Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Will United Order A 100 Seater?  
User currently offlineBDL757 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 149 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 10068 times:

I was chatting with a UAL captain who was jumpseating on the flight I was working and we got on the topic of DL's expansion in NYC and how we are starting to use mainline a/c on routes like LGA-BUF/PWM/MCI etc once or twice a day (mainline 'injections' as they are sometimes called) as well as the acquisition of 717s. He made the remark that the 'new' United should start doing that to remain competitive which piqued my interest. After checking out united.com I realized that there is a large gap between the 70 seat CR7/E70 and 144 to 160 seat A320/737-800 that currently only the A319 and 737-700 fill.

After randomly checking routes (I know, not an exact science) I saw that UA does have a lot of regionals flying fairly long flights. So I'm wondering does anyone think they will order something like the CS100/300 or maybe E-195? I realize that the merger is the most important focus at this point. Also, the pilot contract will likely come into play because I'm sure UA is looking to add some 76 seaters as well. Anyway, I know this is kind of long winded but I wondered if they will try to fill that void or not and I think that a 100 seater type would be great for ORD. Do you think the recent large order for 737MAX will also play a role in the decision?

42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5765 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 9919 times:

Quoting BDL757 (Thread starter):
I realized that there is a large gap between the 70 seat CR7/E70 and 144 to 160 seat A320/737-800 that currently only the A319 and 737-700 fill.

They have the 737-500 as well, to fill this gap. But the 737-500 is a high-cost way to fill that gap, and the fleet is dwindling as fast as they can find buyers.

Quoting BDL757 (Thread starter):
So I'm wondering does anyone think they will order something like the CS100/300 or maybe E-195?

The problem here is scope clause in pilot contracts, at both UA and CO. CO's contract said that anything larger than 50 seats had to be flown by mainline (with the exception of turboprops, hence the Dash 8-Q400 op), and I believe United's contract said that anything larger than 70 seats was mainline only.
So, consequently, there's a gap between the CR7 and 73G/319.

We'll see what happens; I, for one, hope that the scope isn't relaxed, and that they find an economical way to fly ER9's or CS100s or something like that with mainline crews. But I can hope in one hand, and............in the other, and we know how that usually goes.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16854 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 9831 times:

Quoting BDL757 (Thread starter):
I'm wondering does anyone think they will order something like the CS100/300 or maybe E-195?

Prior to the merger UA stated they were looking at the C-Series;

http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/...ed-to-consider-bombardier-cseries/

Of course it all depends on the new pilot's contract.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineDualQual From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 763 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 9204 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 1):
The problem here is scope clause in pilot contracts, at both UA and CO. CO's contract said that anything larger than 50 seats had to be flown by mainline (with the exception of turboprops, hence the Dash 8-Q400 op), and I believe United's contract said that anything larger than 70 seats was mainline only.
So, consequently, there's a gap between the CR7 and 73G/319.

DLs scope is for anything larger than 76 seats to be flown by mainline. So a 100 seater at DL will be staffed by DL pilots. How does that make it a problem for UA/CO? I'll give you the 735 is not the most economical way of moving 100ish seats but a C series or similar flown by mainline pilots isn't going to be a problem financially for the company.


User currently offlineRDH3E From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1639 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 9181 times:

Quoting DualQual (Reply 3):
I'll give you the 735 is not the most economical way of moving 100ish seats but a C series or similar flown by mainline pilots [is a huge] problem financially for the company.

Fixed it for you  

It would take some serious massaging of pilots hourly rates and work rules to make a 100 seater a serious conversation at UA.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7115 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 9119 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 1):
We'll see what happens; I, for one, hope that the scope isn't relaxed, and that they find an economical way to fly ER9's or CS100s or something like that with mainline crews.

Not being snippy but how exactly do these two sentiments get together?
Scope is the mechanism that prevents carriers from operating RJ's or 100 seaters and less, so if scope is not relaxed the situation will remain the same.
Certainely UA could attempt to change the culture of pax by moving more flying to Q400's via the CO scope, fuel bill would go down compared to the RJ's and they can all be marketed as UA versus a regional affiliate.


User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1761 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 9119 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It's all subject to negotiation with the pilot's union. DL made it work so there is no reason to believe UA can't follow in that regard. You get mainline flying of more a/c which means more employment for pilots. I'd assume the rates etc will be lower for the smaller a/c but that's better than not having a job or seeing potential employment subcontracted out.

User currently offlinenorcal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 9077 times:

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 4):
It would take some serious massaging of pilots hourly rates and work rules to make a 100 seater a serious conversation at UA.

No actually it wouldn't. Higher productivity and reasonable pay scales would work just perfectly for the pilot part of the equation. Hourly rates aren't the problem.

The biggest (and most ignored) issue is all the other employees that go with operating a 100 seat aircraft at mainline. If you isolate the pilot costs there really isn't that much of a savings between a mainline pilot and a regional pilot, especially compared with the mx, fuel, lease payments, etc. Where labor costs get skewed is when you throw in all the other employees in addition to the pilots, that is where regional labor really makes a difference.

If there weren't so many "me too" clauses in other labor contracts then a lot of the barriers of operating a 100 seat aircraft at mainline would be removed.


User currently offlineRDH3E From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1639 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 9043 times:

Quoting norcal (Reply 7):
No actually it wouldn't. Higher productivity and reasonable pay scales would work just perfectly for the pilot part of the equation. Hourly rates aren't the problem.

You just noted "reasonable pay scales" which in my eyes would be a major revision to the pilot contract (in regards to a 100 seater), and higher productivity is in the same boat.

Quoting norcal (Reply 7):
If you isolate the pilot costs there really isn't that much of a savings between a mainline pilot and a regional pilot
http://www.willflyforfood.com/airlin...ot-salary/188/United-Airlines.html
vs.
http://www.willflyforfood.com/airlin...t-salary/180/Skywest-Airlines.html

Skywest is one of the better compensated regionals in my mind. 1st year UA 319 captain gets $123.80 per hour, 1st year OO CR9 gets $64.41. 120 seats vs 76, so UA $1.03 per seat, OO $0.85 per seat, which is ~18% lower on a per seat basis. This would mean to "match" regionals on such a metric you'd need to get a rate around $85 an hour from your first year pilots on a 100 seater.
__________________

Personal note, don't take that analysis seriously because it's clearly got so many flaws it's not representative. I just want to illustrate a point that there are MAJOR differences in pay structure, as well as work rules.


User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5765 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 9041 times:

Quoting DualQual (Reply 3):
DLs scope is for anything larger than 76 seats to be flown by mainline. So a 100 seater at DL will be staffed by DL pilots. How does that make it a problem for UA/CO? I'll give you the 735 is not the most economical way of moving 100ish seats but a C series or similar flown by mainline pilots isn't going to be a problem financially for the company.

Because United is not Delta. United/Continental's pilots are not Delta pilots.
And, in my opinion (because that's all we can work with here, until a UA exec comes into the thread and shows us official numbers from the contracts, good luck... OPINIONS), a 100 seater flown mainline WOULD be a financial problem for UA. Hence the 735 doesn't work out, and CO publicly stated there would be no deliveries smaller than a 737-800 going forward from two years ago. The 735 has lower costs than the 736- an airplane that SAS and WestJet make work.

Quoting par13del (Reply 5):
Not being snippy but how exactly do these two sentiments get together?

They don't, very well; like I said, I can wish in one hand, and........ in the other.

Quoting par13del (Reply 5):
Scope is the mechanism that prevents carriers from operating RJ's or 100 seaters and less, so if scope is not relaxed the situation will remain the same.

No, scope is the mechanism that prevents CONTRACT carriers from flying LARGER airplanes. CO could fly ERJ's mainline if they wanted to, and the pilots union would love it, but CO needs the cost savings of contract carriers to do such jobs.


User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2884 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6948 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

From a United loyalist, living in NY has now made me have to fly what is really still CO, an airline I often avoided due to their bad hard products: seats and aircraft. Out of EWR sCO (now brand named United) pushed the E145 too far. Too many long rides on a cramped RJ. Also the 757, 767 and 777 with horrible seats in BF- until they introduced the new flat beds. (yes- Continental had better service) But since this is about RJ's, I wish I was a Genie and could blink my eyes and have all those E145's turn into E170/195's in one day. I LOVE those EJets and would be fine on a 2-3-4 hour flight on one.

I get all the pilot stuff and expense, but as a pax I have to shout about how I dread the exCO billions of E145's unless it's just an hour flight. How many E170/190's does Delta have?

And; since CO put in their new true flat seats I can now enjoy a United TATL flight out of EWR.



The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
User currently offlinecosyr From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 384 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 6756 times:

I don't believe they will, but I think they should. I think a 100-120 seater would be a great way to build a compromise with pilots over commuter flights. Trade some 70 seaters for fewer 50 seaters and more 100 seaters with mainline pilots. I would say one 70 seater for two 50 seaters grounded, and a set number of 100 seaters maybe in the 60-80 range. United could decide how much the 70 seaters outsourcing means to them. I would love to see a CS100 in United livery, and I wouldn't mind a few less middle seats.

User currently offlinelaca773 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 4005 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 6295 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BDL757 (Thread starter):
After randomly checking routes (I know, not an exact science) I saw that UA does have a lot of regionals flying fairly long flights. So I'm wondering does anyone think they will order something like the CS100/300 or maybe E-195? I realize that the merger is the most important focus at this point. Also, the pilot contract will likely come into play because I'm sure UA is looking to add some 76 seaters as well. Anyway, I know this is kind of long winded but I wondered if they will try to fill that void or not and I think that a 100 seater type would be great for ORD. Do you think the recent large order for 737MAX will also play a role in the decision?

Actually, UAEx does fly some longer CR7 routes via OO out of LAX/SFO. LAX sees nonstops via OO on CR7s to SAT/DFW/OKC/TUL/. Considering the service offers on their UAEx product, these flights are fine for a 90 minute segment max. The E75/E90/E95s would be a great a/c and a much more comfortable ride for those who have to fly UA because of corporate contracts.
When UA dropped mainline on LAX-SEA/PDX, they started off with CR7s, now, the last time I looked, the majority of these flights were flown with CR5s (CRJs). I hope they can get together with their pilots union and work something out.


User currently offlineSean-SAN- From United States of America, joined Aug 2002, 768 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5908 times:

It's a misconception that 100 seat aircraft can not be economically flown by mainline crews. The truth is, short-sided airline beancounters think they can make MORE money by utilizing regional crews because of the extremely low pay rates. Unfortunately, you also lose control of your product and rely on employees who lack any loyalty, and in some cases are openly hostile to your customers.

User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7394 posts, RR: 17
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5560 times:

I see UA taking the C-series or the E195, leaning towards the C-series.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 10):
I get all the pilot stuff and expense, but as a pax I have to shout about how I dread the exCO billions of E145's unless it's just an hour flight. How many E170/190's does Delta have?

DL's 170s are from Shuttle America, IIRC. I think in the last few years they have been shuffling 170s around between different airlines.

Quoting Sean-SAN- (Reply 13):
It's a misconception that 100 seat aircraft can not be economically flown by mainline crews.

I know it's a bit different, but doesn't B6 fly the 195 as a mainline aircraft? Same with US.



次は、渋谷、渋谷。出口は、右側です。電車とホームの間は広く開いておりますので、足元に注意下さい。
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12981 posts, RR: 100
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5403 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting norcal (Reply 7):
The biggest (and most ignored) issue is all the other employees that go with operating a 100 seat aircraft at mainline. If you isolate the pilot costs there really isn't that much of a savings between a mainline pilot and a regional pilot, especially compared with the mx, fuel, lease payments, etc. Where labor costs get skewed is when you throw in all the other employees in addition to the pilots, that is where regional labor really makes a difference.

That is it in summary. Could UA operate the out stations with any cost effectiveness? I doubt it. Airlines went RJ as it was a significant cost savings *at the time.* Now that oil is a higher share of costs, they will go with larger RJs. As much as I would like to see RJs brought in house, I do not see it happening.

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 8):
I just want to illustrate a point that there are MAJOR differences in pay structure, as well as work rules.

   Everything adds up.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 14):
I see UA taking the C-series or the E195, leaning towards the C-series.

What contract changes have happened to make a smaller aircraft more viable? As much as I would *love* to see the Cseries at UA, I just do not see it happening (nor a E190/E195 or any other ~100 seater).

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 14):
but doesn't B6 fly the 195 as a mainline aircraft?

With non-union contracts. e.g., outsourced help at many stations. Note: It is the E190, which they have cut back on numbers as the economics didn't work out as well as plan.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7115 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5301 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 15):
Quoting norcal (Reply 7):
The biggest (and most ignored) issue is all the other employees that go with operating a 100 seat aircraft at mainline. If you isolate the pilot costs there really isn't that much of a savings between a mainline pilot and a regional pilot, especially compared with the mx, fuel, lease payments, etc. Where labor costs get skewed is when you throw in all the other employees in addition to the pilots, that is where regional labor really makes a difference.

That is it in summary. Could UA operate the out stations with any cost effectiveness? I doubt it.

So in a bigger sense, if mainline carriers canot offer service at some out-stations why not just abandon that sphere of the market?
If air travel is required commuter airlines will evolve and provide the service, use code shares with mainline, a larger number of pax have already gotton over the illusion that the service provided by the regionals is the same as mainline.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5416 posts, RR: 30
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5221 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 16):

So in a bigger sense, if mainline carriers canot offer service at some out-stations why not just abandon that sphere of the market? If air travel is required commuter airlines will evolve and provide the service, use code shares with mainline, a larger number of pax have already gotton over the illusion that the service provided by the regionals is the same as mainline.


I think you've got it.

Scope is a huge pain for everybody...if the route doesn't pay with mainline iron, dump the route. I doubt there is any clause which prevents an airline from investing in a smaller airline and code sharing with them without actually running the smaller airline. To me, it seems fighting the scope battles has become more trouble than it's worth.

A mainline, even with relaxed scope, will never be as cost effective as an airline designed from the outset to fly sub 130ish seaters, so why even try? I think most passengers are long over the idea that their mainline branded rj is actually a mainline plane. They codeshare across the globe...do more code sharing across the country.

Play to your strengths and work with those whose strengths are your weaknesses.

More efficient in the long run and a huge chunk of contract whining and moaning would be eliminated.



What the...?
User currently offlineAntoniemey From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1555 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5205 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 16):
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 17):

You guys are essentially describing the industry pre-1990s. At one point Comair was an independent regional providing connection services to Delta mainline. ExpressJet was, what, 3 different regional partners? Similar stories with most of the other regional carriers. The leftovers from that are carriers like Great Lakes.

The difference is, the current system gives the mainline carrier control of scheduling and revenue (well, as much control of revenue as they can get). I don't see them giving that up easily.



Make something Idiot-proof, and the Universe will make a more inept idiot.
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5416 posts, RR: 30
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4923 times:

Quoting Antoniemey (Reply 18):
The difference is, the current system gives the mainline carrier control of scheduling and revenue (well, as much control of revenue as they can get). I don't see them giving that up easily.

They may have been problems way back when, but I don't think control or scheduling would be huge issues today. Just eliminating scope headaches would make it worth pursuing.

It makes sense for code share partners to cooperate, which would benefit both sides. It also means that as long as they live up to their contractual obligations, regional carriers could work for different mainline airlines in different regions without conflict of interest.

It's been shown time and again that mainline airlines make crappy lcc's. Times aren't getting less tough and the big boys have to get more efficient. One way is to cut the rj's loose. With no scope to worry about, the regionals can more quickly adapt their fleets to changing markets than possible with the much more complex contractual obligations of the bigs, where every change in type and route has to go through an onerous negotiation.



What the...?
User currently offlineBobloblaw From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1675 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4746 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The problem with 100 seaters is they aren't profitable at mainline costs. Look at US, they have only 15 E90s, when I bet there is a market for 50+.

User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7115 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4700 times:

Quoting Antoniemey (Reply 18):

You guys are essentially describing the industry pre-1990s.

If you mean before deregulation I honestly do not see the correlation because I believe that your quote below is the key to the entire issue.

Quoting Antoniemey (Reply 18):
The difference is, the current system gives the mainline carrier control of scheduling and revenue (well, as much control of revenue as they can get). I don't see them giving that up easily.

I would say they have an illusion of control, scope clauses affect the majority of what they are attempting to accomplish, so who is really in control? Clauses on number of seats on an a/c affect a/c type, a/c type goes directly to cost to accuire and operate, all of which determine how much has to be charged to be profitable, so is it really worth it?

A decade ago regionals was the big thing and everyone wanted their own, DL nows seems to have gotten adjustments to its scope which gets rid of the regionals and supposedly will now allow mainline to operate flights profitably which all execs before said could not be done, primary difference is scope. so.........


User currently offlineROSWELL41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 777 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4658 times:

You still have scope restrictions on codesharing. I'm not sure that independent regional airlines are an effective work around that restriction. Reference the new Delta pilots' contract. The consumer would have to purchase two separate tickets, one on the mainline and one on the independent regional as a solution. I believe this was how it worked decades ago.

User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7115 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4533 times:

Quoting ROSWELL41 (Reply 22):
You still have scope restrictions on codesharing. I'm not sure that independent regional airlines are an effective work around that restriction.

Your comment below is where I'm going with my opinion, I am not looking at codeshares being used to get around mainline scope contracts but to facilitate pax travel and allow both carriers to make some money doing what they are best equipped to perform.

Quoting ROSWELL41 (Reply 22):
The consumer would have to purchase two separate tickets, one on the mainline and one on the independent regional as a solution. I believe this was how it worked decades ago.

Or simply negotiate interline agreements which allows airlines to sell a through fare and list the individual carriers, this is done on international flights all the time, there is even a recognized formula used to determine the portion of fares assigned to each carrier. Individual agreements are usually preferred especially when long haul flights are concerned as the weigthing does benefit the long haul carrier to a disproportionate degree when low fares are concerned, but within the USA for domestic travel, this should not be much of an issue.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5416 posts, RR: 30
Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4272 times:

Quoting ROSWELL41 (Reply 22):

That doesn't make a lot of sense when I can purchase a single ticket taking me around the world on a half a dozen airlines, complete with automatic baggage transfer.

If an airline doesn't fly a route or even has the appropriate equipment to fly the route, there is little pilots could do to force any scope issue. I also doubt there is anything preventing two airlines coordinating their schedules.

If they can, then scopes clauses are even more boneheaded than I previously imagined.



What the...?
25 lightsaber : Then there is no certain feed to mainline. You have the right idea about codesharing with a regional. However, it evolved into full service feed. If
26 JoeCanuck : I think branding rj's will lose favour in the face of rising costs. Passengers just don't care. Most don't have any idea what type of aircraft they a
27 N62NA : Mostly inherited from CO out of EWR. Yep. I would respectfully disagree. Most pax have no idea what a Chautauqua Airlines is. True. They are under th
28 par13del : If a flight operates with no issues they never know, it is when something happens that they realize it is not mainline when the initial denial of res
29 Aither : 100 seats is too big for feeding and too small for the main routes. I don't see the benefits of adding a third type of aircraft for such a small marke
30 EaglePower83 : Heck, AA does this NOW. Many flight options I look at out of the Northeast are AA interlined with US or (haha) UA. They're not always the most cost e
31 LHCVG : At least in my experience, it is pretty much a tossup as to the demeanor and service level of a given crew between mainline and regional. I've been o
32 RDH3E : You've never seen an airline's market/equipment P&L statements have you.... Domestic code-sharing is a HUGE issue with pilots unions, just ask AA
33 flyhossd : Are you saying that a major carrier can't operate a 100 seat jet profitably? As I recall, Lufthansa, Air Canada, jetBlue, Taca, COPA all operate E-19
34 RDH3E : Lufthansa mainline does not operate the E-190's (Cityline Does), Air Canada operates 45 195's (AC 2011 Net Loss of $429M, operating margin of 1.5%),
35 par13del : Yes, but I am under the impression that this is because the pilots agreed to changes / adjustments, maybe saying scope is not technically correct but
36 southwest737500 : US is getting 5 more. 2 in Q4 and I think 3 in Q1, I may be wrong
37 Aither : There are very few markets where you can predict exactly (at +/-20 seats) how much capacity you will need. I'd rather use yield management to reduce
38 LHCVG : Hey don't shoot the messenger! I'm just explaining the rationale used by DL, not verbatim but that's what's been discussed about their move to acquir
39 Post contains images Aither : Sorry I did not intend to shoot the messenger points taken
40 ADent : Huh? Pre-merger DEN and ORD had more RJ flights than mainline. Many of those CRJ7 flights are long. DEN-ATL, DEN-CLE, DEN-HSV, DEN-Canada, DEN-West C
41 RDH3E : He's referring to this: Before the merger CO had 9 of the 10 longest 50 seat RJ flights in the word. The 1 they didn't have? Doh! It was a duplicate
42 strfyr51 : Let's face it. People don't like RJ's any better than they did Turboprops which actually were a better option. If United ordered 100 seat CS or ER's
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...
Singapore's SALE, Looking At A 100 Seater Order posted Thu Jan 13 2005 20:30:57 by MidnightMike
Boeing Exec: 777X Will Make A350-100 Obsolete! posted Thu Sep 6 2012 10:32:51 by Revelation
Will United Go To AKL Anyway? posted Thu Jul 26 2012 08:37:21 by cosyr
Will United Serve South Africa In The Near Future? posted Sun Jul 1 2012 19:07:54 by GSP psgr
Jet Airways May Order 100 A320NEO´s posted Wed May 23 2012 10:19:36 by solnabo
Will United Be An All Boeing Airline? posted Wed May 9 2012 17:28:04 by SWALUV
Philippine Al To Order 100 Planes posted Wed May 2 2012 03:50:30 by breiz
Will Lufthansa Order More A380s? posted Sun Apr 1 2012 11:43:21 by Irishpower
When Will United Load 787 Into Schedules? posted Sat Feb 18 2012 08:14:56 by 777222LR
Possible United Order Soon? posted Tue Nov 22 2011 11:28:53 by atrude777