Long call probably not good. I've been here three years and I've been on long call maybe twice.

how can you be so cruel?

&lt;br /&gt;<br />
&lt;br /&gt;<br />
Okay someone with knowledge on scope clauses needs to clarify this because scope is basses on total number of seats from what I understand is less than 80. &lt;br /&gt;<br />
&lt;br /&gt;<br />
We only recently got average two class configuration numbers for the mrj90 and they are bearly above 80. Add in economy plus or any premium economy product and small tweaks to the first class cabin and suddenly and easily you have a 76 seat airplane which is comparable to the current generation 175 and CRJ 900 products. These aircraft fit within the current scope at both AA and DL by number of seats. The only other limiting factor could be based on max gross weight but nobody's been able to come up with a number and that scope has only been rumored and not proven to me so if anyone has an answer on any scope related max gross weight restrictions please let me know who and how much. The mrj90 is also comparable in weight to a 175 or crj 900 product and much better on fuel consumption. &lt;br /&gt;<br />
&lt;br /&gt;<br />
There simply appears to be no actual evidence to support the morn being scoped out. Just like the emb175 E2 currently advertising a 80 passenger average two class configuration, sky west has orders for 100 mrj90 with options for 100 more and we have orders for 50 with options for fifty more and orders for 100 emb 175e2 with options for 100 more. Why would either of us have placed such large orders if there weren't readily working theories to make scope a non issue.... maybe even backroom agreements. &lt;br /&gt;<br />
&lt;br /&gt;<br />
The mrj was very ahead of its time and now with delays will be just in time to compete with the next generation of regional jets as the evolved embraer jets are expected in 2020 (and using the same geared turbofan engines no less). It's not alone in size or seats and as the era of the 50 seater comes to a close, it stands to make a very persuasive step away from them.&lt;br /&gt;<br />
&lt;br /&gt;<br />
Just take look at history. At the end of the turboprop, at the beginning of the 50 seat jets, at the beginning of the 170/700 jets. The industry changes basses on its current needs and scope changes right with it even if it doesn't have to. &lt;br /&gt;<br />
&lt;br /&gt;<br />
One last point, for now the regional jets might be scooped out by total number of rjs flying for ual for example. But, they could still function by acting as 1 to 1 airframe replacements for 50 seaters currently flying requiring no modifications to current scope restrictions. &lt;br /&gt;<br />
&lt;br /&gt;<br />
They just aren't scoped out. Peroid.

Also this was done on the phone so never mind the typos, you can read through them. I'll try to edit when I get home for better grammatical correctness.

This is false. Scope clauses include a passenger count and a MGTOW. Both the MRJ and to a greater extent, the E2, have weights in excess of the limit.

No simple solution to MRJ90?s scope clause problem | AirKarp

What base are new hires getting then if not RDU?

STL & IAD have been the majority lately....

How many lines out of RDU, and how long do you think it'll take to get it? I could commute for a few months if there was reasonable hope of getting RDU soon. I was going to contact a recruiter today or tomorrow.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Finally an actual article for the people squawking about this mtow stuff.

Okay again this cites the 86000lbs scope limitation but does not say what airlines contracts have it. The below article at least states the Alaska is "one major exception" but we all know tsa isn't going to be doing Alaska regional flying likely.

http://m.aviationweek.com/awin/scope-clauses-may-affect-use-new-rjs

"More recently, however, some pilots' unions have given ground on outsourced flying for larger aircraft in exchange for a new cap on the overall number of regional jets or other “sweeteners,” such as a guaranteed ratio between mainline and regional carrier operations. That is a tradeoff the airlines are willing to make because they are eager to unload their 50-seat regional jets and replace them with the larger-capacity aircraft.

Airlines also can use pay increases or other benefit or work rule improvements to try to win concessions from the unions on scope."

The mrj90std hardly exceeds it and can easily get a very specific LOA out of the contracts to exceed the weight but meet the seats in exchange for pay raises and or a limitation on the total number of regional aircraft flown. IE allowing the 1 to 1 replacement of the older fifty seat airframes still in operation. Even using this very possibly as a forward step toward replacing the 50 seater with less bigger new airframes this would have the effect of further increasing scope limitations in a direct way, decreasing the total amount of regional flying while allowing the 50 seat jets to be replaced.

From what I've been reading in the majors forums, they want to bring more flying back in house and want zero concessions for doing so. In fact, one of the highly debated topics in the recent DAL contract rejection dealt with a code-share relaxation if I remember correctly. If Alaska is a major exception, it is safe to assume that any of the big 3 would be an even more major exception so they have that 86k limit. I HIGHLY doubt that the big 3 will relax the MGTOW limitation when they are actively trying to encourage management to bring more small narrow-body aircraft types on property. The "recent" comment about relaxing scope was referencing the latest explosion of contract flying.

I doubt the big 3 will bring actual RJs in house logistically. Flying yes. The MRJ is an RJ, it's kind of in a awkward position between CRJ/175s and the CSeries in weight, but with less than 80 seats, it's more of a regional aircraft. I have no idea how they came up with that 86k number but it seems arbitrary. If the MRJ does perform as advertised with fuel savings, the majors will do whatever it takes to get on board. The seats vs weight LOA idea is one option.