Mrj 70/90
#22
On Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2017
Posts: 12
If that is the case, and 50 seat aircraft are here to stay, what is going to replace the high cycle CRJ200's and E145's?
Is it full cycle and back to props with ATR's or will it be derated larger aircraft like to CRJ700 and MRJ70.
I don't think there are any expectations that aircraft the size of the A220 would ever be considered within the scope at mainline, but if the next generation of RJ's are heavier because of engine technology while remaining 50/76 seats what is actually being given up?
Is it full cycle and back to props with ATR's or will it be derated larger aircraft like to CRJ700 and MRJ70.
I don't think there are any expectations that aircraft the size of the A220 would ever be considered within the scope at mainline, but if the next generation of RJ's are heavier because of engine technology while remaining 50/76 seats what is actually being given up?
#23
https://news.google.com/newspapers?i...dq=horizon-air
But regardless, there is nothing in the scope agreements that would preclude someone from starting up a new airline with either MRJs, E2s, A220s, or 777s as long as it wasn’t a codeshare for a 121 with scope.
#24
If that is the case, and 50 seat aircraft are here to stay, what is going to replace the high cycle CRJ200's and E145's?
Is it full cycle and back to props with ATR's or will it be derated larger aircraft like to CRJ700 and MRJ70.
I don't think there are any expectations that aircraft the size of the A220 would ever be considered within the scope at mainline, but if the next generation of RJ's are heavier because of engine technology while remaining 50/76 seats what is actually being given up?
Is it full cycle and back to props with ATR's or will it be derated larger aircraft like to CRJ700 and MRJ70.
I don't think there are any expectations that aircraft the size of the A220 would ever be considered within the scope at mainline, but if the next generation of RJ's are heavier because of engine technology while remaining 50/76 seats what is actually being given up?
The 50 seat market is a dilemma... the older designs are not coming back to production, and a new clean-sheet design might be too expensive since the majority of the RJ market has shifted to 70 seaters... might not be enough sales opportunities to pay for a new design. Solution might CRJ550 or an EMB equivalent, or possibly back to props. Props are very fuel efficient, but mainline is convinced that pax still hate "crop dusters" even though the new ones are pretty quiet. IMO Horizon has a good thing going... a significant part of their feed customer base is still used to props... they shouldn't spoil them with RJ's.
#25
The rest of the world happily flies on Q400s and ATRs. If US Airlines choose to operate them, then Americans would happily fly on them too.
It's so silly. I'm now flying a 50 seat jet on the same routes that I was previously flying a 50 seat turboprop, only now I'm burning almost twice as much gas to do it!
It's so silly. I'm now flying a 50 seat jet on the same routes that I was previously flying a 50 seat turboprop, only now I'm burning almost twice as much gas to do it!
#26
If that is the case, and 50 seat aircraft are here to stay, what is going to replace the high cycle CRJ200's and E145's?
Is it full cycle and back to props with ATR's or will it be derated larger aircraft like to CRJ700 and MRJ70.
I don't think there are any expectations that aircraft the size of the A220 would ever be considered within the scope at mainline, but if the next generation of RJ's are heavier because of engine technology while remaining 50/76 seats what is actually being given up?
Is it full cycle and back to props with ATR's or will it be derated larger aircraft like to CRJ700 and MRJ70.
I don't think there are any expectations that aircraft the size of the A220 would ever be considered within the scope at mainline, but if the next generation of RJ's are heavier because of engine technology while remaining 50/76 seats what is actually being given up?
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,370
I don't think there are any expectations that aircraft the size of the A220 would ever be considered within the scope at mainline, but if the next generation of RJ's are heavier because of engine technology while remaining 50/76 seats what is actually being given up?
Anything that increases RJ efficiency is a give by mainline pilots because it reduces regional costs vs mainline costs and further encourages additional outsourcing. If regionals had never been allowed to exist as a pure feeder form the industry and profession world be much different today. Changes are finally happening that put pressure towards higher paid jobs and reducing the ability of airlines to keep wages low for regional pilots by threatening careers if they become "too expensive" and the overwhelming majority of mainline pilots are not willing to give up a single pound or seat in scope to change that.
As it is, the regionals are a very different place than they were 10 years ago, and that is a good thing, but at mainline the focus is still to move as many jobs in house as possible. As retirements continue, this is even more important for everyone.
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Position: Upright
Posts: 396
#29
The regionals are evolving to become a feeder of a limited resource - pilots - and that too is becoming unnecessary.
#30
Banned
Joined APC: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,275
I think the mainline pilots should reject flow programs all together, everyone should be off the street. Forcing people to basically work at a B scale until they flow is ridiculous, disgusting, and for all intents and purposes, a true B scale workaround, to have a true B scale.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post