Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > United
The Scope Discussion Thread >

The Scope Discussion Thread

Search

Notices

The Scope Discussion Thread

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 10-05-2017, 03:52 PM
  #21  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 294
Default

Skywest has an order in for 100 non-scope complaint E2 ERJs, and Kirby likely has a plan for using them in the United network.

Don't give in.
UALfoLIFE is offline  
Old 10-05-2017, 05:01 PM
  #22  
Squawking 2000
 
Winston's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2015
Position: Skeptical
Posts: 737
Default

Originally Posted by UALfoLIFE
Skywest has an order in for 100 non-scope complaint E2 ERJs, and Kirby likely has a plan for using them in the United network.
I have a plan for using them too, and it involves you and me flying them at mainline. Problem solved.

Next?
Winston is offline  
Old 10-06-2017, 04:40 AM
  #23  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,244
Default

They're starting to get it.

Manufacturers Not Expecting E175-E2, MRJ90 Scope Relief | Commercial Aviation content from Aviation Week
Grumble is offline  
Old 10-06-2017, 11:15 AM
  #24  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2015
Posts: 859
Default

Originally Posted by UALfoLIFE
Skywest has an order in for 100 non-scope complaint E2 ERJs, and Kirby likely has a plan for using them in the United network.

Don't give in.
Alaska has no scope clause.
ReadyRsv is offline  
Old 10-06-2017, 11:35 AM
  #25  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 189
Default

Originally Posted by ReadyRsv
Alaska has no scope clause.
Exactly... Hopefully they get that changed ASAP.
Fresh is offline  
Old 10-07-2017, 12:56 PM
  #26  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Position: 737
Posts: 257
Default

Does anyone know the history behind the max t/o 86000lbs scope limit? How they came up with that number in particular. I'm sure this is the number Kirby wants relaxed but I'd like to know more about why this limit exists in the first place (I'm not of the position its up for negotiation).
Bluewaffle is offline  
Old 10-07-2017, 01:05 PM
  #27  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 756 left
Posts: 766
Default

Originally Posted by Bluewaffle
Does anyone know the history behind the max t/o 86000lbs scope limit? How they came up with that number in particular. I'm sure this is the number Kirby wants relaxed but I'd like to know more about why this limit exists in the first place (I'm not of the position its up for negotiation).
The weight used to be lower but was raised during the bankruptcy by the MEC Chairman, without ratification, to allow the company to have the Express carriers fly the E-170. He raised it in a terrible attempt to save the A Plan.
89Pistons is offline  
Old 10-07-2017, 01:06 PM
  #28  
Gets Weekends Off
 
cadetdrivr's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,639
Default

Originally Posted by Bluewaffle
Does anyone know the history behind the max t/o 86000lbs scope limit? How they came up with that number in particular. I'm sure this is the number Kirby wants relaxed but I'd like to know more about why this limit exists in the first place (I'm not of the position its up for negotiation).
Edit: What 89Pistons said.

The ratified limit (by weight) did not mention a specific aircraft type but was established to permit an aircraft the size of the CRJ700. Shortly thereafter the company returned in a panic to get a higher limit to allow the E170 which the MEC Chair obliged.

#massivefail
cadetdrivr is offline  
Old 10-07-2017, 03:12 PM
  #29  
Gets Weekends Off
 
oldmako's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2009
Position: The GF of FUPM
Posts: 3,073
Default

Either the worlds biggest sucker, or a devious and feckless Alpha Hotel.
oldmako is offline  
Old 10-09-2017, 09:14 AM
  #30  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
Default

Does anyone know the history behind the max t/o 86000lbs scope limit? How they came up with that number in particular. I'm sure this is the number Kirby wants relaxed but I'd like to know more about why this limit exists in the first place (I'm not of the position its up for negotiation).
The weight used to be lower but was raised during the bankruptcy by the MEC Chairman, without ratification, to allow the company to have the Express carriers fly the E-170. He raised it in a terrible attempt to save the A Plan.

The UAL Contract 2003, aka the "Bankruptcy Contract" defined a small jet as max weight of 80,000lbs and certified for 70 or fewer seats. Here is that infamous LOA that everyone says is SO evil. The fact is...the Company and Whiteford's special negotiating committee had already agreed to allow the E170 with 70 seats. BTW, the Company flew 115 CRJ700s but only 38 EMB170s. The 76 seats and 86,000 pound Regional Jet definition came with the Merger UPA in 2012. I suspect it was to allow for the EMB175.


Embraer 170
Captain Paul R. Whiteford, Chairman
UAL-MEC Air Line Pilots Association
6400 Shafer Court, Suite #700
Rosemont, IL 60018

Dear Paul,
In discussions leading up to the 2003 Agreement, the parties agreed that the Embraer 170, certificated to a maximum seating of seventy-eight (78), with a maximum gross takeoff weight of less than eighty-two thousand one hundred (82,100) pounds would be an exception to definition #22 of Section 1 of the 2003 Agreement. The Company
further commits that should one or more of our Feeder Carrier partners select this aircraft for operation, it will not be configured for operation with more than seventy (70) seats.

If this letter accurately reflects our agreement, please sign and return two (2) copies for our file.
Sincerely

Last edited by jsled; 10-09-2017 at 09:35 AM.
jsled is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
silver fleet
SkyWest
12
01-08-2017 06:52 PM
NCR757dxr
Cargo
12
07-16-2015 05:58 AM
jsled
United
11
12-25-2012 09:17 AM
Bucking Bar
Major
102
02-28-2009 07:50 PM
Freighter Captain
Cargo
1
09-28-2005 05:40 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices