Scope and the JCBA
12-26-2012, 12:33 PM
#252
Peace Love Understanding
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: Airbus
Posts: 1,040
Originally Posted by Ottopilot
There was never a danger of unlimited Q400's. CAL and the passengers don't want too many. The old scope is much better than our new UAL scope.
12-26-2012, 12:44 PM
#253
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2011
Posts: 467
Originally Posted by LAX Pilot
Well its better than the unlimited 50 seat jets and unlimited 78 seat Q-400's that CAL allowed before. UAL had block hour limits at least.
There should be no problem with this SCOPE. It does exactly what we want it to do; LIMIT the flying done by pilots that aren't on our list. We don't want to fly those little airplanes, because as sure as we did all the NO voters would come on here and say that its a plot to park all the big aircraft and force us all to fly 50 seat RJ's on a B scale, etc.
There should be no problem with this SCOPE. It does exactly what we want it to do; LIMIT the flying done by pilots that aren't on our list. We don't want to fly those little airplanes, because as sure as we did all the NO voters would come on here and say that its a plot to park all the big aircraft and force us all to fly 50 seat RJ's on a B scale, etc.
The CAL language was "self limiting" Sure, the 50 seat RJ's were unlimited, but due to their poor economics they were "self limiting." The company could have crews flying for free and they still would have poor economics due to their limited payload capability. The 50 seat jet was poorly thought out and poorly implemented. It may have made sense on paper to replace the E-120's with an E 145, but the reality is it was not.
The language does limit the flying while simultaneously providing scope relief. How stringent the limitations are, and how well it is enforced, combined with the company's TRUE plans on 90 class seat aircraft in the future will show us how GOOD it is (or isn't).
12-27-2012, 01:10 AM
#254
Don't say Guppy
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
I deadheaded a couple of times on a CoEx Q400 while based in JFK. I thought it was a great ride. Second only to Jetblows E190 product. A Q400 is vastly better than any other turboprop, including some brand new ATR72's I rode on in SE Asia. They too had the active noise suppression but only after thrust reduction. They were a poor second to the Q's.
I would take a Q ride anytime over an ERJ or Canadair. Fairly roomy seats, and very quiet.
I would take a Q ride anytime over an ERJ or Canadair. Fairly roomy seats, and very quiet.
02-10-2013, 06:07 PM
#255
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Position: Left
Posts: 143
Originally Posted by Probe
I deadheaded a couple of times on a CoEx Q400 while based in JFK. I thought it was a great ride. Second only to Jetblows E190 product. A Q400 is vastly better than any other turboprop, including some brand new ATR72's I rode on in SE Asia. They too had the active noise suppression but only after thrust reduction. They were a poor second to the Q's.
I would take a Q ride anytime over an ERJ or Canadair. Fairly roomy seats, and very quiet.
I would take a Q ride anytime over an ERJ or Canadair. Fairly roomy seats, and very quiet.
LOUD
It's a turboprop with a nicer interior and a fancier cockpit.
