJ is no longer an RJ?

If the airlines could they would probably simply sell seats and contract ALL the flying out. "Regional" has become the word for all airplanes contracted out. What if United said, "Our 747s are too expensive to operate. We are going to look for a supplier and simply sell the seats as 'United International'", but to the lowest bidder?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the airplane when it comes to the EMB jets. The passengers like them. I like them. The pilots evidently like them.

The problem is with how different airplanes are being used to lower the bar when it comes to the profession. It used to be 50-seat jets. Now 70-seat jets are the norm. Where is the line drawn?

I understand your point about making money. But I also understand that pilots need to earn a living and the larger and larger so-called "Regional" jets are being used to drive down pilot salaries. I do not feel this is appropriate.

The problem is not with the jets, it is with how they are being used and marketed.
I've heard the same thing about them. I've flown in them as well, and they have a lot of shoulder room - more than a DC-9, from what I hear - and are very comfortable all around. The smaller Embraers (e.g. the 145, etc), on the other hand, are quite small in the cabin. They have the feel of a true commuter.

In response to the comment the commuter airlines used to be all props...Turboprops like the Dash 8, from what I've heard and understand, were more profitable than the RJs, which have taken many of the turboprops' place. Am I correct on this point or am I mistaken? I've heard that ATR is building many more aircraft (ATR42 and 72), and orders are increasing. I'm not sure how orders are going for the Bombardier Q400, though. Does this indicate there might be a trend back to turboprops at the regionals? Just my two cents. Thanks for the insights guys and gals.
RedBaron007 is offline  
Old 01-26-2007, 01:49 PM
  #14  
Gets Weekends Off
 
NGINEWHOISWHAT's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Posts: 423
Default I rode the short bus.

Originally Posted by saab2000
I don't blame the pilots (because I am one of them), but the industry uses them in a poor and exploitive way. Passengers hate them.
You don't? I thought mainline pilots didn't want RJ's 10 - 15 year ago? Then again, I rode the short bus.

Tom
NGINEWHOISWHAT is offline  
Old 01-26-2007, 02:34 PM
  #15  
Gets Weekends Off
 
shackone's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 394
Default

Originally Posted by Velocipede
Its not an RJ. Its an Ejet. The Companies like using the "RJ" term because that allows them to fly a narrowbody airliner paying RJ wages. And its scum like JBLU scabs who'll fly Ejets for $72 an hour that keep the wage pressure on everyone.
Why is a JetBlue pilot a scab?

And why should this forum allow you to call them such names?
shackone is offline  
Old 01-26-2007, 04:14 PM
  #16  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Velocipede's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: 737NG CA
Posts: 766
Default

Originally Posted by shackone
Why is a JetBlue pilot a scab?
Here's the definition. Please try to read for comprehension. I've highlighted the important parts for you.

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (online edition)

Main Entry: scab
Pronunciation: 'skab
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, of Scandinavian origin
Date: 13th century
1 : scabies of domestic animals
2 : a crust of hardened blood and serum over a wound
3 a : a contemptible person b (1) : a worker who refuses to join a labor union (2) : a union member who refuses to strike or returns to work before a strike has ended (3) : a worker who accepts employment or replaces a union worker during a strike (4) : one who works for less than union wages or on nonunion terms.

Why? Because they don't censor the truth.
Velocipede is offline  
Old 01-26-2007, 04:56 PM
  #17  
APC co-founder
 
HSLD's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2005
Position: B777
Posts: 5,853
Default

Originally Posted by Velocipede
Here's the definition. Please try to read for comprehension. I've highlighted the important parts for you.
The definition Webster gives for a scab, is not how any MEC I'm aware of defines a scab. Of all the airline strikes during the past 20+ years, scabs have been those who cross a legally sanctioned picket line with the intention of performing struck work. MECs also have the latitude to define what constitutes struck work to their benefit.

A wholesale attack on an entire pilot group is not only misleading but also goes against this forum's terms of service. I hold scabs in the same contempt as you, but your (Webster's) definition as it applies to airline pilot scabs is simply not accurate.

That said, show me any national pilot union who regard and unorganized pilot group as scabs (in writing) and I'll owe you an apology.

Last edited by HSLD; 01-26-2007 at 06:48 PM.
HSLD is offline  
Old 01-26-2007, 05:31 PM
  #18  
Gets Weekends Off
 
shackone's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 394
Default

Originally Posted by Velocipede
Here's the definition. Please try to read for comprehension. I've highlighted the important parts for you.
I've found that only those with nothing to say resort to the 'read for comprehension' personal attack.

: a worker who refuses to join a labor union
Doesn't apply to JB...there is no union to refuse membership with. I don't suppose your definition includes those situations where employees are hired under agency shop rules. In those situations, workers who choose not to join are not called scabs...other than by people such as yourself, I suppose.

one who works for less than union wages or on nonunion terms.
There is no established union scale at ALPA...why are you suggesting there is?
shackone is offline  
Old 01-26-2007, 06:15 PM
  #19  
Banned
 
Slaphappy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 1,192
Default

I don't get it.

A CRJ-700 is ok for a regional to fly and is just fine but a e-170 is a "mainline" plane. I don't get it, they are both hold the same people and go about the same distance.
Slaphappy is offline  
Old 01-26-2007, 06:54 PM
  #20  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: E190 CA
Posts: 70
Default

Originally Posted by Velocipede
Here's the definition. Please try to read for comprehension. I've highlighted the important parts for you.

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (online edition)

Main Entry: scab
Pronunciation: 'skab
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, of Scandinavian origin
Date: 13th century
1 : scabies of domestic animals
2 : a crust of hardened blood and serum over a wound
3 a : a contemptible person b (1) : a worker who refuses to join a labor union (2) : a union member who refuses to strike or returns to work before a strike has ended (3) : a worker who accepts employment or replaces a union worker during a strike (4) : one who works for less than union wages or on nonunion terms.

Why? Because they don't censor the truth.

Truth or facts? You sound like a reporter for MSNBC. From Wikipedia:

"Scabs"
The term "scab" is a highly derogatory and "fighting word" most frequently used to refer to people who continue to work when trade unionists go on strike action. This is also known as crossing the picket line and often results in their being shunned or assaulted. The classic example from United Kingdom industrial history is that of the miners from Nottinghamshire, who during the UK miners' strike (1984-1985) failed to support strike action by fellow mineworkers in other parts of the country. Those who supported the strike claimed that this was because they enjoyed more favourable mining conditions and thus better wages. However, the Nottinghamshire miners argued that they did not participate because the law required a ballot for a national strike and their area vote had seen around 75% vote against a strike.
People hired to replace striking workers are often derogatively termed scabs by those in favour of the strike. The terms strike-breaker, blackleg, and scab labour are also used. Trade unionists also use the epithet "scab" to refer to workers who are willing to accept terms that union workers have rejected and interfere with the strike action. Some say that the word comes from the idea that the "scabs" are covering a wound. However, "scab" was an old-fashioned English insult. An older word is "blackleg" and this is found in the old folk song, Blackleg Miner, which has been sung by many groups.
During "economic" strikes in the U.S., scabs may be hired as permanent replacements

I don't know the source of your derision for JetBlue, but I think most professionals know there are more important issues to deal with than infighting between pilot groups. Have a nice day.
jungleguppy is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
xjtr
Technical
16
01-21-2013 10:11 AM
xjtr
Regional
14
01-15-2007 11:10 AM
edik
Major
2
12-12-2006 02:43 AM
joel payne
Hangar Talk
0
11-06-2006 06:18 PM
vagabond
Hangar Talk
10
11-05-2006 09:45 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