Crj 550
#201
Banned
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Position: 737
Posts: 257
did you even read it? Nowhere did he say scope relief was just a matter of time.
#202
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: 787 Captain
Posts: 1,512
We are trying to fill planes and connect to mainline with the high yield passengers, it’s our union blocking the company from selling more seats. Our scope love it or not ultimately affects our profitability. I’m not advocating selling out, but I do know out of a lot of cities we have lost global service and higher paying customers do to our inferior 50 seat product. That’s life. I personally would be fine with replacing more 50 seaters with 70 seats at the regional level. I think we are cutting our own necks. The same guys that beeyatch about DAL profit sharing don’t seem open minded to any changes that might increase our profitability. Yes single engine taxi helps and when even employees like myself BUY tickets for their families rather then use the UAL discount because you have to travel on a crap 50 seat RJ THERE IS AN ISSUE. I hope our union knows what it’s doing
I thought we ALL agreed that the sun rises in the east, the earth is round, gravity is the law, and that we SHOULD NEVER GIVE UP SCOPE?!?!
#204
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2017
Posts: 705
#205
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
#206
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: 787 Captain
Posts: 1,512
Secondly, they ARE limited in the number of 76 seaters as well as the combined number of 70 & 76 seaters. Since they are at the max numbers already, they have to remove current 70 seaters from the UEX fleet in order to add the 25 recently purchased E175s (going to Expressjet configured with 70 seats). The CRJ700s being removed from the UEX fleet are going to be recertified & reconfigured as 50 seaters. Brilliant....Brilliant I tell you!
When I first read this I assumed it was the companies way to 'get around' our scope, but now I don't think that's the case. This will be a niche aircraft that will serve a specific purpose, but I WON'T alleviate the need for additional E175 size airframes and it certainly won't help fill the 100-110 seat gap. IMO, they could very well see a need for this frankenjet even if they added a 110 seat jet to mainline & got the resulting 70 additional 76 seaters.
#207
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2018
Posts: 1,358
I don’t see it as a bad thing either. More 70+ seat rj’s is what the company wants and they’re currently maxed out. The only way that they will get them is if:
1. We cave on scope (not going to happen)
2. We fly 70 seaters at mainline (not going to happen)
3. They add another fleet type to mainline allowing more rj’s like Delta did (this could happen)
While we wait for the negotiating process to play out they can utilize the 550 without violating scope. It doesn’t give them what they really want and it doesn’t erode our negotiating leverage. If they can provide a better product and generate more revenue while we wait, then so be it. We’re in the best position that we’ve been in years to stand firm on scope. I’m willing to wait for the right contract. Until then, this one is pretty good.
1. We cave on scope (not going to happen)
2. We fly 70 seaters at mainline (not going to happen)
3. They add another fleet type to mainline allowing more rj’s like Delta did (this could happen)
While we wait for the negotiating process to play out they can utilize the 550 without violating scope. It doesn’t give them what they really want and it doesn’t erode our negotiating leverage. If they can provide a better product and generate more revenue while we wait, then so be it. We’re in the best position that we’ve been in years to stand firm on scope. I’m willing to wait for the right contract. Until then, this one is pretty good.
#208
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Position: UNA
Posts: 4,417
IMO, they could very well see a need for this frankenjet even if they added a 110 seat jet to mainline & got the resulting 70 additional 76 seaters.[/QUOTE]
im not at UAL but I thought your contract said the only planes that could raise the 76 seat limit are E190, E195, and CS100 (A220-100). I dont think putting 100 seats in an a319 would not allow them to add 76 seat jets
im not at UAL but I thought your contract said the only planes that could raise the 76 seat limit are E190, E195, and CS100 (A220-100). I dont think putting 100 seats in an a319 would not allow them to add 76 seat jets
#209
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: 787 Captain
Posts: 1,512
You are correct. For each 1.25 New Small Narrow Body they add to mainline they can add an additional 76 seat aircraft to UEX - up to 70 additional. A NSNB is defined as a E190, E195, or CS100. Some other things change I'd they go above current 76 seater numbers as well (e.g. allowable number of 50 seaters shrink).
#210
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Posts: 840
Why don’t you come on over. You seem to know our contract more than most people that fly here.😄
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post