Will Compass fly the united 25 175sc
08-27-2018, 04:11 AM
#151
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,265
Case in point, the IAH-SYD loads for the last few months. The company dropped at least one day per week and the loads are still really soft. I'd put that BES back on death watch. Maybe the they should just put a 50 seater on it.
Th good news is if you're tying to get down under.......
Th good news is if you're tying to get down under.......
08-27-2018, 09:13 AM
#152
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
08-27-2018, 09:32 AM
#153
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Posts: 696
Honest question regarding scope and NSNB near the bottom. Given that NSNB language allows more regional 76 seaters if we add the mainline 100 seaters, if instead an equivalent number of 737s (let’s say Max 7) are added instead with concrete language about maintaining a minimum number that’s equal to what the NSNB language would have required, to me that would seem like a win, no?
I don’t know if that is what is being discussed but think it through - esp the pay scale side of things. What’s the ultimate goal here given that the company can already choose to add 76 seaters w/ NSNB?
08-27-2018, 10:33 AM
#154
Banned
Joined APC: Feb 2018
Position: B-737 Captain
Posts: 657
An interesting article and a lot of positive in there.
Honest question regarding scope and NSNB near the bottom. Given that NSNB language allows more regional 76 seaters if we add the mainline 100 seaters, if instead an equivalent number of 737s (let’s say Max 7) are added instead with concrete language about maintaining a minimum number that’s equal to what the NSNB language would have required, to me that would seem like a win, no?
I don’t know if that is what is being discussed but think it through - esp the pay scale side of things. What’s the ultimate goal here given that the company can already choose to add 76 seaters w/ NSNB?
Honest question regarding scope and NSNB near the bottom. Given that NSNB language allows more regional 76 seaters if we add the mainline 100 seaters, if instead an equivalent number of 737s (let’s say Max 7) are added instead with concrete language about maintaining a minimum number that’s equal to what the NSNB language would have required, to me that would seem like a win, no?
I don’t know if that is what is being discussed but think it through - esp the pay scale side of things. What’s the ultimate goal here given that the company can already choose to add 76 seaters w/ NSNB?
08-27-2018, 10:40 AM
#155
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Position: Captain
Posts: 1,561
It has been asked and answered when UAL ordered the 700s. The union answer was NO. UAL has at least 20 used Arbii coming, I'm glad were not giving them 76 seaters for those. The whole point of narrowly defining the NSNB is to finalize the question of who will fly 100 seat jets...Mainline or Regionals.
Bingo
Very well said
All aircraft over 70 seats must be flown by mainline new hires
08-27-2018, 10:50 AM
#156
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Posts: 696
It has been asked and answered when UAL ordered the 700s. The union answer was NO. UAL has at least 20 used Arbii coming, I'm glad were not giving them 76 seaters for those. The whole point of narrowly defining the NSNB is to finalize the question of who will fly 100 seat jets...Mainline or Regionals.
08-27-2018, 12:45 PM
#157
Banned
Joined APC: Feb 2018
Position: B-737 Captain
Posts: 657
There was never a question about who flies more than 50 seats, until the bankruptcy. There was never a question about who flies more than 70 seats, until contract 2012. SKW and TSA have orders for the MRJ and the E175E2. They're just waiting...
08-27-2018, 06:08 PM
#158
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2017
Posts: 559
08-27-2018, 06:18 PM
#159
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2017
Position: 777 FO
Posts: 217
Right! I can't figure out why we are still discussing this. Even if Kirby really, really, really promised he would never go back on his word, we would be fools to give an inch on scope. I talk to guys with under 1 year left until retirement and they all tell me that they would never vote for a contract with scope relief and they probably have the least to lose by giving up scope!
08-27-2018, 08:38 PM
#160
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,265
Right! I can't figure out why we are still discussing this. Even if Kirby really, really, really promised he would never go back on his word, we would be fools to give an inch on scope. I talk to guys with under 1 year left until retirement and they all tell me that they would never vote for a contract with scope relief and they probably have the least to lose by giving up scope!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
