Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Regional > SkyWest
Will the MRJ fly at Skywest and TSA? >

Will the MRJ fly at Skywest and TSA?

Search
Notices
SkyWest Regional Airline

Will the MRJ fly at Skywest and TSA?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 09-02-2016, 05:40 AM
  #41  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Position: DL
Posts: 136
Default

Originally Posted by Mercyful Fate View Post
Quit giving yourself credit for something that has nothing to do with DL pilots. Guarantee the plans for these MRJ's have anything to do with DL.
I'm not sure what you are implying I took credit for. Where did I imply that? Insecure much? Who do you think SkyWest's existing orders are for if not potentially for Delta?

It was implied by CCB that mainline pilots, to include DL pilots, have always given up scope to accommodate larger and more capable RJs in return for increasing our pay. I was pointing out that in the case of the MRJ, we DL pilots are not discussing increasing the limit. That would make the MRJ unable to fly for DCI which does indeed have something to do with Delta pilots. If other airlines give up scope and allow it then that's on them but I don't see that happening.

SkyWest can fly them on their own or for another carrier but they can not remain a DCI carrier if they choose to operate them on a DL route. Again, prohibited by our scope clause.

I'll be happy if we hold scope where it is and yes, I'll take some credit as a pilot group for that.

Last edited by Bobman80; 09-02-2016 at 05:50 AM.
Bobman80 is offline  
Old 09-02-2016, 07:33 AM
  #42  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,293
Default

Originally Posted by LostMedic View Post
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...
You're 100% wrong. The regional jet market fundamentally revolves around the US market. Nobody could really afford to design, develop, test, and build an airliner from scratch only in the hopes of selling a few tens or maybe a couple hundred airframes. They probably need to sell closer to 1000 to make out, and there's only once place where that's even a possibility.

Asia might surpass North America as an RJ market someday, but you can say that about many things.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 09-02-2016, 07:54 AM
  #43  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,293
Default

Originally Posted by minimwage4 View Post
No in all honesty I just don't understand that weight limit. If you're concerned with "jobs", it doesn't make a difference in the MRJs case as it's the equivalent of a CRJ9 or 175 in seats and pretty much weight but slightly over.

The people who wrote scope found out the hard way over time that management would find work-arounds to the original intent. It's not about number of pax, it's about revenue potential. The original theory behind outsourced flying was that small airplanes did not generate enough revenue to support mainline payscales, but they were necessary to feed the hubs. They were supposed to supplement, not replace mainline flying.

For example, scope often limits the airplane based on how it is CERTIFIED, vice how it is OPERATED. Example, if you put 70 seats in a 90 seat airplane, and now have capacity for a premium class and some cargo then you can make more money on that plane. Now the company is getting the economic benefit of a "larger" airplane even though it falls under a certain seat count.

In fact Bombardier certified a version of the CRJ 700 at a slightly lower weight than the normal 700, solely for the purpose of getting under a certain major's scope. This was not a design change at all, just a paper-work drill...new type number and new MGTOW. This was done to satisfy a scope clause.

Scope is all about limiting revenue at the regional level...that can include number of pax, cargo, premium pax, and even range. If mainline can make more money with RJ's, they will use them to replace mainline flying or potential mainline growth.

Bobman knows what he's talking about.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 09-02-2016, 10:46 AM
  #44  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Position: DL
Posts: 136
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
The people who wrote scope found out the hard way over time that management would find work-arounds to the original intent. It's not about number of pax, it's about revenue potential. The original theory behind outsourced flying was that small airplanes did not generate enough revenue to support mainline payscales, but they were necessary to feed the hubs. They were supposed to supplement, not replace mainline flying.

For example, scope often limits the airplane based on how it is CERTIFIED, vice how it is OPERATED. Example, if you put 70 seats in a 90 seat airplane, and now have capacity for a premium class and some cargo then you can make more money on that plane. Now the company is getting the economic benefit of a "larger" airplane even though it falls under a certain seat count.

In fact Bombardier certified a version of the CRJ 700 at a slightly lower weight than the normal 700, solely for the purpose of getting under a certain major's scope. This was not a design change at all, just a paper-work drill...new type number and new MGTOW. This was done to satisfy a scope clause.

Scope is all about limiting revenue at the regional level...that can include number of pax, cargo, premium pax, and even range. If mainline can make more money with RJ's, they will use them to replace mainline flying or potential mainline growth.

Bobman knows what he's talking about.
That was a great summary of what I was trying to say. Thanks Rick!
Bobman80 is offline  
Old 09-02-2016, 11:23 AM
  #45  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,940
Default

Setting scope aside for the moment, why would any regional (or mainline airline purchasing for a wholly owned regional) be interested in making an MRJ purchase when they can just continue to buy CRJ's and ERJ's indefinitely? IE- what's the business case for introducing a third aircraft into a regional fleet?

Also, with the MRJ being a heavier aircraft, does anyone know if there is an impact on runway performance vs the ERJ/CRJ?
tom11011 is offline  
Old 09-02-2016, 11:32 AM
  #46  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,483
Default

Originally Posted by tom11011 View Post
Setting scope aside for the moment, why would any regional (or mainline airline purchasing for a wholly owned regional) be interested in making an MRJ purchase when they can just continue to buy CRJ's and ERJ's indefinitely? IE- what's the business case for introducing a third aircraft into a regional fleet?

Also, with the MRJ being a heavier aircraft, does anyone know if there is an impact on runway performance vs the ERJ/CRJ?
I think the biggest draw is super-efficient engines. That and the fact that the Canadians have ****ed off basically everyone.
word302 is offline  
Old 09-02-2016, 11:53 AM
  #47  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2016
Posts: 137
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post



In fact Bombardier certified a version of the CRJ 700 at a slightly lower weight than the normal 700, solely for the purpose of getting under a certain major's scope. This was not a design change at all, just a paper-work drill...new type number and new MGTOW. This was done to satisfy a scope clause.



What's to stop Mitsubishi from doing this as well, in order to sell more planes to the US regional market? Also, if they don't do this, and if scope doesn't change for any of the US mainline, what are OO and TSA going to do with their planes on order? Did they order them with the hope/expectation that scope would be relaxed?
PackPilot is offline  
Old 09-02-2016, 12:05 PM
  #48  
2 days off
 
minimwage4's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: Embraer Systems Analyst
Posts: 1,853
Default

Originally Posted by PackPilot View Post
What's to stop Mitsubishi from doing this as well, in order to sell more planes to the US regional market? Also, if they don't do this, and if scope doesn't change for any of the US mainline, what are OO and TSA going to do with their planes on order? Did they order them with the hope/expectation that scope would be relaxed?
They ordered these planes back in 2009 with delivery dates of 2014 or 15 and if they were on time they wouldn't have been able to fly them. So that goes to show you they have no plans other than to hope for the best. I think it all depends on how well the MRJ performs too, if it's really 20% more efficient. It will be interesting to see what happens close to the delivery dates.
minimwage4 is offline  
Old 09-02-2016, 12:39 PM
  #49  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,483
Default

Originally Posted by PackPilot View Post
What's to stop Mitsubishi from doing this as well, in order to sell more planes to the US regional market? Also, if they don't do this, and if scope doesn't change for any of the US mainline, what are OO and TSA going to do with their planes on order? Did they order them with the hope/expectation that scope would be relaxed?
OO ordered these to use as a bargaining chip with Embraer and Bombardier. I doubt they ever planned to take delivery.
word302 is offline  
Old 09-02-2016, 01:18 PM
  #50  
Gets Weekends Off
 
saturn's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2012
Position: Supreme Allied Commander
Posts: 1,055
Default

Originally Posted by word302 View Post
OO ordered these to use as a bargaining chip with Embraer and Bombardier. I doubt they ever planned to take delivery.
Thats a good pilot rumor. You realize that they ordered 100 firm, 100 options. This 200 MRJ deal is worth 8.4 BILLION. You think they can just order all that and then cancel without spending a dollar?All as a ploy to save $ from EMBRAER?
Without that SkyWest order, this aircraft wouldn't likely of entered production. It is what justified building this airplane, with nearly 50% of all orders. Mitsubishi had to have had strong assurances or severe penalties to undertake this whole project if SkyWest canceled. Its too massive of risk (tens of billions) otherwise.
saturn is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
lovellrt
SkyWest
15181
02-25-2016 05:47 PM
Gundam
Career Questions
8
09-03-2014 10:00 PM
LivinTheDream28
Regional
92
02-25-2010 03:21 AM
328dude
GoJet
628
03-24-2009 09:33 AM
Koolaidman
Regional
20
12-27-2006 04:24 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices