Originally Posted by Daniel Larusso (Post 804658)

Ignoring the labor issues (company and union) with that, it makes little sense from an equipment standpoint. The 50 seat RJ isn't obsolete, but there are far too many deployed right now. In fact many of the routes probably should be back in turboprops from an economic standpoint. Why would a mainline carrier that doesn't presently share the cost of owning those airplanes outside of the length of their FPD deal want to assume the cost of owning/disposing of those birds. While they're better than the 50's, you have to imagine that the same would be true of many of the 70 seaters. If the regionals were merged into mainline eliminating those scope issues, you'd have to think that the majors would trend towards 100 seat E-Jets and the upcoming C-Series so why take on the cost of getting rid of 70's as well? If a major became interested in doing this, I think they'd just put them on mainline with their pilots. They'd probably try and recoup the cost of breaking any FPD agreement through a combination of getting labor to accept lower payrates/worse workrules on the planes and by getting the manufacturers to agree to significantly lower prices for a large mainline order. The threat of displaced feed going to a competitor and hurting you has been dramatically reduced in recent years.

Originally Posted by AtlCSIP (Post 805436)

Is the question here really scope or pay? If The pay rates for 100 seat jets something like JetBlue's rates for 100 seat, same pay rate minus 5 bucks an hour for 70 seat, same pay rate minus 10 bucks an hour for 50 seat, and same rate minus 15 bucks an hour for anything smaller, would this solve most of the problem? Or is it not really about pay?

Personal opinion: If it says Delta, Continental, American, etc... on the outside, it should be Delta, Continental, American, etc... owned and operated period. This is not for the benefit of the pilot group, although it would benefit the pilot group. This is for the benefit of the flying public, who thinks that when they buy a ticket on United, the actually fly on United, and the flying public is the only reason we are here. If mainline doesn't want to fly to a particular destination, then they should have some sort of connection agreement with another airline who is willing to fly there.

Originally Posted by mwa1 (Post 805499)

btw 70 seat is just as dead as 50 seat flying with oil approaching and expected to stabilize at 100 dollars/bbl

Originally Posted by Riddler (Post 803823)

Let me get this straight... keeping 50 seat scope would "destroy" the new UAL? From my perspective, 70+ seat scope is what ruined the current UAL. Just think, after the CAL/UAL merger, the new UAL will be nearly as large as it was 10 years ago.

I value your right to free speech... but seriously, do you THINK that the new UAL will maintain 70 seat scope, or do you HOPE that the new UAL will maintain 70 seat scope? There's a huge difference between the 2.