![]() |
Skywest has an order in for 100 non-scope complaint E2 ERJs, and Kirby likely has a plan for using them in the United network.
Don't give in. |
Originally Posted by UALfoLIFE
(Post 2441991)
Skywest has an order in for 100 non-scope complaint E2 ERJs, and Kirby likely has a plan for using them in the United network.
Next? |
They're starting to get it.
Manufacturers Not Expecting E175-E2, MRJ90 Scope Relief | Commercial Aviation content from Aviation Week |
Originally Posted by UALfoLIFE
(Post 2441991)
Skywest has an order in for 100 non-scope complaint E2 ERJs, and Kirby likely has a plan for using them in the United network.
Don't give in. |
Originally Posted by ReadyRsv
(Post 2442510)
Alaska has no scope clause.
|
Does anyone know the history behind the max t/o 86000lbs scope limit? How they came up with that number in particular. I'm sure this is the number Kirby wants relaxed but I'd like to know more about why this limit exists in the first place (I'm not of the position its up for negotiation).
|
Originally Posted by Bluewaffle
(Post 2443100)
Does anyone know the history behind the max t/o 86000lbs scope limit? How they came up with that number in particular. I'm sure this is the number Kirby wants relaxed but I'd like to know more about why this limit exists in the first place (I'm not of the position its up for negotiation).
|
Originally Posted by Bluewaffle
(Post 2443100)
Does anyone know the history behind the max t/o 86000lbs scope limit? How they came up with that number in particular. I'm sure this is the number Kirby wants relaxed but I'd like to know more about why this limit exists in the first place (I'm not of the position its up for negotiation).
The ratified limit (by weight) did not mention a specific aircraft type but was established to permit an aircraft the size of the CRJ700. Shortly thereafter the company returned in a panic to get a higher limit to allow the E170 which the MEC Chair obliged. #massivefail |
Either the worlds biggest sucker, or a devious and feckless Alpha Hotel.
|
Does anyone know the history behind the max t/o 86000lbs scope limit? How they came up with that number in particular. I'm sure this is the number Kirby wants relaxed but I'd like to know more about why this limit exists in the first place (I'm not of the position its up for negotiation). The weight used to be lower but was raised during the bankruptcy by the MEC Chairman, without ratification, to allow the company to have the Express carriers fly the E-170. He raised it in a terrible attempt to save the A Plan. The UAL Contract 2003, aka the "Bankruptcy Contract" defined a small jet as max weight of 80,000lbs and certified for 70 or fewer seats. Here is that infamous LOA that everyone says is SO evil. The fact is...the Company and Whiteford's special negotiating committee had already agreed to allow the E170 with 70 seats. BTW, the Company flew 115 CRJ700s but only 38 EMB170s. The 76 seats and 86,000 pound Regional Jet definition came with the Merger UPA in 2012. I suspect it was to allow for the EMB175. Embraer 170 Captain Paul R. Whiteford, Chairman UAL-MEC Air Line Pilots Association 6400 Shafer Court, Suite #700 Rosemont, IL 60018 Dear Paul, In discussions leading up to the 2003 Agreement, the parties agreed that the Embraer 170, certificated to a maximum seating of seventy-eight (78), with a maximum gross takeoff weight of less than eighty-two thousand one hundred (82,100) pounds would be an exception to definition #22 of Section 1 of the 2003 Agreement. The Company further commits that should one or more of our Feeder Carrier partners select this aircraft for operation, it will not be configured for operation with more than seventy (70) seats. If this letter accurately reflects our agreement, please sign and return two (2) copies for our file. Sincerely |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:12 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands