Senior Skipper

Hi folks,

Not an airline pilot yet, but I've been reading up on the Republic E190's. I've noticed a lot of discussion about the number of seats on board the aircraft. More than one post deals with the fact that the plane may be configured for under 99 seats.

From what I understand, the management is getting the upper hand by configuring the plane just inside of what the contract allows. Why are contracts drafted based on the number of seats installed on the aircraft? Why not make the contract based on the maximum seating capacity of the plane to prevent this type of thing?

Surely the manufacturer and the FAA can come to some agreement on the maximum number of seats for each aircraft type, so why not use that value? What's to prevent a mainline carrier putting 50 business class seats in a 757 and giving that flying to a regional?

I'm not trying to start an argument, but I'm just curious why contracts use seats and not seating capacity.

matlok

I think you just answered your own question...

Even if it's temporarily cost-prohibitive, they'll do it just to get the bigger plane flying cheaper, then cry-uncle to loosen the scope.

As to why we don't start to write capacity into scope clauses rather than seat number, I think that can be chalked up to precedence...

Senior Skipper

Well now that Republic has set this precedent, I hope other carriers will start to use seating capacity in their contract negotiations. It really is sad.

chuckyt1

The scope at UAL uses seating capacity, along with MGTOW.

rickair7777

Majors usually use certified seat capacity & MGTOW.

Regionals have not always been that savvy.

In fact bombardier created a "CRJ 705" specifically to get around somebody's scope (I can't recall who). It is basically a 900, but certified for 70 seats.

With smaller RJ's, it's all about seats. But as airplanes get larger, cargo revenue becomes more and more significant...you need to account for that as well as pax revenue.

FlyJSH

Seats were first determined by regulation.

29 pax for INTRAstate, 19 pax for INTERstate travel do not require a flight attendant. That is why Brazilias, Jetstreams, B1900s, etc. were built for 19 or 29 pax.

With scope and the "that's how we always did it" mentality, seats continue to be the yardstick.

powrful1

That and in 2003 CHQ which is all there was at Republic Airways Holdings didn't have anything larger than 50 seats.

Management of course has used this to their advantage by loading up larger jets in the interm before they have to pay higher rates.

APM145

I think I see what you are asking, why not have a rate for the model of aircraft rather than a seating range? Well, some regionals, and most majors, have this in their contract. Its up to the pilots to want it.

As a comparison:
ExpressJet has pay assigned by the model i.e. EMB145
Republic has pay assigned by the seating configuration i.e. 50-59 seats

Its all about how you set up the working in your contract.

powrful1

I bet this Republic fiasco will push all regionals if they have a seat number in their contract to change to a type or type groupings. Since we all can see just how BAD management can be in manipulating contracts, this is why you need a good union and smart lawyers to close big gaping loopholes.

This loophole situation goes well beyond Republic, to all airlines, check out your contract, close the holes! This way this sort of thing isn't likely to happen again.

rickair7777

In 2003? The CRJ 900's were entering service and the E-170 was around the corner. The E-190 was in development.

Ignorance is not an excuse. Maybe alpa should get an Aviation Week subscription for key leadership personnel