Kirby wants bigger RJ's.
06-13-2017, 10:54 AM
#261
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,244
What I think he's trying to say is if he (Kirby) can get us to include the CS300 in that category to grant him 76 seat scope relief.
The NC has my contract survey.
06-13-2017, 11:48 AM
#262
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: A320 Captain
Posts: 1,982
Thanks for the clarification. I knew we had a pay scale for it...I forgot it wasn't specifically mentioned as one of the types in the scope choke scenario.
06-13-2017, 12:05 PM
#263
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2015
Position: 777FO
Posts: 771
Here's what I think Kirby wants.
He likes the CS-100 but really wants the CS-300 and the RJs that would come with a New small Narrow body. So he's buttering us up thinking we're gonna have a big battle on scope when in fact he just wants the larger C series. We look at it as a win since the CS-300 pays more and capitulate.
He likes the CS-100 but really wants the CS-300 and the RJs that would come with a New small Narrow body. So he's buttering us up thinking we're gonna have a big battle on scope when in fact he just wants the larger C series. We look at it as a win since the CS-300 pays more and capitulate.
06-13-2017, 01:02 PM
#264
Banned
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Position: 737
Posts: 257
I think it's something we should be expecting. If anything it gives us more leverage come negotiations
06-13-2017, 03:26 PM
#265
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: A320 Captain
Posts: 1,982
CS-300 can easily replace a bus or guppy. I can see why we would want the scope choke tied to the CS-100 and not the larger version. Our scope section is looking better and better as this all plays out.
06-13-2017, 04:02 PM
#266
Banned
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Position: 737
Posts: 257
I see it replacing or augmenting the -700 Guppy and or the 319. I'm not really worried about it replacing higher paying aircraft since it doesn't make much sense to do so considering the limited gate space available in many of our hubs.
06-13-2017, 06:26 PM
#267
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,244
Yup. There was a lot of thought put into it as we're finding out. If CS300 gave them RJ scope relief Kirby probably would've paid for the certification of the airplane. It's a 700/319 replacement, albeit a good one.
06-13-2017, 06:30 PM
#268
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Position: Airbus 320 Captain
Posts: 481
Unless they were giving away the airplanes, it's hard to find a justification for the CS300 .. introducing one more fleet type to maintain, administer, and train to.
06-14-2017, 08:55 AM
#269
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Position: 320 Captain
Posts: 655
better fuel burn
Better operating costs
http://commercialaircraft.bombardier..._201607_EN.pdf
The 737-7/319, even the NEO versions, are "old" in comparison. Flying those planes for the next 25-30 years will suffer compared to the C series from an operating efficiency perspective. Offset somewhat by the costs you mentioned above in having a new fleet.
But when Boeing/Airbus does a new small airplane to replace the 737/319, and its very debatable if they will even produce a 100-150 seat aircraft, you will have those added costs as well.
So if an airline wants a true 130 seat aircraft in 5-10 years, it's going to be a C series, the Emb-195e2, or something else that's not a Boeing or Airbus.
06-14-2017, 01:21 PM
#270
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,244
Some justification
better fuel burn
Better operating costs
http://commercialaircraft.bombardier..._201607_EN.pdf
The 737-7/319, even the NEO versions, are "old" in comparison. Flying those planes for the next 25-30 years will suffer compared to the C series from an operating efficiency perspective. Offset somewhat by the costs you mentioned above in having a new fleet.
But when Boeing/Airbus does a new small airplane to replace the 737/319, and its very debatable if they will even produce a 100-150 seat aircraft, you will have those added costs as well.
So if an airline wants a true 130 seat aircraft in 5-10 years, it's going to be a C series, the Emb-195e2, or something else that's not a Boeing or Airbus.
better fuel burn
Better operating costs
http://commercialaircraft.bombardier..._201607_EN.pdf
The 737-7/319, even the NEO versions, are "old" in comparison. Flying those planes for the next 25-30 years will suffer compared to the C series from an operating efficiency perspective. Offset somewhat by the costs you mentioned above in having a new fleet.
But when Boeing/Airbus does a new small airplane to replace the 737/319, and its very debatable if they will even produce a 100-150 seat aircraft, you will have those added costs as well.
So if an airline wants a true 130 seat aircraft in 5-10 years, it's going to be a C series, the Emb-195e2, or something else that's not a Boeing or Airbus.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
