DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5380 posts, RR: 47 Posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3984 times:
I read about how the pilot unions would have a stroke if regionals were allowed to fly 100 seaters for legacies, then I'd read that they'd have a stroke if 100 seaters were added to mainline. What is the deal? Even the most pro-union people would find this ridiculous I'd think. Or am I missing something?
FlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6089 posts, RR: 25 Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3972 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Thread starter): then I'd read that they'd have a stroke if 100 seaters were added to mainline.
I'm not sure where you read this part. I'm sure mainline pilots would have no problem with 100 seaters at mainline....assuming the payscale was reasonable. US operates them at mainline. DL has a payscale for them, though no planes have ever been ordered.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5380 posts, RR: 47 Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3893 times:
Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 1): Quoting DeltaMD90 (Thread starter):
then I'd read that they'd have a stroke if 100 seaters were added to mainline.
I'm not sure where you read this part.
I just read it in one of the 1000 AA BK threads... maybe the poster was wrong, but I can't find it now! Kinda brings up another question, why don't more US airlines operate 100 seaters? It seems like a good gap to fill...
DualQual From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 642 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3856 times:
Any pilot union would be happy to have 100 seaters on property and flown by mainline pilots. The issue seems to be what is a competitive wage. Management insists that competitive is regional level starvation wages. I'm not advocating 737 rates for the airplane but the crew should not be on food stamps to fly it either.
TWA772LR From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 785 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3470 times:
I have wondered the same. I think, besides restrictive scopes, is that there weren't good enough planes to fulfill the mission. The only one I can think of, that was successful, is the Fokker F100, which American fell in love with (correct?). Others that I can think of are:
737-600-Shrink of a larger airplane, thus too heavy and inefficient.
A318- same as 736.
717- was a pretty good plane but Boeing pretty much wanted to kill it off to promote the 737 line.
DC9- just too old and out of production in the 90s, but did the job really well in its day.
This is with my mind set that the idea of 100 seaters should have started in the 1990s instead of the idea of regional jets.
Today the 100 seat market can (and will IMO) make a come back with the E-190/195, CRJ-1000, Sukhoi SuperJet, C-Series, and others that I may have left out.
Also, what airlines would be flying 100 seaters given the regional jet idea wasn't given much thought? I can see all the legacys, but how about WN, FL, B6, Alaska etc... ?
There's nothing like the smell of Jet-A in the morning. It smells like... VICTORY!!!
beertrucker From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 402 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3413 times:
I would love to see the China dc-9 looking jet as a 100 seater filler. Would give us a nice T tail to look at again.
B6JFKH81 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2767 posts, RR: 7 Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2968 times:
Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 4): I can see all the legacys, but how about WN, FL, B6, Alaska etc... ?
B6 already uses the 100-seat E190. We aren't getting rid of it, just capping what our fleet size will be, so you will continue to see us flying them for years to come.
"If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it"
davescj From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 2266 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks ago) and read 2782 times:
The unions want the 100 seaters to stay as mainline for one key reason - jobs. If the jobs go to regional carriers, their members don't work those flights.
As to the practicality, I guess it would depend on cost (obviously). But with DL (for example) the A319 holds 126 pax, the same as the 737-700. Would DL really want another craft type? It would only make sense if the A319 or 737-700 were to be phased out, I should think. I would have thrown in consideration of the DC-9, but as we all know, DL is taking it out of the fleet anyway.
Metrojet732 From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 27 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2677 times:
I have always though the same. Over sea’s airlines like Cityhopper, Regional, Cityline (?) and Air Domitili all fly the E90’s under the Regional banner.. But in the US, take USAir, their adding first class to their CR9/E75’s. If they would of only kept n ordered more E90’s, they would a-make the Mainline pilots/unions happy (which is always a good thing) B-still have their 80 or so coach seat aircraft plus the much needed first class seats. But the only reason I see is they choose the E75/CR9 instead of the E90, the addition of 8/10 seats first class seat wont make up the cost difference between what they would have to play Mainline to fly them compared to the Regionals….
Burkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4268 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2467 times:
Could anybody make a table where exactly the contracted limits are?
LH seems to be very happy with its E195 flown regional, slightly below 100 seats. It is obvoius that an aircraft very few seats above whatever is the contracted are not economical, but if you remove that limit the A380 will be flown by regional partners...
ckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 4685 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2181 times:
If you think about it, many of the large U.S. carriers over the years have flown 100 seat jets. The 737-200/-500 were a little bigger than 100 seats, but a lot smaller than the 727-100. Many carriers flew the DC-9-10 and -30. AA and US both had the F100, and US used to have the F28. Years ago, AA had the BAC 111.
My thinking is that over the years, most mainline carriers wound up with planes that seated 125 at the very smallest, and often 140 to 150 at the low end, while the regionals were flying planes from 70 seats down to 19 seats. The capacity of say 85 to 120 seats became forgotten, until Embrear came out with the 170/175/190/195 and Canadair moved towards the CRJ 1000 and the C-Series.
United727 From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 385 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2103 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 2): I just read it in one of the 1000 AA BK threads... maybe the poster was wrong, but I can't find it now! Kinda brings up another question, why don't more US airlines operate 100 seaters? It seems like a good gap to fill...
Just a thought, AA has about four (4) F100's, that appear to be in good condition, at ROW that need a new home. Why not use those?
Looking for the impossible way to save those dying breeds!!!!
crash65 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 74 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1708 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Thread starter): I read about how the pilot unions would have a stroke if regionals were allowed to fly 100 seaters for legacies, then I'd read that they'd have a stroke if 100 seaters were added to mainline. What is the deal? Even the most pro-union people would find this ridiculous I'd think. Or am I missing something?
It has nothing to do with being pro or anti union, at least from a pilot perspective. It is about career progression. The same union that represents most mainline pilots in the United States is also the very same union that represents most regional pilots in the US. In my relations that span most of the majors and at least a half dozen regionals, there are very few regional pilots that want to see that flying at their level. They would rather the mainline carriers grow and bring them up, than languish in the whipsawed world of the regionals. Mainline pilots welcome the 100 seaters, because it provides the opportunity to upgrade to Captain and realize the benefits of the upgrade sooner rather than later. I don't think I know a mainline pilot that would not welcome those airframes on property. some may have no interest in flying them, but that doesn't mean they don't want them in the mainline fleet.
Quoting davescj (Reply 7): The unions want the 100 seaters to stay as mainline for one key reason - jobs. If the jobs go to regional carriers, their members don't work those flights.
In reference to my reply to the original post, the same union represents most regional and mainline pilots. It is not a union issue, it is (as you did point out) a job issue.
YXwatcherMKE From United States of America, joined May 2007, 802 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1606 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 2):
I just read it in one of the 1000 AA BK threads... maybe the poster was wrong, but I can't find it now! Kinda brings up another question, why don't more US airlines operate 100 seaters? It seems like a good gap to fill...
It seems to me that most unions and airline manager's have forgotten that the DC9-10/20/30's were mainline a/c for decades. And as the RJ's grew into the marketplace they began to think that anything below the 150 seat range must be regional a/c even though the 100 seat a/c can nearly fly transcon.
I miss the 60's & 70's when you felt like a guest on the plane not cattle like today
crash65 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 74 posts, RR: 2 Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1446 times:
Quoting YXwatcherMKE (Reply 13): It seems to me that most unions and airline manager's have forgotten that the DC9-10/20/30's were mainline a/c for decades. And as the RJ's grew into the marketplace they began to think that anything below the 150 seat range must be regional a/c even though the 100 seat a/c can nearly fly transcon.
The words union and pilot seem to have become interchangeable on a.net, but I understand with the way things get stated and distorted in the press, how that has evolved. YX you are spot on about the size of aircraft that were traditionally mainline. In addition to the early DC-9 series you could add the jurassic 737s series 100 and 200, and even the original 727-100 was in the 94-131 range depending on configuration. Going further back the Convair 880 (75-100 seats), Convair 990 (94-110), and in recent years as someone earlier stated, FK-70 and FK-100 were in the same class as the current E-170/180/190/195 family. Speaking as a pilot I can assure you that most of us are VERY aware of what has transpired in the industry, and how outsourcing the very flying we traditionally did, has transformed the landscape in the last 15 years.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5380 posts, 
From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4268 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
