United proposes 94 seat RJ's

United has proposed to the pilot groups a new scope section that takes regional flying down to 250 RJ's with up to 94 seats, thus reducing the number of RJ's in the United Express system by 50%.

http://www.unitednegotiations.com/e...hensive_Company_Proposal_Summary_10-27-10.pdf

At first I thought this was a joke of an offer from United management, but after taking some time to look at the numbers (if I've got the right numbers), this would actually be a huge gain in RJ scope.

Currently, between United Express and Continental Express, there are 541 aircraft outsourced (if the numbers on Wikipedia are correct). That's 249 aircraft flying as Continental Express, and 292 operating as United Express. Since there are currently no limits on turboprops, I won't discuss those numbers.

If this is an initial proposal from management, then it's a 50% reduction in the number of RJ's that are allowed to operate as United Express. Let's assume that it is an initial proposal, and that the numbers will eventually come down to 200 aircraft being outsourced. That's nearly a 66% reduction in regional jets in the United Express system, meaning more mainline jobs in the end.

This will allow United to refleet their regional operations with EMB-170's/EMB-190's, ditch all the CRJ's and ERJ's that are falling apart, and also allow them to put Q's on shorter routes. Maybe a few XR's stick around for long, thin routes, though who knows for how long, as we all know that these aircraft are falling apart.

I have a sneaking suspicion that with this reduced to 200 aircraft, combined with Delta's pay rates, that this would pass the pilot group. It creates more mainline jobs, creates a major reduction in the number of RJ's, and gives mainline management the ability to refleet an aging regional fleet.

That's the long story, the short story is that at my company we'll all lose our jobs, and I guess hope that we can gain employment at mainline.

You don't think that the 250 aircraft limit applies only to CRJ900/ERJ 175's? The way I read it, this only applies to large regional jets. Anything medium sized like a 145 or crj 200 will have no airframe limit.

The big thing that I see is that they will continue to aquire q400s for flying without limit and I'm guessing a lot of baby rjs are not profitable anyways so theyre not going to be flying much longer regardless. (just look at delta)

Ymmv

Yeah but no mainline pilot will be angry at the regional guys for flying a turboprop, even if it is a Q. It's in their FOM.

So total RJ's go down, but they are bigger. If that's what United is offering, maybe there's something in the middle of NO RJ's and this thing?

Kind of exciting.

BAD, BAD, BAD! All mainline pilots should NOT vote to give the company one more seat, one more pound, one more airframe. Letting them get away with 95 seats will not bring more seats to the mainline. My personal goal is that we need to recapture all flying 70 seats and more. There should also be limits on the number of TP's, and the stage lengths they can fly.

Even in the face of a 100% pay increase. If management proposed it, then it's a bad deal. They have already figured out how to make it work to their advantage. Any pilot who thinks this is a good deal and votes for it is a fool.

This is what I saw as well

That's not how I read it, and if you guys are correct in how it's to be interpreted, then there's no chance in hell that the pilot group would ever consider this proposal, which is why I think you guys are reading it wrong.

Frankly, though, we'd need the actual scope language instead of the cliff notes to figure out what it actually means.

If it EVER could be interpreted as meaning either thing, then the pilots should never agree on it, because they will sell it how we want it to sound, then in a year come back and say oh no this is what it means, and that is what everyone will get.

You know what I posted wasn't actual contractual language, right?

It's a bad deal. If they want a 94 seat aircraft in the system, I'm sure the UAL/CAL pilots can come up with a pay rate for it for themselves.

Hey all,

Assuming JTrain's interpretation is correct, /akbar It's a trap! /akbar.

The first hiccup in the economy, and the company will be back to loosen those numerical restrictions. In BK, that'd be an open door to replace an entire legion of mainline pilots because the "barrier" has been broken, and let the flood begin.

If they want the big RJs, they fly at the mainline, PERIOD.

Richman

Eh?

I believe dc9-10 was right around 105. 727s and mad dogs can be closer to 150 depending on config iirc

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

According to Wikipedia, the DC-9-10 that Delta first operated, it had a MAX seating capacity of 90...the DC-9-30 was 105...

No way in hell I'm letting a regional wiener fly me around in a DC-9.

What about if it was a regional wiener that got hired by DL and paid to fly a DC-9?

Although I'm sure the DC-9-10 could maybe hold 105 in an easyjet/Ryanair setup, I don't think that was the typical layout at all.

I think Northwest had 78 seats in theirs with the usual setup of 9-12 first and the rest coach.