Will the MRJ fly at Skywest and TSA?
09-09-2016, 06:11 AM
#161
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: the right side
Posts: 1,373
Originally Posted by Turbosina
I think we all realize that the existence of a few turboprops at a few very small carriers doesn't mean that the Great Turboprop Renaissance is at hand.
09-09-2016, 08:18 PM
#163
2 days off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: Embraer Systems Analyst
Posts: 1,853
Originally Posted by Lambourne
By tightening the loop holes in scope in the past contracts the mainline pilots are voting to bring flying back in house. You do understand how this process works right? Just like the liberalization of scope allowed for the buildup of RJ flying the tightening will help deconstruct. It doesn't happen over night but mainline pilots are doing their part to reduce RJ flying.
What steps would you propose we take? I would prefer to see turboprops back at the regionals and the large RJ's at mainline.
What steps would you propose we take? I would prefer to see turboprops back at the regionals and the large RJ's at mainline.
The market will eventually be all large RJs. Why? Because that's what people want, remember the people? Yes, the folks that are tired of crappy 50 seaters. Do you honestly think that the company is going to deny great brand new efficient AC because of the Union? The company will do whatever they like in the end, there's always a way. If you think you're going to be able to fly RJs in house, tell us how you plan on doing that. Good luck, I'm actually rooting for you.
09-10-2016, 05:00 AM
#164
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: FIRE ALPA
Posts: 3,084
Originally Posted by Mercyful Fate
Everyone please note:
Lambourne is extremely sensitive and cannot take any sort of criticism for things he/she says. You will be reported, and you will be punished. You have been warned.
Lambourne is extremely sensitive and cannot take any sort of criticism for things he/she says. You will be reported, and you will be punished. You have been warned.
09-10-2016, 12:51 PM
#165
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2011
Posts: 996
What's to keep Mitsubishi from certifying the aircraft at reduced MGTOW that is under the scope limitation? If you go with a dual class configuration, isn't it right around 76 seats and close to the MGTOW limitation of mainline carriers?
09-10-2016, 12:57 PM
#166
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: I pilot
Posts: 2,049
Originally Posted by RgrMurdock
What's to keep Mitsubishi from certifying the aircraft at reduced MGTOW that is under the scope limitation? If you go with a dual class configuration, isn't it right around 76 seats and close to the MGTOW limitation of mainline carriers?
This has been done in be past, for example the CRJ440 which was a CRJ200 certified with only 44 seats for scope, and the CRJ705 which was a CRJ900 certified with only 75 seats for Air Canada scope.
Weight may be trickier than seats though.
09-10-2016, 01:03 PM
#167
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,106
Originally Posted by zondaracer
I guess that depends how much useful load will be left over.
This has been done in be past, for example the CRJ440 which was a CRJ200 certified with only 44 seats for scope, and the CRJ705 which was a CRJ900 certified with only 75 seats for Air Canada scope.
Weight may be trickier than seats though.
This has been done in be past, for example the CRJ440 which was a CRJ200 certified with only 44 seats for scope, and the CRJ705 which was a CRJ900 certified with only 75 seats for Air Canada scope.
Weight may be trickier than seats though.
09-10-2016, 03:19 PM
#169
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,237
Originally Posted by 450knotOffice
You are missing the point, once again. Why, by the way, are you so determined to see the continuance of a massive fleet of RJ's operated by sub-contractors?
forward to keep up with retirements. If the RJ's reduce in number where
will the next group of qualified pilots come from?
Though im sure that's not your problem nor do you probably even care.
Its just every person for themselves and whats best for them. To pretend otherwise is a lie.
Mainline pilots say they want scope back but as long as they don't have to fly 6 legs a day to Podunk. It seems like they would rather lose customers
to the competition than have their own regionals fly (their) customers.
09-10-2016, 05:30 PM
#170
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,294
Originally Posted by RgrMurdock
What's to keep Mitsubishi from certifying the aircraft at reduced MGTOW that is under the scope limitation? If you go with a dual class configuration, isn't it right around 76 seats and close to the MGTOW limitation of mainline carriers?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
