|
So this new United TA gives the MRJ a home
No 76-seat aircraft until Jan. 1, 2014; current legacy United 70-seat and turboprop limits until then - After Jan 1, 2014: Cap 70-/76-seat aircraft at 255 hulls; no more than 130 76-seat aircraft - Q400 included in 76-seat aircraft count limits (currently no limit in legacy Continental contract) - UAL currently has 148 70-seat aircraft and 35 Q400s - Under United Pilot Agreement definitions, UAL currently has 183 of the 255 70/76-seat aircraft • After Jan. 1, 2016: Cap 76-seat aircraft at 153 • Can only go above 153 76-seat aircraft if new small narrowbody aircraft added to UAL fleet and forces reduction of 70-seat aircraft from 148 to 102 cap • Must park 50-seat aircraft if going above 153 76-seat aircraft • Maximum UAX hard cap of 450 total hulls, from current 588 • All 76-seat aircraft downgraded to 70-seats (remove seats) if furlough • New small narrowbody aircraft – we fly it, forces reduction in UAX block hour ratio limit and number of 50- seat aircraft Well, seeing that Trans States has those orders on the 50 MRJ's, plus 50 options, looks like a new breed of regional is coming. Trans States and Compass ALPA will hold a line, GoJet will offer everything for 10% less, then Hulas will create a new carrier......BroJet! |
Too bad the mrj has yet to fly and keeps getting delayed...
|
Originally Posted by Red97Vette
(Post 1291743)
Too bad the mrj has yet to fly and keeps getting delayed...
Also, this gives the MRJ till 2014 to get ready. They had projected 2013. |
If it's the MRJ 70STD or MRJ 70ER.....yes. If it's any other model then no, as they would exceed the limit of a MGTOW of 86,000 LBS.
|
So more 170's for Repub/Shuttle or 700/900s for Skywest/XJT?
|
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1291748)
If it's the MRJ 70STD or MRJ 70ER.....yes. If it's any other model then no, as they would exceed the limit of a MGTOW of 86,000 LBS.
|
Originally Posted by atooraya
(Post 1291779)
Where do you see the weight restriction?
The mrj90 in a 2 class configuration seats the same number of people as a crj900 or erj175. It is heavier and longer but its capacity is the same. My opinion is that amr and ucal will face pressure to include this aircraft in their new scope clauses simply to put pressure on crj/erj operators. |
Originally Posted by atooraya
(Post 1291779)
Where do you see the weight restriction?
Originally Posted by Phuz
(Post 1291787)
Eh wait u mean this whole forum doesnt revolve around DAL? ..lol
The mrj90 in a 2 class configuration seats the same number of people as a crj900 or erj175. It is heavier and longer but its capacity is the same. My opinion is that amr and ucal will face pressure to include this aircraft in their new scope clauses simply to put pressure on crj/erj operators. I agree on the MRJ. Even the MRJ 70ER just barely squeaks under the MGTOW limit of 86,000 lbs @ 85,969 lbs. I wouldn't be surprised to see it come on line above that weight, eliminating it from being operated by regionals. |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1291792)
Confirmed by UAL/CAL guys.
Seems that way sometimes! :D I agree on the MRJ. Even the MRJ 70ER just barely squeaks under the MGTOW limit of 86,000 lbs @ 85,969 lbs. I wouldn't be surprised to see it come on line above that weight, eliminating it from being operated by regionals. |
Originally Posted by Phuz
(Post 1291810)
Well i hope your info is accurate. The number 88000 is being floated on FI. I am skeptical because it only makes sense that amr/ucal mgmt would push for maximum competition in the outsourced segment. As for the airplane itself, it sounds like it could go on a serious diet. Not only is it 6% heavier than the 175 it has 15% less range and its 14 feet longer. Somehow skywest and tsh think it is worth buying, i just dont see the advantages.
The MRJ doesn't look like a good product. Most aircraft come in heavier then planned/advertised. |
Originally Posted by coryk
(Post 1291756)
So more 170's for Repub/Shuttle or 700/900s for Skywest/XJT?
|
Originally Posted by Slats
(Post 1291845)
Skywest has already announced 100 MRJs on order. Mainly because Bombardier doesn't want to play ball.
|
Nope, still just a "Memorandum of Understanding" or something similar. Not a firm order...
|
Originally Posted by theken
(Post 1291939)
Nope, still just a "Memorandum of Understanding" or something similar. Not a firm order...
The last paragraph. |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1291814)
The MRJ doesn't look like a good product. Most aircraft come in heavier then planned/advertised.
Just kidding, you're probably right... |
Originally Posted by Bozo
(Post 1291967)
|
Originally Posted by Boomer
(Post 1292090)
This wouldn't be the first time American pilots were surprised by "that new Mitsubishi plane" coming outa Japan. :D
Just kidding, you're probably right... |
Regardless of whether it is a good product or not, it simply amazes me that any of you are excited for larger aircraft at a regional instead of mainline. Talk about not looking past next week. Hope you are happy with where-ever you are.... you sure are not moving on to mainline anytime soon.... if ever.
Do you not see how this limits your career progression and profession overall? Hopefully that will never happen and scope will hover around similar to DAL ... which limits it.... thankfully. |
Originally Posted by workingforfree
(Post 1292648)
Regardless of whether it is a good product or not, it simply amazes me that any of you are excited for larger aircraft at a regional instead of mainline. Talk about not looking past next week. Hope you are happy with where-ever you are.... you sure are not moving on to mainline anytime soon.... if ever.
Do you not see how this limits your career progression and profession overall? Hopefully that will never happen and scope will hover around similar to DAL ... which limits it.... thankfully. The proposed scope in the UAL TA s pretty much cut & paste straight out of DALs contract. |
Alright so what does the new TA say about limiting 50 seaters and 76 seaters? How many are there now?
|
Originally Posted by ConnectionPilot
(Post 1292702)
Alright so what does the new TA say about limiting 50 seaters and 76 seaters? How many are there now?
223 76 seat aircraft(jet or prop) 102 70 seat aircraft(jet or prop) 125 50 seat aircraft 450 total capped UAX aircraft |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1292658)
It's really no larger then the EMB175. UALs proposed scope limits airframes to 76 seats and a MGTOW of 86,000 lbs. That's equivalent to an E175/CRJ900.
The proposed scope in the UAL TA s pretty much cut & paste straight out of DALs contract. |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1292721)
It's a fairly complicated scope section with lots of variables. If the TA was approved, & management exercised the scope clause to its full extent the fleet would look like this:
223 76 seat aircraft(jet or prop) 102 70 seat aircraft(jet or prop) 125 50 seat aircraft 450 total capped UAX aircraft |
Originally Posted by workingforfree
(Post 1292725)
Thanks for the clarification!
Originally Posted by Bozo
(Post 1292812)
What is even more interesting is how the cap is applied to all current UAX aircraft. I show, as of May 2012, there are 533 UAX in operation.
|
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1292856)
You're welcome. :) I should have clarified that several models of the MRJ will be larger then the EMB175/CRJ900(equivalent to the EMB190), but not allowed by the weight restriction.
Yes. That's because the increase in 76 aircraft will require 50 seaters to be parked. As each 76 seat aircraft comes on line, a contractual amount of 50 seaters will be removed. |
From the United TA:
"76-seat Aircraft" means aircraft configured with more than 70 passenger seats but no more than 76 passenger seats, and certificated in the United States for 90 or fewer passenger seats and a maximum United States certificated gross takeoff weight of 86,000 or fewer pounds. I'm sure they can get a MRJ 90 model certificated for 90 seats. If they can't, it's 92 passenger limit is over the top. |
Originally Posted by get there itis
(Post 1292981)
From the United TA:
"76-seat Aircraft" means aircraft configured with more than 70 passenger seats but no more than 76 passenger seats, and certificated in the United States for 90 or fewer passenger seats and a maximum United States certificated gross takeoff weight of 86,000 or fewer pounds. I'm sure they can get a MRJ 90 model certificated for 90 seats. If they can't, it's 92 passenger limit is over the top. The MRJ 90 model will EXCEED a MGTOW of 86,000 lbs. They won't be able to fly it as a UAX aircraft. That's why they use seat and weight limits. |
Originally Posted by Bozo
(Post 1292968)
So does that mean if this TA passes that there will have to be 58 UAX airframes parked to put it under the new cap OR are they grandfathered in?
|
Will the MRJ run on sake?
|
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1292995)
The MRJ 90 model will EXCEED a MGTOW of 86,000 lbs. They won't be able to fly it as a UAX aircraft. That's why they use seat and weight limits.
|
Originally Posted by get there itis
(Post 1293019)
Good. I was looking at the MRJ70ER numbers. Looks like AA's TA restricts to 86k as well. I wonder if Hulas will have to make some changes to the order book.
|
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1292995)
The MRJ 90 model will EXCEED a MGTOW of 86,000 lbs. They won't be able to fly it as a UAX aircraft. That's why they use seat and weight limits.
|
Not many. In fact only one comes to mind. US Air
|
Originally Posted by Bozo
(Post 1293337)
There are other ways without UAX.
|
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1293479)
Not many. Us Air, maybe Alaska. But even Us Air is limited and already capped out. AMR will likely end up with the 86,000 lbs restriction as well.
|
Originally Posted by JoeMerchant
(Post 1293530)
I think Bozo meant using larger aircraft with "codesharing" rather than "UAX", or "Delta Connection", or "American Eagle"....That is probably the next step in this evolution....
|
Originally Posted by Avroman
(Post 1293536)
Bingo, it would require regionals to expand out and do thier own ticket sales, but otherwise that is the most likely next step around current contracts.
|
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1293479)
Not many. Us Air, maybe Alaska. But even Us Air is limited and already capped out. AMR will likely end up with the 86,000 lbs restriction as well.
|
Originally Posted by Avroman
(Post 1293536)
Bingo, it would require regionals to expand out and do thier own ticket sales, but otherwise that is the most likely next step around current contracts.
There was more to the XE purchase than just CAL cpas. |
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1293540)
Current contracts are wising up to this, though.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:15 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands