Will the MRJ fly at Skywest and TSA?
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Position: DL
Posts: 136
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.
#42
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...
Asia might surpass North America as an RJ market someday, but you can say that about many things.
#43
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.
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Position: DL
Posts: 136
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.
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.
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,940
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?
Also, with the MRJ being a heavier aircraft, does anyone know if there is an impact on runway performance vs the ERJ/CRJ?
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,483
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?
Also, with the MRJ being a heavier aircraft, does anyone know if there is an impact on runway performance vs the ERJ/CRJ?
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2016
Posts: 137
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?
#48
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?
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,483
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?
#50
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post