Regularguy

At one time UAL had an all coach 737-200 that seated 93 passengers (under 100) while SWA had 120 in the same model.

BTW the DC9-10 didn't have LE slats or flaps and I understand the approach speeds weren't as high as the -900s are today.

What's the point of all this?

Airplanes with UAL painted on the side, tickets sold as (and by) UAL should be flown by pilots covered under the UAL Pilot Agreement!

Personally I don't care who actually owns the hardware (airplanes).

baseball

I believe the point is this:

One man's RJ (management) is another mans mainline jet (pilots).

We can re-manufacture beer cans and make them into various shapes and sizes, but a jet is a jet is a jet. And, we as the ones in charge of this pilots union need to give clear direction to our union leadership (ALPA inverted triangle model puts pilots on top - not the reps) that we expect them to properly define and mandate that a regional jet is a regional jet and a mainline jet is a mainline jet.

Size does matter.

ALPA needs to know what size jet is an RJ and what size is not.

ALPA needs to hold OUR bottom lines.

A DC-9 jet is a mainline jet. Why? Because of history. We need to make sure management's all over the country don't re-define something that brings down the industry from a pay and benefits perspective. We will never re-take lost ground. Once the flying is gone, its gone. Once that category jet is given away, its gone.

This career is worth about 9-12 million dollars depending on when you hired on and also depending on how long you are stuck in the minors. If you are stuck in the minors (regionals) too long (say over 6 years), you can expect to only earn about 7-8 million. If you are stuck there between 6 to 10 years you can only expect to earn 5-6 million.

The intrinsic time value of money and its marriage to our career path mandate we define Rj's properly. If we do this, we don't cheat the pilots who are coming up right now, who will be entering training tomorrow, and the career path and progression of those already in the business.

This is a business. We need a business plan and a model of economic success for the pilots in this profession. This is key. We need to know how big an Rj can be and still be a friggin RJ.

Al Czervik

American MGT just told the pilots that there is no need for our 100 seat aircraft. We may be dumping the E190 program at AA.

jsled

Doesn't Mesa fly 86 seat CRJ 900's under the American (USAIR) brand? If so, I can see why MGT would say that.

full of luv

Maybe Delta will take them along with the ones they were being offered a steal on from Boeing/Canada.

Al Czervik

Yes. No need for the 100 seat aircraft here. I'm SURE management sees a need for a 100 seat at the regionals.

CLazarus

I wonder if some of the "100 seat" discussion is off base when it comes to comparing the E-190/195 and C series. According to Wikipedia, the E-190/195 carry 94/106 respectively in standard two class layout. So far as I can tell, the next generation E series will have the same fuselage but improved engines. But, considering the airlines out there trying to ditch relatively new E series jets and potential fights over scope, I don't think we'd go there.

However, the CS-100/300 carry 108/130 respectively. Our 319/320s carry 128/150 respectively. As we buy loads of 900ERs and MAXes carrying >150 pax, perhaps the CO is looking to get new jets to replace our older Airbii. If we placed an order for 100 CS-300 series - we could get them within a few years, way faster than MAXes or NEOs from their maker's already maxed out production lines. And we'd certainly be in a position to dominate Bombardier's future product offerings the way SWA dominates the 737 at Boeing.

Not saying that is what we should do or are going to do. And in fact the CO seems fine with buying used Airbii and 700s (so am I). But, the thought intrigues me. I just think the back and forth about "100 seat" aircraft is possibly a misnomer. What say the masses?

Firsttimeflyer

Buy them all, pay mainline rates, hire the RJ guys. Win-win-win

flightmedic01

Would an Airbus 318 fit the criteria for the NSNB equation? Airbus website says it seats approximately 100 in a two class cabin. Why go with a new type and all of the costs associated with that? Just wondering.

gettinbumped

Negative. The NSNB is specifically defined in the contract and the A318 isn't one of the options. Not that it couldn't be negotiated in, mind you, but I doubt it would be acceptable to the negotiating committee as the intent is to capture the new generation of 100 seat jets at UAL.