Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
IAH UA Hub: Why So Much Erjs Between Major Markets  
User currently offlineJaxMan19 From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 95 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 5 days ago) and read 9654 times:

I was recently looking at JAX-IAH UA route and its 6x daily wth ERJ's, I remember this route a couple years ago on mainline equipment I guess UA is not following DL's rule of having 2 class planes on routes more than 750 miles!

I did some more research and found that major markets that are flown on UA have ERJ's on those routes like : MCI, RDU,TPA,BNA,MCI,ATL to name a few...

I feel like for how big of a hub IAH is they should be able to have bigger equipment on all these routes like hubs do simular to their size i.e CLT, DTW, ..and to a lesser extent DFW

Also I know UA has the planes to allocate to that hub, but I guess mainline is better from DEN or other airports in thir system??

89 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 5 days ago) and read 9621 times:

Quoting JaxMan19 (Thread starter):
I was recently looking at JAX-IAH UA route and its 6x daily wth ERJ's, I remember this route a couple years ago on mainline equipment I guess UA is not following DL's rule of having 2 class planes on routes more than 750 miles!

I did some more research and found that major markets that are flown on UA have ERJ's on those routes like : MCI, RDU,TPA,BNA,MCI,ATL to name a few...

I feel like for how big of a hub IAH is they should be able to have bigger equipment on all these routes like hubs do simular to their size i.e CLT, DTW, ..and to a lesser extent DFW

Also I know UA has the planes to allocate to that hub, but I guess mainline is better from DEN or other airports in thir system??

It's very simple actually. IAH is a PMCO hub. UA has the large RJs, CO doesn't. Although both carriers are now merged and we are seeing cross-fleeting, UA still has a network to cover as does CO. Everything can't be sent to IAH or EWR. There's still flying to be done in DEN, SFO, LAX, IAD, and ORD. With that said, yes, CO has some very long routes that are operated by 145s. ORF-IAH is VERY painful. Did it once on an ERJ and will never do it again. A route like that should most certainly be flown with a large RJ just as the CR7/170 or a mix of mainline and 2-class RJs. CO's pilot contract, however, does not permit outsourced flying of jets over 50 seats.



What gets measured gets done.
User currently offlinebreaker1011 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 938 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 5 days ago) and read 9590 times:

ERJ's have been scheduled on PHX-IAH, did it once, never - ever again!


Life's tough. It's even tougher if you're stupid. J. Wayne
User currently offlineBCEaglesCO757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 242 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 5 days ago) and read 9521 times:

Hahahaha.

Two posts and the best you guys can come up with is IAH-ORF, and IAH-PHX ?

No IAH-YYZ ?...yes....I said YYZ. Or IAH-PSP ? I know they were done with the 145 ER's

Not sure if we're still running those,but god bless the passengers who've booked it before.


User currently offlinebreaker1011 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 938 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 5 days ago) and read 9487 times:

1,112 nm YYZ to IAH. Good grief. I didn't think those little things had enough legs to do that! I checked and it looks like the max loaded range is around 1600 nm.


Life's tough. It's even tougher if you're stupid. J. Wayne
User currently offlineBCEaglesCO757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 242 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 5 days ago) and read 9488 times:

Quoting JaxMan19 (Thread starter):
I feel like for how big of a hub IAH is they should be able to have bigger equipment on all these routes like hubs do simular to their size i.e CLT, DTW, ..and to a lesser extent DFW

Those routes do see mainline equipment,but they are large hubs for other carriers. In the case of of CLT and DFW being the largest for US and AA. So I wouldn't expect to have extremely large planes on those routes.

You're chasing seats then trying to take people off another carrier thats entrenched in the market.


User currently offlineBCEaglesCO757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 242 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 9463 times:

Quoting breaker1011 (Reply 4):
1,112 nm YYZ to IAH. Good grief. I didn't think those little things had enough legs to do that! I checked and it looks like the max loaded range is around 1600 nm.

Yep. Been running this one on a regional before the merger.

Tommorows first flight is booked to 42 out of 50 on the RJ.

The rest are CR7's throughout the rest of the day.

Air Canada Jazz has been running the CR7 ( I think ) for at least 7-8 years now. Last I saw the Air Canada 319/320 may have been around 2003 or sometime. Been a while.


User currently offlinecslusarc From Canada, joined May 2005, 839 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 9282 times:

It seems that both CO and UA had their regional partners order too many 50-seat regional jets. While DL has actively reduced its exposure to 50-seat regional jets, UA and CO collectively have over 500 of these torture devices flying for them. I truly hope that ALPA makes concessions that will make flying 76-99 seat jets at the New UA cost competitive either by their members or outsource partners.


--cslusarc from YWG
User currently offlineMSPNWA From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1933 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 9226 times:

Quoting JaxMan19 (Thread starter):
I feel like for how big of a hub IAH is they should be able to have bigger equipment on all these routes . . .

I do too. MSP has been an example of that. MSP-IAH and MSP-EWR are both over 1,000 statute miles and have seen primarily ERJs over the years. Even with an influx of UAX aircraft there's still just a single mainline CO flight between them, a 735 from IAH. Poor aircraft gauge just doesn't make CO competitive.


User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1906 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 9225 times:

Quoting cslusarc (Reply 7):
UA and CO collectively have over 500 of these torture devices

It's kind of funny though. Remember when the CRJ and ERJ first came out? They were praised as state-of-the-art in BOTH comfort and technology and some flying junkies would even go out of their way to get on these 'new' regional jets. Now people can't run away from them fast enough! For good reason though I suppose, airlines like CO not only replaced mainline flights with them, but began using them on ridiculously long sectors.


User currently offlineDrerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5172 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 9207 times:

Of note - those long ERJ runs are handled by XRs. From a pax standpoint painful nonetheless. Lets see what happens once more cross fleeting occurs; because there are alot of routes out of IAH that could stand to have some ERJs replaced with CR7s/E70s/319s/735s...BNA comes to mind as a prime example. In the case of a station like BNA, neither PMUA or PMCO utilize mainline there. I would like to see what growth in pax numbers have occured so far since the introduction of some larger RJs and Q400s into IAH.

Sidenote, IAH Terminal B south side will begin to be razed for a new United Express operation - with the northside going mainline mimicking Terminal E replete with an FIS.



Third Coast born, means I'm Texas raised
User currently offlineWesternA318 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 5652 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 9152 times:

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 1):
CO has some very long routes that are operated by 145s. ORF-IAH is VERY painful. Did it once on an ERJ and will never do it again.

SLC-IAH sees ERJ's frequently, with one or two 737's thrown in for the massively huge times. There was once a 5:05AM departure for IAH which was then rescheduled for 5:45AM. Took that thing a few times...Luckily, if you're in an A seat, you're somewhat more comfy, but heaven forbid if you were on the 2-seat side. Also, when SLC-CLE was around, it was on ERJ's too. YUCK!



Next trip: SLC-DEN-SLC-PHX-JFK-LAX-SLC with my wife and oldest daughter. F9 to and from DEN, US to JFK, AA 321 and CR7
User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4264 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 8895 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting breaker1011 (Reply 2):
ERJ's have been scheduled on PHX-IAH, did it once, never - ever again!

Yeah, IAH-IAD, (the seasonal) IAH-NAS, and CLE-MIA are also a bit much.


User currently offlinecal764 From United States of America, joined May 2008, 377 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 8595 times:

Using RJ's on routes as such increases frequencies without adding capacity; for example they fly I think 8 or 9 daily to LFT Lafayette Regional in Louisiana used to use 735 equip but its their theory that customers want frequencies to choose a departure time which is more feasible to the customer i.e. adds value choosing 8 or 10 departure times as opposed to 3 or 4


1. Fly to Win 2. Fund Future 3. Reliability 4. Work Together CO: Work Hard, Fly Right...
User currently offlineThePinnacleKid From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 725 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 8476 times:

Quoting BCEaglesCO757 (Reply 3):
No IAH-YYZ ?...yes....I said YYZ. Or IAH-PSP ? I know they were done with the 145 ER's

Of note.. and to nitpick.. as another poster posted.. the are 145XR runs... done exclusively by ExpressJet... the only airline to EVER operate the 145XR variant...

145's in the US are in 3 flavors primarily... ER's, LR's, and XR's... ER's being the shortest ranged of the bunch... and often most weight restricted... most airlines have few of them... ExpressJet (largest and first operator of the 145) only has 30 ER variants.. all upgraded to "EP"... but still "short" ranged...

The XR is unlike any other 145 variant.. it has the noticeable winglets and strakes.. but it also has a ventral fuel tank for almost 2,000 lbs more fuel, uprated engines, enhanced flap motors, increased MMO, and higher altitude airport capabilities to fields up to 10,000' vs all other ERJ-145 series planes which only can do fields up to 8,000'.... Needless to say, the XR has been deployed on some really remarkable runs under the CO banner... and now United.... such as:

IAH-BOI (routinely over 4 hours enroute)
IAH-YYZ
IAH-NAS
IAH-LAX (extra lift segments)
IAH-PSP
IAH-SLC
IAH-IAD
IAH-FRS (Flores, Guatemala)
IAH-PBI


EWR-YYT
EWR-OKC
EWR-TUL
EWR-XNA

CLE-DEN

LAX-BJX



"Sonny, did we land? or were we shot down?"
User currently offlineORDBOSEWR From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 431 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 8404 times:

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 8):
I do too. MSP has been an example of that. MSP-IAH and MSP-EWR are both over 1,000 statute miles and have seen primarily ERJs over the years. Even with an influx of UAX aircraft there's still just a single mainline CO flight between them, a 735 from IAH. Poor aircraft gauge just doesn't make CO competitive.

From a passenger comfort perspective I agree the 145's are painful and it is sad, but on many of these routes they are now running the UA explus planes. That is a big improvement. I am a regular on the EWR-MSP route and was so happy to see them arrive. They are a better the 145's (which still do one or two of the daily's), but that is not taking much.

Quoting cslusarc (Reply 7):
While DL has actively reduced its exposure to 50-seat regional jets,

Before we go praising DL, they are moving to more of PMUA already was doing. PMUA was moving aggressively into the 70 seater market with the explus planes. This is what forced DL to make the change.

Look at a route like EWR-MSP this is no longer a dedicated mainline route for any carrier! Most of the DL by the compass or similar with the 70 seaters.
It is all about capacity and demand. These planes better match capacity to demand and that means you get a more profitable network.


User currently offlineTOMMY767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 8377 times:

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 1):
ORF-IAH is VERY painful. Did it once on an ERJ and will never do it again. A route like that should most certainly be flown with a large RJ just as the CR7/170 or a mix of mainline and 2-class RJs. CO's pilot contract, however, does not permit outsourced flying of jets over 50 seats

That is bad but EWR-OMA/OKC is so much worse.

[quote=ORDBOSEWR,reply=15]improvement. I am a regular on the EWR-MSP route and was so happy to see them arrive. They are a better the 145's (which still do one or two of the daily's), but that is not taking much.

EWR-MSP has at least 2x A320 on it for the summer.



"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently offlinejoeljack From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 8352 times:

Yes, the 145's are the worst part of CO/UA hands down. Flights less than 750 miles to small cities, I'm good with them there and that's where they belong. Flights over 750 miles and flights to major cities, they need to be removed asap! When I book, I avoid the 145 at all cost, even if that means flying usairways instead, if I'm going to be sitting in back without a chance for an upgrade or explus, I'd rather sit on a mainline usairways flight. Otherwise, I'm a loyal UA flyer.

In my mind, they need to remove about 100 145's from the fleet and replace with 100 E-170's. This would make UA a MUCH better airline. I keep waiting for an announcement like this but nothing so far. UA better be careful or they'll start losing customer's to delta. (cough cough, myself)


User currently onlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6743 posts, RR: 32
Reply 18, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 8324 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 9):
Remember when the CRJ and ERJ first came out? They were praised as state-of-the-art in BOTH comfort and technology and some flying junkies would even go out of their way to get on these 'new' regional jets.

They WERE more comfortable than what they replaced at the time -- turboprops on regional routes. Or they allowed for new service options -- like when Delta added ATL-MHT in the late 1990's on an ASA CRJ, or a route like IAH-AVL which really cannot support mainline. The discontent lies in the fact that RJ's have also replaced mainline service on many routes; a market like IAH-ABQ was once exclusively mainline but now is almost entirely operated with the ERJ.

Quoting cslusarc (Reply 7):
I truly hope that ALPA makes concessions that will make flying 76-99 seat jets at the New UA cost competitive either by their members or outsource partners.

In that situation, it is extremely likely that the combined UA/CO will significantly reduce 735/73G/A319 flying as a result. The sole reason why the 735's still exist at CO is the CO pilots' scope.


User currently offlineTOMMY767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 8272 times:

Quoting joeljack (Reply 17):
In my mind, they need to remove about 100 145's from the fleet and replace with 100 E-170's. This would make UA a MUCH better airline. I keep waiting for an announcement like this but nothing so far. UA better be careful or they'll start losing customer's to delta. (cough cough, myself)

That's a pipe dream at the moment -- at least until the CO pilots get their act together with the scope clause.

It really comes down to poor fleet planning. CO ordered way too many RJ's and not enough widebodies when they could have in the late 1990s. Then CO made the mistake of using these RJ's on business routes with no F cabin. That came back to bite them in the rear.



"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently offlinejoeljack From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 8219 times:

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 19):
That's a pipe dream at the moment -- at least until the CO pilots get their act together with the scope clause.

It really comes down to poor fleet planning. CO ordered way too many RJ's and not enough widebodies when they could have in the late 1990s. Then CO made the mistake of using these RJ's on business routes with no F cabin. That came back to bite them in the rear.

Oh I know, I understand the issues completely. Management needs to get their act together with CO pilots to get them on board asap. If they don't get on board, fire them all and just rehire under the UA pilot contract, I'm sure the UA pilots will be extremely happy with this arrangement, plus UA would save a crap load on labor with this approach.

Management has the upper hand right now, they just need to use it to get it done!


User currently offlineDrerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5172 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 8204 times:

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 19):
It really comes down to poor fleet planning. CO ordered way too many RJ's and not enough widebodies when they could have in the late 1990s. Then CO made the mistake of using these RJ's on business routes with no F cabin. That came back to bite them in the rear.

From a flier prospective I agree with you - from a business pov I do not. They ordered the RJs when it was economically feasible and gas prices weren't forecasted to skyrocket. Plus they were under competitive pressure to do so as other carriers already had CRJs en masse and had competitive marketing advantages because of it. Had they not ordered so many RJs then they would not have the network that they have today. Routes like IAH-NAS may have never been started (now it has grown to operate with mainline seasonally or on the weekends). The widebody situation was a little more complicated - CO ordered what they could afford to order. So I argue that they did the best with the resources and information that they had at the time. Today...its the scope and only the scope that has these RJs on these routes that you speak of - because at the end of the day it appears that frequency is desired over size of aircraft. Which in CO's case is the best option right now. The absolute best move is instead of 8-9 flights a day on ERJs - lets do 6-7 on 70 seaters.



Third Coast born, means I'm Texas raised
User currently offlineThePinnacleKid From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 725 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 8111 times:

Quoting joeljack (Reply 20):
Oh I know, I understand the issues completely. Management needs to get their act together with CO pilots to get them on board asap. If they don't get on board, fire them all and just rehire under the UA pilot contract, I'm sure the UA pilots will be extremely happy with this arrangement, plus UA would save a crap load on labor with this approach.

Management has the upper hand right now, they just need to use it to get it done!

Obviously you don't fully understand it....

Management doesn't have the upper hand at all.... You cannot reduce one carrier for another carrier pre-merger (they aren't actually merged yet btw... only in name and financial, not in FAA eyes which is where it counts).. they must be maintained within guidelines until the merger process/single operating certificate (SOC) is achieved... further more.. You cannot achieve SOC until there is a single contract with each respective group... (AFA, ALPA, etc...) which requires ratification by members of both previous carriers Union MEC's... so until the "new" UA forms a "new" joint CBA which is then approved by BOTH respective pilot groups, FA groups, ramp groups, etc...... you cannot achieve SOC.. which means you cannot adjust the airlines to achieve full synergies of merger...Financial pressure to get contracts signed is with Management.. not labor.... In addition.. that also means that each individual airlines pre-merger CBA with respective to union groups is still in force and must be adhered to... hence the CO pilot arbitration against CO for the 70 seaters carrying CO codes in CO hubs... it's NOT allowed per CO Pilot CBA....


To the people that hate the ERJ... I don't know why you hate it so much, I fly it.. but even as a passenger, I love it and look for it..... the alternative is in a lot of cases a CRJ-200... I will take a 145 any day over a 200.... I agree the 700's and 170's are nicer aircraft but they are a different class and design mission; 2nd Gen RJ's in all respect... the 145/200's are still very economical and needed for certain markets and pairs and off peak times.... you won't be seeing them go for a long time...

The real change that needs to happen for fleet optimization is not a relaxation of scope but a shift of management from the downward outsource mantra to the all in-house model... if it's 1 pilot group, 1 FA group, 1 ramp group... you can fly any plane you want at any amount fleet as necessary... you won't get the huge gap of 145 vs 737-700.. or CRJ-700 vs. MD-80... etc...... in addition you then also gain the ability to present a unified product... not a product you have little control over but that directly affects your reputation and not that of the said outsourcing partner....



"Sonny, did we land? or were we shot down?"
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6603 posts, RR: 24
Reply 23, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 8029 times:

Quoting ThePinnacleKid (Reply 22):
To the people that hate the ERJ... I don't know why you hate it so much, I fly it.. but even as a passenger, I love it and look for it..... the alternative is in a lot of cases a CRJ-200

The ERJ is decent if you get the single seat side.

Quoting ThePinnacleKid (Reply 22):
if it's 1 pilot group, 1 FA group, 1 ramp group... you can fly any plane you want at any amount fleet as necessary... you won't get the huge gap of 145 vs 737-700.. or CRJ-700 vs. MD-80... etc...... in addition you then also gain the ability to present a unified product... not a product you have little control over but that directly affects your reputation and not that of the said outsourcing partner....

All true, except for one problem. The majors can't make money operating small planes. The economics don't work.


User currently offlinejoeljack From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7973 times:

Quoting ThePinnacleKid (Reply 22):
The real change that needs to happen for fleet optimization is not a relaxation of scope but a shift of management from the downward outsource mantra to the all in-house model... if it's 1 pilot group, 1 FA group, 1 ramp group... you can fly any plane you want at any amount fleet as necessary... you won't get the huge gap of 145 vs 737-700.. or CRJ-700 vs. MD-80... etc...... in addition you then also gain the ability to present a unified product... not a product you have little control over but that directly affects your reputation and not that of the said outsourcing partner....

I'm sure UA would love this but they need to be flown at rates competitive with other airlines....otherwise you can't compete. That's what the pilots don't understand and why we go in this situation to begin with.

Regarding the pilot 50 seat scope, if the pilot won't negotiate, then instead of merging the pilot groups together, just fire all the CO pilots. Have UA 'buy' all the planes for $1 each for CO and have UA hire thousands of new pilots. Remember something similar happened with the air traffic controllers in the 80's. The traffic control's wouldn't agree so Regan fired all of them and rehired all new ones that would agree at much lower rates. This move saved the taxpayer lots of money! UA should look at doing the same thing.

UA should propose a deal identical in scope to Delta, it works out good for all:

1) Mainline pilots still have their scope without a reduction in their flying or compensation and they actually see expanded frames to fly on still.
2) Delta gets lower costs and an 80 seat plane that is economical and fills a void.
3) Customers are really happy with these new planes and continue to be loyal and pick up new customers too.

It's a win win for all.


25 ThePinnacleKid : I personally disagree with that... other carriers make it work and have no problem doing so.. the problem is not with the costs.. it's with the reven
26 ScottB : Except that what would REALLY happen is that they'd remove 100 145's along with 50 735/73G/A319's, and replace those with 100 E170's or CR7's. Except
27 Post contains links ThePinnacleKid : That wouldn't work like you think it would... I suggest looking into this: http://operationorange2011.wordpress.com/
28 ThePinnacleKid : Thank ya for that; I appreciate the clarification and expanding my knowledge of it!!! I knew it was even more restrictive than most armchair ceo's an
29 DualQual : I don't even know where to begin with this. Regan fired the controllers because they struck illegally. IIRC at the time as government employees they
30 Post contains images seabosdca : Just make sure you're on the single side and it's one of the best rides out there. I'll always pick an ERJ (unless I see from the seat map that all t
31 gigneil : That's not correct. US Airways has a single operating certificate, but no single contract. The FAA couldn't give a rats ass about collective bargaini
32 TOMMY767 : On short flights, sure. On flights 3-4 hours, get real. Oftentimes the interiors of these regional aircraft aren't even kept in good shape. Especiall
33 Drerx7 : Especially NOT Expressjet. I have not had a negative experience in terms of cleanliness or disrepair of Expressjet birds. Do I like to fly the ERJ on
34 ThePinnacleKid : No, they do have a single contract... it's in dispute... there is a difference...
35 RamblinMan : Man I can remember the first time I ever rode a CR2, way back in 1999...OH CVG-BNA. Thought it was the neatest thing ever. Not in a million years did
36 TOMMY767 : CO charges up the butt for some of these long haul ERJ routings, which is probably how they make their money. I had to book EWR-OMA a month out for m
37 seabosdca : I'd rather fly TATL in an ERJ because of the single seat. I have wide shoulders and it's a beautiful thing not to have to irritate anyone else by rub
38 RamblinMan : Sometimes...but a lot of times it's part of a connecting itinerary and they're quite reasonable. I guess they try and make up for it where they can.
39 tropical77W : QK has been sending the CRA to IAH for a while now. though still an RJ, it is quite comfortable and both classes are fitted with AVOD. AC, up until a
40 DCA-ROCguy : Surely UA must have thought of all of the above before entering into UA-CO. It seems highly unlikely that UA would hand a huge competitive advantage
41 Drerx7 : The previous poster is partly right on this - its more desireable/lucrative to have those 50 seats feeding the international network at EWR. Sometime
42 NorthstarBoy : I have shocking news for you: from what i've read on these boards, the Legacy UA pilots want Legacy CO's scope clause. They are both on the same page
43 ScottB : This could presumably help make a deal happen, but management's actions over the past several years would, IMHO, make the pilots profoundly mistrustf
44 joeljack : I just don't understand why larger RJ flying can't be increased (sub for smaller RJ's on a one to one basis), and still increase mainline flying too?
45 AADC10 : A reason for the RJs out of IAH that has not been mentioned is to clog up the airport to maintain it as a fortress hub. It is difficult for other airl
46 Drerx7 : True...but who would seriously brave the already formidable fortress IAH anyway? The last domestic carrier that we got was Alaska and that's with a s
47 brilondon : I flew that on a CR7 the other day and it was not a panacea. Those smaller aircraft are all tough on the knees for me but at least they are not ERJ 1
48 PI767 : I know, back in the days, Comair used to run a CRJ-200 as a charter between Saginaw, MI and Lake Jackson, TX as a charter for a corporate client. I d
49 atct : I've flown the XRs close to 50 times. I've flown IAH-PIT / ORF / RSW / MIA / IAD / CLT and a few shorter runs. Though I would prefer an E170 anyway I'
50 steeler83 : Man, you must have a thing for smaller aircraft. As for both myself and my wife, we prefer the extra room and leg room. We did the flying tuna can th
51 iaddca : PHX-IAH on an ERJ? would rather just fly WN to HOU and get a 737, no status benefit is worth being forced onto a 2-3 hour ERJ leg
52 Post contains images breaker1011 : Last time I went I did PHX-MEM-IAH and was perfectly happy
53 UAL747DEN : UA now has the 50 seat problem because of the CO merger. You can thank UA for pushing DL to add 2 class regional jets, if UA had not made a major pus
54 DualQual : Enlighten me. How much profit is being left behind? Give me a number.
55 Drerx7 : Or just take one of the other CO flights that is mainline or CR7.
56 ScottB : I'd ask you why the pilots would even care about the amount of profits, since they generally see very little return from profits. When the company ma
57 T5towbar : The CO pilots turned down a DL+1 deal to relax scope. UA has over 1300 on the street because of the end of their 737 flying. I hear that both groups a
58 Drerx7 : I believe DOW used a 319 IIRC into HOU. I live under the 12R arrivals to HOU and I've seen the DOW 319 several times. It has been a while since I have
59 Post contains images rising : I agree on the IAD-IAH. I never understood that. Let's not forget too that United has tons of non-explus RJs flying around. It's not just Continental
60 GoBoeing : IAH-BOI was flown at one time, too. Also, IAH-ONT. And yes, CAL had the ERJ-145s doing PHX-IAH redeyes at one time. Who would book themselves a seat
61 FlyPNS1 : Name me one major carrier in the U.S. who operates 50-90 seat aircraft with mainline crews. None exist. Fares have risen considerably in the last few
62 Post contains images United1 : I would hope that they care very much about profits. For starters a profitable United allows them to add new jets which means more jobs for ALPA memb
63 ual777 : UAx has close to 225 70 seaters. How many more could possibly be needed?
64 airzim : Don't US Airways mainline pilots fly their E-190s?
65 flyhossd : That offer wasn't a true "Delta + $1" offer. It didn't include a seat on the Board or the stock grants, for example. As for caving on Scope, it seems
66 DualQual : USAirways, JetBlue, and Delta has announced that the 90 seat order will be flown by mainline.
67 T5towbar : Just read yesterdays newsletter saying that they are offering 100 - 200 of the furloughed UA pilots jobs to the CO side. I guess with all of the new
68 ScottB : Except it is nothing when compared to the $17 million Glenn Tilton made lat year. Except again, the pilots at United and Continental KNOW what happen
69 DCA-ROCguy : Unfortuantely, history suggests that legacy-carrier unions are about as interested in helping their airline be "the best they can be"--meaning offeri
70 FriendlySkies : The 70 seat scope will be upheld and probably expanded, it's just a question of what UA/CO will have to give up to get it. What seems the most obvious
71 FlyPNS1 : US and B6 are both 100 seaters which is getting to a more mainline friendly size. DL has no 90 seater in its fleet nor any on order. If 50-90 seaters
72 United1 : They have ~152 actually...70 at SkyWest, 25 at GoJet, 20 at Mesa and 37 at Shuttle America. As for how many they need UA apparently thought they need
73 FlyPNS1 : True, but how many routes currenly using 70 seaters in the PMUA network should really be using 100+ seaters?
74 ScottB : So what, exactly, do the pilots get in exchange for what is an enormous concession? You propose that the pilots accept "competitive wages" (read, red
75 DCA-ROCguy : Everything you wrote constitutes together a rational, economical solution that means everybody gets something. Whether each side is willing to give i
76 United1 : I'm not really sure, PMUA parked just under 100 733/735s prior to the merger which sat anywhere between 106 and 132 passengers so I am sure that ther
77 FriendlySkies : The pilots get jobs. Look, it's quite well known that the regionals are barely making a profit on 70 seat flying as-is, how on earth do mainline pilo
78 Post contains images ScottB : Go look up the UAL proxy statement. $16.8 million if you prefer. I have no philosophical problem with CEO's making a couple million a year or with th
79 ScottB : I don't necessarily agree that the "mainline cost structures are higher to begin with." Trip cost is undoubtedly higher for mainline, but CASM is hig
80 United1 : I did most of that amount is made up of stock options and performance incentives...a third of which doesn't even vest for two years. I don't think UA
81 FriendlySkies : I'm not sure I follow. The pilots would not just be getting shiny new airplanes, they would be getting shiny new airplanes they get to put their butt
82 cubsrule : If anything, mainline pilots flying CR7s ought to make LESS per hour than regional pilots; the work rules are better at mainline and there's a lot mo
83 cslusarc : From airlinepilotcentral.com: YX/S5 5-year E70/E75/E90 FO pay: $37/hr US 5-year E90 FO pay: $51/hr SY 5-year 737 FO pay: $63/hr AC 5-year E75/E90 FO p
84 ADent : I don't think UA needs 150 70 seaters, but 70 seats is the maximum under the UA scope clause. Also remember UA has to hire mainline ground workers if
85 BCEaglesCO757 : If Saginaw is close to Midland ,MI then it was probably Dow Chemical. I lived in the Lake Jackson area for about a year or two after leaving Boston.
86 BCEaglesCO757 : Makes me think of what a coworker said once about the now increasing face of big companies in America today.... "So what is the reward for my hard wo
87 rising : I think it could be argued that that had more to due with fuel prices than a scope provision. Furthermore, that action probably saved United Airlines
88 DualQual : You'd be wrong based on the laughable opener on the company's behalf. The total package is a concession.
89 United1 : You meen the October 27th 2010 proposal...UA offered Delta +1 that is certainly not a pay cut by any stretch of the imagination...it was however 1.3
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
LHR-CAI - Why So Much Capacity? posted Wed Oct 14 2009 13:34:27 by Noelg
Why So Much To BKO And So Little To OUA? posted Thu Jul 26 2007 14:00:49 by AF022
Is There So Much Traffic Between SIN-KUL? posted Thu Jan 4 2007 02:12:29 by Jlk
NW's Memphis Hub - Why So Limited? posted Thu Oct 26 2006 21:27:04 by PanAm747
777 T/O Brake Dust, Why So Much? (W/Photo) posted Wed Jun 29 2005 16:02:22 by DIA
Latin American Routes -- Why So Much Luggage/cargo posted Fri Feb 4 2005 20:40:15 by Ssides
Why So Much FX At LCK? posted Wed Nov 10 2004 05:01:17 by LV
Why So Much Uncommon Interest In South America? posted Tue Mar 9 2004 20:08:25 by Brasuca
Why So Much Traffic Out And In Of SLC Lately? posted Fri Oct 5 2001 00:29:48 by Sushka
Why So Much Cargo In Anchorage? posted Sat Mar 3 2001 18:30:09 by Lewis