Will the MRJ fly at Skywest and TSA?
#21
If it makes you feel any better our private Delta forum specifically talks about this aircraft and the orders SkyWest and Trans States have. We are fully aware that changing MGTOW would allow this airplane to fly for you guys and my reps assure me that is not going to happen.
As Rick pointed out, this aircraft is prohibited because the MGTOW violates most scope clauses. When Mitsubishi designed this airplane I believe they were counting on scope clauses being modified to allow it at the regionals but considering most majors have contracts that aren't amendable in the near future (except for Delta which we are currently working on) it seems very unlikely.
Unfortunately, it sounds like more 76 seaters is being talked about but only if the company parks all 50 seaters sooner than planned. We all know 50 sweaters are going away anyway so I don't see the point of making that trade...
So, there may be a few more 76 seaters allowed in any TA we get (which I am totally against BTW) but increasing MGTOW to allow the MRJ is not happening.
As Rick pointed out, this aircraft is prohibited because the MGTOW violates most scope clauses. When Mitsubishi designed this airplane I believe they were counting on scope clauses being modified to allow it at the regionals but considering most majors have contracts that aren't amendable in the near future (except for Delta which we are currently working on) it seems very unlikely.
Unfortunately, it sounds like more 76 seaters is being talked about but only if the company parks all 50 seaters sooner than planned. We all know 50 sweaters are going away anyway so I don't see the point of making that trade...
So, there may be a few more 76 seaters allowed in any TA we get (which I am totally against BTW) but increasing MGTOW to allow the MRJ is not happening.
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Position: Right Side Up
Posts: 192
Why would Mitsubishi be worried about scope. The reality is manufactures are not worried about what goes on in the US alone. Do you really think the E2 is made for scope, or why dear old Canada is making the CS and no more CRJ orders? Get over yourselves, this is a global market. Stop thinking the US market is it. We are saturated with pilots and equipment. Other markets are hurting more for pilots and could care less about scope. So tell me again why the MRJ is screwed because of weight...
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,231
Why would Mitsubishi be worried about scope. The reality is manufactures are not worried about what goes on in the US alone. Do you really think the E2 is made for scope, or why dear old Canada is making the CS and no more CRJ orders? Get over yourselves, this is a global market. Stop thinking the US market is it. We are saturated with pilots and equipment. Other markets are hurting more for pilots and could care less about scope. So tell me again why the MRJ is screwed because of weight...
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Position: DL
Posts: 136
To give a more complete answer, the weight limit prevents them from buying large airplanes and configuring them with fewer seats. It prevents them from buying a 110 seat airplane and putting 76 seats in it and somehow complying with the agreement. Before you respond with why does that matter if there are still only 76 seats, my reply is that it does and again we aren't talking about changing it. There is talk of allowing more 76 RJs at the expense of eliminating 50 seaters. If I had to guess how that'll work, Delta will offer the 76 seaters to whomever will park and cancel the 50 seat portions of their contracts.
Just to be clear, these limits don't prohibit Delta from operating these aircraft. They do prohibit them from outsourcing them. Delta can have thousands of MRJs. Delta pilots would have to fly them...
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: the right side
Posts: 1,373
Because if you bump the weight up at all, planes that were operated by mainline could then be flown by a regional.
#26
#27
It matters because we have two limits. Size and weight. We are not budging on either one.
To give a more complete answer, the weight limit prevents them from buying large airplanes and configuring them with fewer seats. It prevents them from buying a 110 seat airplane and putting 76 seats in it and somehow complying with the agreement. Before you respond with why does that matter if there are still only 76 seats, my reply is that it does and again we aren't talking about changing it. There is talk of allowing more 76 RJs at the expense of eliminating 50 seaters. If I had to guess how that'll work, Delta will offer the 76 seaters to whomever will park and cancel the 50 seat portions of their contracts.
Just to be clear, these limits don't prohibit Delta from operating these aircraft. They do prohibit them from outsourcing them. Delta can have thousands of MRJs. Delta pilots would have to fly them...
To give a more complete answer, the weight limit prevents them from buying large airplanes and configuring them with fewer seats. It prevents them from buying a 110 seat airplane and putting 76 seats in it and somehow complying with the agreement. Before you respond with why does that matter if there are still only 76 seats, my reply is that it does and again we aren't talking about changing it. There is talk of allowing more 76 RJs at the expense of eliminating 50 seaters. If I had to guess how that'll work, Delta will offer the 76 seaters to whomever will park and cancel the 50 seat portions of their contracts.
Just to be clear, these limits don't prohibit Delta from operating these aircraft. They do prohibit them from outsourcing them. Delta can have thousands of MRJs. Delta pilots would have to fly them...
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Position: DL
Posts: 136
Who's going to buy a 110 seat plane, wich the MRJ is not anyways, and put 76 seats?? It's really apples to oranges when it comes to the MRJ specifically, it's a RJ that competes with the CRJ9 and 175 that happens to be slightly overweight. The MRJ will have no chance of being flown by mainline, might as well bring the CRJ9 and 175s on board at that point.
I completely agree we should fly CRJ700 and CRJ900s here at mainline. Maybe someday, a guy can hope right?
Just an afterthought but it seems fairly obvious you have no desire to move on to a mainline legacy carrier. Is that correct? It's not an insult, just a question. Allowing SkyWest MRJs helps no one except SkyWest and people planning making a career at SkyWest.
Last edited by Bobman80; 09-01-2016 at 05:12 PM.
#29
The point I was trying to make is that there are two limits. Weight is one. Regardless of how illogical you think it is to have a weight limit there is one and it will prevent anyone that is a DCI carrier from flying the MRJ. Maybe another mainline pilot group will give up the weight limit but Delta pilots will not.
I completely agree we should fly CRJ700 and CRJ900s here at mainline. Maybe someday, a guy can hope right?
I completely agree we should fly CRJ700 and CRJ900s here at mainline. Maybe someday, a guy can hope right?
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Position: DL
Posts: 136
For the sake of discussion it really seems like the weight limit is a random number. The next biggest plane that is a threat to mainline jobs, the 190 or Cseries is no where near that limit and is over it by like 30k pounds. The MRJ is in the same class as the crj9 and 175 wich you already have, no jobs will be lost that would have been lost by CRJ9s and 175s to begin with.
Btw, I edited my previous post and added some info.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post