Is United looking at the 220?
01-29-2024 | 07:58 AM
#51
Line Holder
Joined: Aug 2021
Posts: 934
Likes: 22
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...
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...
im confused how the 550 is weight restricted/knee capped….its a crj 700 with 16 less seats yet its weight restricted ?
01-29-2024 | 08:13 AM
#52
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,150
Likes: 9
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
01-29-2024 | 08:45 AM
#53
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,734
Likes: 12
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.
01-29-2024 | 08:52 AM
#54
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2022
Posts: 283
Likes: 9
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.
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.
01-29-2024 | 09:42 AM
#55
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2022
Posts: 587
Likes: 105
From: 73FO
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...
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...
It's also funny how you focus only on the negatives of the scope clause and not the benefit of being more feasible to furlough thousands of pilots and put pilot into lower pay scales. Again, there is NOTHING stopping the company from flying as many CRJ's as they want, they just need mainline pilots. If those routes were such revenue generators then surely paying the crew an extra ~$300 per flight hour would still make sense. You'd also think that the regionals would be minting money, instead they have required tens of millions of dollars of bailouts from mainline companies and have mothballed aircraft because they can't fill cockpits.
01-29-2024 | 10:46 AM
#56
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 3,633
Likes: 209
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.
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.
01-29-2024 | 01:23 PM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 3,195
Likes: 42
From: Gear slinger
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.
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.
01-29-2024 | 04:23 PM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,508
Likes: 109
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.
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
