|
Originally Posted by untied
(Post 1297291)
Never said I was happy with the pay, but we match DAL's pay in December.
|
Originally Posted by xjtguy
(Post 1297367)
That the RJ FO (trip7) even feels that he's the one to lecture UAL and L-CAL pilots on scope after the last 10 plus years is laughable in itself.
|
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1297430)
johnso: the 82 seat request from mgmt always intrigued me. It was stated to me by several different higher ups as well as a status rep that DL had NOT asked for more seats in the 76 seaters. Only when the uproar and sales job began did they change their story.
I'm still not sure what to believe. |
Originally Posted by Gunga Galunga:1297340
Originally Posted by Trip7
(Post 1297277)
Wow....you have no idea what you are talking about. Do yourself a big favor and attend a roadshow.
Good find on the mainline RJs. A near bankrupt SAS and a very small LOT Polish Airlines which is basically an RJ operation with a handful of 737s and 767s(being replaced by 787) certainly is the definition of a trend in global legacy Airline economics |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1297445)
Well, even if they didn't ask that would still make untied wrong. :D
Just because management can put more seats in them, doesn't mean they will. The "70" seat CRJs at DL are equipped with 65 seats... the airlines have realized the value of a premium product instead of packing as many seats as possible in the "RJs." (transcons are now regional flying if they are still RJs). I still think that a viable economic argument could be made for the jumbo RJs at mainline, though... no matter how much steam our resident RJ know-it-all can blow out of his ears. The only argument that I heard from our rep was that they didn't want them at mainline if it couldnt support a mainline pay rate. My bloodpressure still rises over that one. |
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1297470)
True... they arent 90 seat airplanes no matter how much he tries to make them. .
Advertised as a 90 seater. If it makes you feel better to call it a 76 seater....go ahead and keep kidding yourself.:D Did you hear about Bombardier's new slogan?? "The CRJ-900....Making outsourcing profitable again!":) |
Originally Posted by horrido27
(Post 1297435)
So.. you don't believe that they will park 3 50 seat aircraft (150 seats) and replace them with 2 90 seaters [much more efficient] configured to 76 seats. (152 seats).
3 50 seat aircraft flying 10 hrs a day.. 30 hours. 2 76 seat aircraft flying 12 hrs a day.. 24 hours. So, they have actually lowered their UAX block hours and increased their avail seats. Why is our agreement tied to block hours vs. Delta's which (it seems.. hopefully a Delta guy can chime in here~) is tied into ASM/Seats. Fact is, there is not one 90 seater configured to 76 seats flying, configured with a First Class, flying from Hub to Hub/other destinations, over 900nm away.. flying United Passenger as of right now. This TA Passes, the above statement will no longer be true. "United against Outsourcing" Motch Sled |
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1297430)
johnso: the 82 seat request from mgmt always intrigued me. It was stated to me by several different higher ups as well as a status rep that DL had NOT asked for more seats in the 76 seaters. Only when the uproar and sales job began did they change their story.
I'm still not sure what to believe. |
Originally Posted by 76drvr
(Post 1297529)
Not sure which status reps you asked, but the info I've received, from high ups, has been very consistent; the company was asking for 82 seats, ALPA made it clear that wasn't going to happen. The fact that the company wanted to "optimize" the airframe with greater than 76 seats, shouldn't be a surprise. Of course they did.
|
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1297533)
The 82 seat story didn't start until after the sales job began.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:36 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands