United orders 25 more 737-700

B200 Hawk said:
This is why it's a shame the public is afraid of the props. The Saab 2000 would fit so nicely with an E145 also covering routes. The 145 on slightly longer routes and the Saab 2000 serving the quicker ones. Get rid of the hub to hub "regional" flying.
Click to expand...

Saab 2000 is a great regional, quick, economical and perfect for a lot of places where slatless jets really have no business operating.

I'd love to see a return to a time where commuters are commuters, regionals look like PSA, North Central or Ozark, and airlines fly their routes, with their equipment.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Seggy said:
Good question!

Would you rather have 200 50 seat RJs or 100 76 seat RJs flying under your brand?

Put simply, the bottom line is we are parking more of the 50 seaters than we are back filling with 76 seaters. Yes, this order does allow for more larger RJs, but overall it will be less outsourced feed than each of the combined premerger subsidies had. To me that is a win and shows it is working.
Click to expand...

Must be nice! Wish a certain Eskimo tailed airline would do the same.
 
No kidding. We flew a jumpseating Endeavour FO into MSP a little while back in an MD-88. We were doing 150-200nm legs...DTW, MSP, MKE, CVG etc.... He was doing MSP-DFW-LGA on a CRJ-900.

Hmmmm
 
alaskadrifter said:
Sad, what would it take to get a solid scope agreement?
Click to expand...

I think simply our pilot group putting that first and being willing to fight for it when the time comes. However... I am VERY concerned about the percentage of people I fly with that aren't thinking that way. Common things I hear:

-Scope doesn't work/isn't work the paper it's written on. (really? look at the big 3 airlines...)
-Scope can be worked around by any good company lawyer
-Get it out of your head, the company won't go for it no matter what we do
-The airline wouldn't do that to us

Unfortunately it's more prevalent than the guys that agree with me that this is our biggest concern for our careers. Because of this I am not confident for our future of scope improvement.
 
Ecl!pse said:
I thought the contract stipulated that in order to add more 76-seaters (over today's number), an order had to be for a new small airplane (i.e. E190/CS100)?
Click to expand...

Now that you mention it, I am not sure to be honest with you. Hopefully you are right. I will see what I can find out.

Either way, I agree with what you say - this is big for scope choke. I'm sure a healthy Boeing discount helped sway the decision, but it's also fairly big that UA is deciding to hold off on ordering an NSA just to get more 76-seaters on property, and instead just going for additional mainline jets (if my interpretation of the contract is correct).
Click to expand...

Our scope section is so complex I have a hard time keeping track of it sometimes.



There's been very few, if any, CSeries cancellations to date. Before last week, however, they had not received a single order in 16 months, and I would say a significant number of current orders are at risk. They have several airlines that either can't operate them due to business/legal requirements (Republic, Porter) or are in challenging jurisdictions (flymojo, Iraq Airways, airBaltic, Saudi, Odyssey). They also have a number of leasing companies who will likely not take the airplanes unless they have customers lined up ahead of time.

I would say the biggest thing keeping Bombardier afloat is the Canadian government, after the $1B loan they gave BBD last year, and rumors of another $1B loan coming (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-bombardier-canada-idUSKCN0VS2QO).



They did - an order for 45 aircraft and options for 30 more. They are now the largest customer (by order) for the CSeries.
Click to expand...

Looks like the C-Series is going to be a huge disaster of Bombardier. I couldn't be happier.
 
Dan208B said:
I think simply our pilot group putting that first and being willing to fight for it when the time comes. However... I am VERY concerned about the percentage of people I fly with that aren't thinking that way. Common things I hear:

-Scope doesn't work/isn't work the paper it's written on. (really? look at the big 3 airlines...)
-Scope can be worked around by any good company lawyer
-Get it out of your head, the company won't go for it no matter what we do
-The airline wouldn't do that to us

Unfortunately it's more prevalent than the guys that agree with me that this is our biggest concern for our careers. Because of this I am not confident for our future of scope improvement.
Click to expand...

Man if I hear one more guy say that Im going to go nuts. It clearly seems that Alaska management has managed expectations here not to include any type of scope clause. Completely unacceptable! Every other legacy is returning flying back to the mainline it seems and its unfortunate that we aren't.
With that said I don't think for a minute that the company would be bold enough to have a 100 seater at a regional.
 
SmoothLanderJ said:
Man if I hear one more guy say that Im going to go nuts. It clearly seems that Alaska management has managed expectations here not to include any type of scope clause. Completely unacceptable! Every other legacy is returning flying back to the mainline it seems and its unfortunate that we aren't.
With that said I don't think for a minute that the company would be bold enough to have a 100 seater at a regional.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't underestimate managements propensity to chase the almighty dollar. If it makes cents it makes sense in their eyes.
 
wheelsup said:
I'd rather have more 50 seaters vs. 76 seaters. Taken to the extreme, would you rather have 400 34 seat SAABs or 100 76 seat EMB175's? I would bet most would choose the SAABs.

It would be difficult to staff more 50 seaters vs. less 76 seaters, plus with a cap on anything above 50 seats at mainline, you'd probably see more and more 100 seaters there.

The 50 seater is a great airplane to bring in people from outstations, but what you see the 175's doing is mainline type flying. Personally I want to get away from the regionals doing mainline type flying and more 30 min-1 hour long legs from smaller outstations like Erie, Roanoke, Melbourne, etc.
Click to expand...


Then come on over to psa. I had a trip over a year ago where I did not leave the state of North Carolina.
 
BobDDuck said:
Really? Happy that a whole bunch of (unionized) labor is going to potentially be out of jobs?
Click to expand...

I have a lot of anger towards them based on their design of the Q400 that contributed to the 3407 Accident and more specifically some of the games they played afterwards. They got off way to easily IMHO.

It is directed towards management their, not the blue collar workers.
 
Seggy said:
I have a lot of anger towards them based on their design of the Q400 that contributed to the 3407 Accident and more specifically some of the games they played afterwards. They got off way to easily IMHO.
Click to expand...
I only have personal experience in the baby dash but it seems all other airlines could keep them in the sky. This was mostly pilot error and not an airframe problem like the ATR's
 
Seggy said:
I have a lot of anger towards them based on their design of the Q400 that contributed to the 3407 Accident and more specifically some of the games they played afterwards. They got off way to easily IMHO.

It is directed towards management their, not the blue collar workers.
Click to expand...

@Seggy

What was the design issue that contributed? (Honest curiosity)

Also, what did Bombardier do in the aftermath that was so bad (Again, honest curiosity)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top