110/130 Seat RJ's. SWEET
03-14-2009, 11:09 AM
#21
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Just because it's made my Bombardier doesn't necessarily mean that it will end up at the regional level flown for regional wages. This is directly targeted at the low end of the single-aisle mainline aircraft (737-500, DC-9, A319) that Airbus and Boeing have been dragging their feet developing a replacement for. The airlines have been clamoring for a new generation single-aisle aircraft for years and Bombardier sees an opportunity to break into a market segment that Boeing and Airbus are neglecting. I don't think there is a major pilot group out there that would allow 100+ seat aircraft to be flown by anyone other than mainline. Period. Call it a "regional jet" if you want, but I seriously doubt that there is a mainline pilot group arrogant enough and ignorant enough to allow these to be flown by the regionals. At least I hope not...
Sadly though, sometimes hope floats.
03-15-2009, 01:46 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2008
Position: PIC
Posts: 109
I hope the CRJ-900 is the biggest airplane that we ever see at the regional level here in the United States. Either that, or pay for those flying it should be significantly higher. Regional pilots are a cancer to themselves....accetping to fly bigger aircraft for peanuts. As sad as this may sound, if a regional happened to put 767's in its fleet there will be thousands of applicants willing to fly them for $24/hr. Now that day will never come......but then again, we all thought there would never be jets or airplanes with more than 80 seats or KIAD-KIAH at the regional level.
In otherwords, no 110/130 seats at the regional level.........unless of course the pay is increased. But the mainline guys won't let that happen cause that takes away their flying and you can't blame them for that.
In otherwords, no 110/130 seats at the regional level.........unless of course the pay is increased. But the mainline guys won't let that happen cause that takes away their flying and you can't blame them for that.
03-15-2009, 05:42 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 330 B
Posts: 1,622
We do not have a say in anything once first hired. We do not negotiate scope as it relates to the mainline carrier that we fly for. And we are not going to put our careers on hold in a futile attempt to help mainline pilots get back what they already voted to give up. Sorry!
03-15-2009, 07:30 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: I only fly multi-winged airplanes.
Posts: 321
It is simple really...A true regional should ONLY operate PROPs...seating size doesnt matter because they will still be a hell of a lot more efficient yet slower. So if they carry 120 pax on the new Dash 888...they wouldnt take it too far simply because it wouldnt be fast enough. 300 kts is fast but still not fast enough. They may take 120 people from Dallas to St. Louis. A route a jet just is not meant to do. All jets should be at the majors/legacies. The idea of a "regional jet" is the most retarded thing I have ever heard of. Of course it would be a lot nicer if there were no regionals or majors. It would be nice if the career path was you get on with an airline start off on the little beech 1900s and in 15 years you are a captain on a 747.
03-15-2009, 08:09 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 426
It is simple really...A true regional should ONLY operate PROPs...seating size doesnt matter because they will still be a hell of a lot more efficient yet slower. So if they carry 120 pax on the new Dash 888...they wouldnt take it too far simply because it wouldnt be fast enough. 300 kts is fast but still not fast enough. They may take 120 people from Dallas to St. Louis. A route a jet just is not meant to do. All jets should be at the majors/legacies. The idea of a "regional jet" is the most retarded thing I have ever heard of. Of course it would be a lot nicer if there were no regionals or majors. It would be nice if the career path was you get on with an airline start off on the little beech 1900s and in 15 years you are a captain on a 747.
03-15-2009, 08:24 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Position: Telecom Company, President
Posts: 421
I hope the CRJ-900 is the biggest airplane that we ever see at the regional level here in the United States. Either that, or pay for those flying it should be significantly higher. Regional pilots are a cancer to themselves....accetping to fly bigger aircraft for peanuts. As sad as this may sound, if a regional happened to put 767's in its fleet there will be thousands of applicants willing to fly them for $24/hr. Now that day will never come......but then again, we all thought there would never be jets or airplanes with more than 80 seats or KIAD-KIAH at the regional level.
In otherwords, no 110/130 seats at the regional level.........unless of course the pay is increased. But the mainline guys won't let that happen cause that takes away their flying and you can't blame them for that.
In otherwords, no 110/130 seats at the regional level.........unless of course the pay is increased. But the mainline guys won't let that happen cause that takes away their flying and you can't blame them for that.
If you give ALPA's Negotiating Pansys half a chance, they will make sure that we see FO's on this airplane for 20 something dollars per hour and Captains for 60. Just watch.
Can you say, Give Away The Store and turn this career into a hobby.
03-15-2009, 10:14 AM
#29
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
It is simple really...A true regional should ONLY operate PROPs...seating size doesnt matter because they will still be a hell of a lot more efficient yet slower. So if they carry 120 pax on the new Dash 888...they wouldnt take it too far simply because it wouldnt be fast enough. 300 kts is fast but still not fast enough. They may take 120 people from Dallas to St. Louis. A route a jet just is not meant to do. All jets should be at the majors/legacies. The idea of a "regional jet" is the most retarded thing I have ever heard of. Of course it would be a lot nicer if there were no regionals or majors. It would be nice if the career path was you get on with an airline start off on the little beech 1900s and in 15 years you are a captain on a 747.
A jet is not meant to do DFW-STL???? WHAT!?!
I think you meant CGI-STL, or MWA-STL, or even IRK-STL. DFW-STL is most certainly a Jet route.
03-16-2009, 01:02 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,001
There is currently no demand for either Airbus or Boeing to replace their current small NB option. The airlines want a revolutionary technology, not an evolutionary technology. The limiting factor right now is primarily the engine technology. The new C-Series uses a geared turbo fan, which, while advanced, does not meet the demand to reduce fuel burn, noise, and environmental impact enough to justify Boeing and Airbus creating a new aircraft for the engine technology. Why else would P&W say the following (the bold is mine):
As you can see, P&W believes that even for the current technology GTF to work, it has to have a larger fan diameter than that of the current 737 and A-320 engines. Do you think the C-Series can do that, given that its smaller than current Boeing and Airbus offerings? Of course not - the C-Series is doing exactly what P&W brings up as 'what not to do', "limit the fan diameter to make it fit". Not to mention that a GTF has only flown on 2 aircraft, the 747 and the A-340 – not exactly similar in size to the C-Series application.
In short, Bombardier is hanging a ‘mini’ GTF on the wing, one that they acknowledge needs to have a 10% fuel burn improvement even @ full size to really be considered as the next generation NB engine.
Furthermore, the C-Series is composed of 46% composites and 24% aluminum lithium. While both the 787 and A-350 will have even higher composite content, the ability for composites to withstand the demands of increased cycles is unknown, and the 787 will be the test bed. The C-Series will already be set in design as a 'composite' aircraft before the lessons learned from the 787 are known - that's an awfully big gamble.
The C Series is far from replacing the 73 or 320 series in any mainline operations or being seen as a direct competitor to the next generation NB, but will hopefully be flown @ the same rates as other similar sized aircraft, be it @ mainline or regionals.
Why not fly it @ the regionals if the regionals can secure the same pay, work rules, and benefits for he aircraft as current mainline? The argument should not be 'hope the regionals don't get it', but rather, 'hope whoever gets it flies it for a good package, rather than a substandard one'. If you must be a 'mainline pilot group' to have the self-respect and fortitude to secure a good package to fly this, then yeah, let's keep it @ mainline.
FlightGlobal.com
“Saia (Bob Saia, P&W vice-president next-generation product family) says for the GTF's full benefits to be achieved, the fan diameter would need to be larger than those of the incumbent engines on any given airframe, which could compromise the re-engined aircraft's performance if it cannot be accommodated. "You have to look at it from the airplane perspective and whether the engine would be optimum if you've got to limit the fan diameter to make it fit," he says.
So beyond the CSeries and MRJ, P&W's goal is to find its way on to narrowbody replacement aircraft from Airbus and Boeing at the end of the decade. With that in mind, and the threat of advanced powerplants from GE and R-R, Saia says P&W is already well on its way to defining an "advanced GTF" design that should deliver another 8-10% improvement in fuel burn. A full-scale demonstrator should take to the air in "late 2012-13", he adds.
“Saia (Bob Saia, P&W vice-president next-generation product family) says for the GTF's full benefits to be achieved, the fan diameter would need to be larger than those of the incumbent engines on any given airframe, which could compromise the re-engined aircraft's performance if it cannot be accommodated. "You have to look at it from the airplane perspective and whether the engine would be optimum if you've got to limit the fan diameter to make it fit," he says.
So beyond the CSeries and MRJ, P&W's goal is to find its way on to narrowbody replacement aircraft from Airbus and Boeing at the end of the decade. With that in mind, and the threat of advanced powerplants from GE and R-R, Saia says P&W is already well on its way to defining an "advanced GTF" design that should deliver another 8-10% improvement in fuel burn. A full-scale demonstrator should take to the air in "late 2012-13", he adds.
In short, Bombardier is hanging a ‘mini’ GTF on the wing, one that they acknowledge needs to have a 10% fuel burn improvement even @ full size to really be considered as the next generation NB engine.
Furthermore, the C-Series is composed of 46% composites and 24% aluminum lithium. While both the 787 and A-350 will have even higher composite content, the ability for composites to withstand the demands of increased cycles is unknown, and the 787 will be the test bed. The C-Series will already be set in design as a 'composite' aircraft before the lessons learned from the 787 are known - that's an awfully big gamble.
Flightglobal.com
“On the smaller end of the aircraft spectrum, narrowbody replacement appears to be pushed out beyond the next decade as robust build rates and backlogs on the Airbus A320 and Boeing 737 continue, though the material of such a replacement for Airbus and Boeing remains undefined. The manufacturers have each discussed openly that the benefits of composite technology in low-cycle long-haul operations may not carry over to high-cycle short-haul operations.”
“On the smaller end of the aircraft spectrum, narrowbody replacement appears to be pushed out beyond the next decade as robust build rates and backlogs on the Airbus A320 and Boeing 737 continue, though the material of such a replacement for Airbus and Boeing remains undefined. The manufacturers have each discussed openly that the benefits of composite technology in low-cycle long-haul operations may not carry over to high-cycle short-haul operations.”
Why not fly it @ the regionals if the regionals can secure the same pay, work rules, and benefits for he aircraft as current mainline? The argument should not be 'hope the regionals don't get it', but rather, 'hope whoever gets it flies it for a good package, rather than a substandard one'. If you must be a 'mainline pilot group' to have the self-respect and fortitude to secure a good package to fly this, then yeah, let's keep it @ mainline.
Last edited by Sniper; 03-16-2009 at 01:04 PM. Reason: cleaned up the formatting
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Convair340
Flight Schools and Training
31
01-16-2012 08:00 AM
