The Scope Discussion Thread
#22
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,244
They're starting to get it.
Manufacturers Not Expecting E175-E2, MRJ90 Scope Relief | Commercial Aviation content from Aviation Week
Manufacturers Not Expecting E175-E2, MRJ90 Scope Relief | Commercial Aviation content from Aviation Week
#26
Banned
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Position: 737
Posts: 257
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).
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 756 left
Posts: 766
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).
#28
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 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
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post