Originally Posted by iahflyr (Post 3760398)

I did not say those words.

I support a good scope clause. I support us having a 76 seat limit and a limit on the number of aircraft that have 76 seats or less at regionals.

The issue I have is that our union intentionally kneecapped the performance of these CRJ-550’s. The CRJ-550 is a replacement for our 50 seat jets that have no replacement. 50 seat feed is good when used correctly. It brings in lots of premium revenue on routes that have no competition.

A passenger pays significantly more for a flight like SBA-LAX-HNL than just LAX-HNL. There is no competition for SBA-LAX-HNL, so United charges a lot more, whereas LAX-HNL has a ton of competition and fares are extremely low. These are typically business travelers who don’t care about the extra cost. Instead we are making them drive 2 hours to a primary hub instead of flying, and we lose hundreds and hundreds of dollars of revenue and profit on the SBA-LAX leg, and often lose their business on the LAX-HNL leg.

Customers do not hate smaller jets, JSX has no problem filling up 50 seat sized planes (with 30 seats), and with very premium customers. They hate 70 people crammed into a 70 seat sized jet. They like 50 people/seats in a 70 seat sized jet. JSX is already poaching our customers on routes like LA-Vegas, LA-SF Bay Area, etc… They will keep expanding both on the regional routes we give up and eventually more of our actual mainline routes. We need a competitive product in the 50 seat market, and the CRJ-550 without those restrictions is the answer. It doesn’t take away mainline jobs but actually creates mainline jobs.

Less 50 seat feed = less mainline jobs needed.

Oh well. Too many “they took ‘er jobs” people who can’t see the forest through the trees.

I cannot stand that our union intentionally hurt our product, our revenue, our feed, our PS...

Originally Posted by KnightNight (Post 3760441)

im confused how the 550 is weight restricted/knee capped….its a crj 700 with 16 less seats yet its weight restricted ?

Originally Posted by TFAYD (Post 3760452)

The 50 seat scope has a weight limit. The airplane is more capable but you are not allowed to exceed the scope weight limit which seriously limits fuel load and therefore range and options whenever you need an alternate

Originally Posted by iahflyr (Post 3760474)

Our first TA increased that weight limit by 4,000lbs. That would have allowed the 50 seat CRJ-550 to be used as designed and not handicapped with an artificial limit that prevents it from being used on many routes.

However, too many people were irrational and got caught up in “they took ‘er jobs” panic mode. Then we had to use up negotiating capital to renegotiate that demand and give up some other improvement we could have gotten in the contract.

Originally Posted by iahflyr (Post 3760398)

I did not say those words.

I support a good scope clause. I support us having a 76 seat limit and a limit on the number of aircraft that have 76 seats or less at regionals.

The issue I have is that our union intentionally kneecapped the performance of these CRJ-550’s. The CRJ-550 is a replacement for our 50 seat jets that have no replacement. 50 seat feed is good when used correctly. It brings in lots of premium revenue on routes that have no competition.

A passenger pays significantly more for a flight like SBA-LAX-HNL than just LAX-HNL. There is no competition for SBA-LAX-HNL, so United charges a lot more, whereas LAX-HNL has a ton of competition and fares are extremely low. These are typically business travelers who don’t care about the extra cost. Instead we are making them drive 2 hours to a primary hub instead of flying, and we lose hundreds and hundreds of dollars of revenue and profit on the SBA-LAX leg, and often lose their business on the LAX-HNL leg.

Customers do not hate smaller jets, JSX has no problem filling up 50 seat sized planes (with 30 seats), and with very premium customers. They hate 70 people crammed into a 70 seat sized jet. They like 50 people/seats in a 70 seat sized jet. JSX is already poaching our customers on routes like LA-Vegas, LA-SF Bay Area, etc… They will keep expanding both on the regional routes we give up and eventually more of our actual mainline routes. We need a competitive product in the 50 seat market, and the CRJ-550 without those restrictions is the answer. It doesn’t take away mainline jobs but actually creates mainline jobs.

Less 50 seat feed = less mainline jobs needed.

Oh well. Too many “they took ‘er jobs” people who can’t see the forest through the trees.

I cannot stand that our union intentionally hurt our product, our revenue, our feed, our PS...

Originally Posted by iahflyr (Post 3760474)

Our first TA increased that weight limit by 4,000lbs. That would have allowed the 50 seat CRJ-550 to be used as designed and not handicapped with an artificial limit that prevents it from being used on many routes.

However, too many people were irrational and got caught up in “they took ‘er jobs” panic mode. Then we had to use up negotiating capital to renegotiate that demand and give up some other improvement we could have gotten in the contract.

Originally Posted by iahflyr (Post 3760474)

Our first TA increased that weight limit by 4,000lbs.

Originally Posted by Otterbox (Post 3760674)

Yeah, and that helped to get the TA ****canned the UALPA MEC recalled and cost TI the ALPA national election.

United management has had an avenue to increase RJ lift if they chose... that is purchasing A220s or E190/195 in order to get more E175 type aircraft. Instead they chose to invest in mainline aircraft and bring more RJ flying in house. That's a win for the pilot group.

Originally Posted by Grumble (Post 3760750)

running a concession stand

Originally Posted by iahflyr (Post 3760754)

We need to do something to make up my or all that lost profit sharing by pushing away all these customers and their money