United to reduce regional flying
10-30-2024 | 08:53 AM
#41
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 637
Likes: 51
From: Doggy
These "tiny" outstations charge an arm and a leg for ticket prices.
10-30-2024 | 10:07 AM
#43
Now Old
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 108
Likes: 59
From: Bent
Decades ago some predicted that when labor costs in the regional industry "matured", seat-mile costs for small jets would preclude service to many of the smaller populations that were once served by 19-30 seat turboprops. Scope clauses are not negatively impacting mainline pilot jobs, and your comments parallel many of the misguided arguments that were used to weaken scope in the mid 90s and post 9/11. Those that fail to learn from history...
10-30-2024 | 10:12 AM
#44
Now Old
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 108
Likes: 59
From: Bent
I agree. United leadership wanted to raise the MTOW of the CRJ-550 by 4,000lbs, but the union kneecapped that plan.
I don’t want more 76 seaters. I don’t want 50 seaters flying routes like EWR-ATL as they were in 2010.
I do want premium configured 50 seaters to fly from United hubs to these small airports (which cannot support mainline flights) that are served by our competitors. Without that, these passengers will fly our competitors instead.
I don’t want more 76 seaters. I don’t want 50 seaters flying routes like EWR-ATL as they were in 2010.
I do want premium configured 50 seaters to fly from United hubs to these small airports (which cannot support mainline flights) that are served by our competitors. Without that, these passengers will fly our competitors instead.
10-30-2024 | 12:05 PM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 3,195
Likes: 42
From: Gear slinger
I agree. United leadership wanted to raise the MTOW of the CRJ-550 by 4,000lbs, but the union kneecapped that plan.
I don’t want more 76 seaters. I don’t want 50 seaters flying routes like EWR-ATL as they were in 2010.
I do want premium configured 50 seaters to fly from United hubs to these small airports (which cannot support mainline flights) that are served by our competitors. Without that, these passengers will fly our competitors instead.
I don’t want more 76 seaters. I don’t want 50 seaters flying routes like EWR-ATL as they were in 2010.
I do want premium configured 50 seaters to fly from United hubs to these small airports (which cannot support mainline flights) that are served by our competitors. Without that, these passengers will fly our competitors instead.
During UALs contract negotiations and TUMI voting, Mitsubishi was looking at restarting the CRJ 550 line. Shortly after TA 2.0 passed, Mitsubishi scrapped those plans.
10-30-2024 | 01:15 PM
#46
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,020
Likes: 23
From: It's a plane and it's a seat
Here are the domestic cities United has cut service to since 2020. Most of these are served by a competitor.
I removed Hilo, Hawaii as that was actually mainline service.
- Texarkana, Arkansas
- Flagstaff, Arizona
- Santa Rosa, California
- Stockton, California
- Alamosa, Colorado
- Pueblo, Colorado
- Destin-Fort Walton Beach, Florida
- Tallahassee, Florida
- Twin Falls, Idaho
- Springfield, Illinois
- Evansville, Indiana
- Paducah, Kentucky
- Alexandria, Louisiana
- Monroe, Louisiana
- Kalamazoo, Michigan
- Lansing, Michigan
- Muskegon, Michigan
- Rochester, Minnesota
- Cape Girardeau, Missouri
- Columbia, Missouri
- Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri
- Kearney, Nebraska
- Ogdensburg, New York
- Plattsburgh, New York
- Erie, Pennsylvania
- Pierre, South Dakota
- Watertown, South Dakota
- Abilene, Texas
- College Station, Texas
- Killeen, Texas
- San Angelo, Texas
- Shenandoah, Virginia
- Everett, Washington
- Clarksburg, West Virginia
- Lewisburg, West Virginia
- Eau Claire, Wisconsin
- Wausau, Wisconsin
I removed Hilo, Hawaii as that was actually mainline service.
10-30-2024 | 03:21 PM
#47
Line Holder
Joined: May 2022
Posts: 646
Likes: 3
From: Clappin' Rip Bombs
No, nobody wins because mainline pilots cannot operate smaller equipment at a profit. So instead of letting regionals run these routes with more flexibility, which would put more money into your pocket, you decide to take the other route and leave the money on the table with pointless scope restrictions like reduced take off and landing weights.
10-30-2024 | 03:26 PM
#48
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,124
Likes: 70
From: AOG
I agree. United leadership wanted to raise the MTOW of the CRJ-550 by 4,000lbs, but the union kneecapped that plan.
I don’t want more 76 seaters. I don’t want 50 seaters flying routes like EWR-ATL as they were in 2010.
I do want premium configured 50 seaters to fly from United hubs to these small airports (which cannot support mainline flights) that are served by our competitors. Without that, these passengers will fly our competitors instead.
I don’t want more 76 seaters. I don’t want 50 seaters flying routes like EWR-ATL as they were in 2010.
I do want premium configured 50 seaters to fly from United hubs to these small airports (which cannot support mainline flights) that are served by our competitors. Without that, these passengers will fly our competitors instead.
10-30-2024 | 03:39 PM
#49
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2022
Posts: 1,592
Likes: 153
From: 787 FO
Whose pocket and what money?
10-30-2024 | 03:41 PM
#50
Line Holder
Joined: May 2022
Posts: 646
Likes: 3
From: Clappin' Rip Bombs
Yes, pointless. Give me one valid and legit reason the reduced weights on the 550 make a lick of difference in the grand scheme of things.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
fireman0174
Major
4
02-20-2007 11:27 AM
