Page 2 of 2

Re: Republic Airways orders 100 E175 plus 100 options

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 5:48 am
by BobbyPSP
SierraPacific wrote:
stburke wrote:
Once again, absurd scope clauses keeping the reigns tightened on small aircraft and small communities.

Thanks ALPA.



I do not see how more E 175's would affect this since E 175's are mainly used on routes that used to be mainline back in the day (PHX-LAX)(IAH-ATL)(PDX-STL) for example. These small communities just do not make sense from a business perspective rather than some evil pilot union saying that people in Macon Georgia should not have air service. The big 3 could run Saab 340's to Greenville Mississippi from Atlanta or Houston if they truly wanted tomorrow without talking to ALPA but management would rather use E 175's to fly routes that were historically mainline 15 years ago (SFO-AUS is a good example of this strategy). If ALPA would allow regional scope relaxation the big 3 wouldn't be airlines anymore rather just a place to book tickets on regional carriers that still do not serve little towns across America.


Saab 340 and EMB 120 were originally certified to 30 seats. However the FAA standard weight to per passenger increased so much that they were severely weight restricted

I worked Ops for SkyWest and did weight and balance for EMB 120. I'd have to write on the release how much baggage /pax for different passenger count. So for 24 pax/XXX, 25/ YYY, etc. the only time I saw one 30 go out was with a couple of kids (counted less weight) plus a rare very light hand luggage. EMB120 I loved to ride and pilots liked it.

If they produce another 30seat prop, hopefully now with lighter materials to accept a full load. And these were short flights. Palm Springs to LAX

Re: Republic Airways orders 100 E175 plus 100 options

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 6:14 am
by grbauc
UpNAWAy wrote:
Regional Airlines would not even exist if not for the mainline Pilots unions. They would fly them in house and have multi teared wages that make the economics work.

BTW there is no loosing of Pilots jobs, every increasing flying has created more jobs. They estimate as many as a half million more will be created in the next 20 years.



Agree. They should be pushing to fly them in house and working with the airlines for a working wage on the smaller planes. The past is the past and the industry looks a lot different today and going forward.

Re: Republic Airways orders 100 E175 plus 100 options

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 12:01 pm
by sunking737
With Republic ordering 200 jets, could they sell those slots to another carrier in the future. At some point also could they upgauge those options into firm 737MAX orders, after Boeing and EMB combine.?? Say airline XYZ buys Rejet, Rejet has options on the books could XYZ make those firm orders for 737MAX vs EJETS

Re: Republic Airways orders 100 E175 plus 100 options

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 1:52 pm
by nmdrdh787
unusualattitude wrote:
nmdrdh787 wrote:

Issue is the current scope weight. When that is fixed in the next two years (pilot agreements are expiring then), the E2 will have more orders. I bet that they may have the option to move this to the 175E2 in the agreement.



Flawed thinking. Pilot agreements do not expire under the RLA (Railway Labor Act), they become amendable. Therefore unless both sides agree to a new contract, the current language remains. What makes you think any of the legacy pilot groups are going to have any interest in giving up more scope with the airlines raking in cash they are. If anything I could see tightening of the scope as the pilots groups have had quite a bit of leverage in the last few cycles.


You are right they are amendable. My bad.

I agree with your point, its a shame though.

Re: Republic Airways orders 100 E175 plus 100 options

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 2:20 pm
by kabq737
drdisque wrote:
Yes, the original Mesa CR-9's is what I see a lot of these replacing. These are configured for over 70 seats, are getting up there in age and cycles, and were not next-gen so they have small bins and low/small windows.


Obviously nothing is confirmed but if these frames were operated by Republic and used by AA to replace the old Mesa CR9s I wonder what Mesas market position would look like. That would definitely make them even smaller but would they be able to find other work?

I’m not opposed to the concept though...Mesa CR9s are the worst RJ aircraft I’ve been on by miles and I’ve flown on quite a few!

Re: Republic Airways orders 100 E175 plus 100 options

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 4:18 pm
by LightningZ71
While I don't see the Pilot unions ever giving back on scope, I think that it might be doable for Embraer/Boeing to do another version of the E-175-E2 that shortens the craft to just below the E175-E1 current length (removing one row of space from the existing E1 SC model). Switch the engines on it to the lighter RR-Pearl engines, and go through another bit of weight reduction effort to get the plane below the scope weight cut off and still efficiently fit 70 seats in two classes.

Call it the E-170-E2

This would result in lower trip costs as compared to the E175-E1 by having more efficient engines, an optimized length, and take advantage of the other improvements that were made to the E-175-E2. It would essentially be optimized for the US market while still being efficient enough for global markets.

Re: Republic Airways orders 100 E175 plus 100 options

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 4:29 pm
by iceberg210
Hadn't seen this tidbit before

Embraer chief commercial officer Arjan Meijer says the airline has the ability to convert the aircraft to the E175-E2 if major US airlines attain scope clause relief in their pilot contracts.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 18-450277/

Might mean that folks are lining up for the 175E1 also to get in line for a possible E2 if it works out. Very interesting detail that I'm not surprised was the case but glad to see confirmed.

Re: Republic Airways orders 100 E175 plus 100 options

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 5:16 pm
by KCaviator
iceberg210 wrote:
Hadn't seen this tidbit before

Embraer chief commercial officer Arjan Meijer says the airline has the ability to convert the aircraft to the E175-E2 if major US airlines attain scope clause relief in their pilot contracts.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 18-450277/

Might mean that folks are lining up for the 175E1 also to get in line for a possible E2 if it works out. Very interesting detail that I'm not surprised was the case but glad to see confirmed.


Republic has the ability to take any of the following configurations with this order:

1) E175 (76 seats)
2) E175SC (70 seats)
3) E2 (76 seats)

Lots of flexibility.

Re: Republic Airways orders 100 E175 plus 100 options

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 8:51 pm
by mcdu
mikejepp wrote:
mcdu wrote:
What’s really odd is the mainline pilots are blamed by the RJ pilots for allowing RJ’s. And mainline pilots are blamed by anet armchair experts for not allowing more RJ’s. Perhaps those two groups could get together and figure who really is the bad guy. What’s next? Blame mainline pilots because you didn’t get a pony for Christmas?


Incorrect. Mainline pilots blame the RLA and Chapter 11 process for allowing management to make RJs happen. The vast majority of mainline pilots wish their fellow RJ pilots were on the same seniority list with them.

As far as A.net experts go.... well, I suppose it is hard for a teenager to weigh someone's job as more important than getting a shiny jet at their airport.


It’s hardly incorrect. You do realize RJ’s showed up well before the round of CH11 events. If a mainline pilot blames the RLA and CH11 then they weren’t paying attention to the timeline. All the the carriers voted on contracts to ease scope restrictions prior to 9/11. After 9/11 the management teams used that relief and cheap wages at the regional carriers to do wholesale reductions in mainline service across their networks. Those RJ pilots at the time were more than happy to fly those routes and build their hours. Then they realized it was a self licking ice cream cone. They weren’t getting out of the RJ due to their own poor work rules that kept the wages and benefits low. It was just too good a bargain for the legacy management teams to use cheap RJ crews.

The only saving grace has been the death of the 50 seater. Consolidation to the US3 and the increase of 1500 hours for new pilots.

Re: Republic Airways orders 100 E175 plus 100 options

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:44 am
by bahadir
stburke wrote:
Once again, absurd scope clauses keeping the reigns tightened on small aircraft and small communities.

Thanks ALPA.
Absurd ?? Yeah right. These airplanes should be flown by mainline pilots. I just hope that they won't cave in more on the scope clauses.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

Re: Republic Airways orders 100 E175 plus 100 options

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 4:34 am
by Midwestindy
From all indications this will mean growth from Republic rather than sheer replacement of older frames, not sure where the growth will go to but it seems to be the case.

Re: Republic Airways orders 100 E175 plus 100 options

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 4:40 am
by strfyr51
raylee67 wrote:
This is not a good thing for Embraer actually. It means the E2 is a failure, at least for the regional carriers, which is supposed to be a big chunk of the projected market for the E2. They now rather get more of the old plane than going to the new one. They are getting the E-Jet because there is no better replacement. Embraer is able to sell these 100 jets only because the others have failed even more spectacularly.

Arguably, the only other one on the market is MRJ, which is also exactly on the 70-100 seat range, same as the E2. SSJ cannot cover the lower size of the range, CSeries/A220 is not a competitor as it is going for 100-130 seat. It's more of a A318/736 replacement.

The airlines are probably hoping and praying someone will be able to do better with a new and more efficient plane at the 70-90 seat range, especially soon the 50-seat RJs will need to be replaced too, and there is no new product there.

well it's NOT Bad for Embraer. They knew what the scope clause was and what it restricted them from doing. Which obviously didn't happen at Misubishi who was hoping the USA majors would force a showdown with ALPA to make their planes Palatable to the Pilots. And? Nobody Bit on it! What US Major would take a strike for a NON US company for them to be able to sell Jets in the USA?? Makes no sense to me as there's no upside in it for the Airlines Nor the Pilots...

Re: Republic Airways orders 100 E175 plus 100 options

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:00 am
by flightsimer
Nevermind

Re: Republic Airways orders 100 E175 plus 100 options

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:34 am
by kitplane01
mcdu wrote:
stburke wrote:
Once again, absurd scope clauses keeping the reigns tightened on small aircraft and small communities.

Thanks ALPA.


Scope protect the consumer as well as the employees. How many times have we seen issues arise on outsourced carriers and the consumer complain about the fact it’s not mainline operated.



I have never in my entire long life heard a friend complain that a plane was operated by an affiliate, and not the mainline. Not once ever. I have had friends complain that airline prices are too high. And scope clauses reduce flexibility, and therefore increase costs.

Scope clauses are good for mainline pilots, but bad for consumers.

Re: Republic Airways orders 100 E175 plus 100 options

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 3:29 pm
by mcdu
kitplane01 wrote:
mcdu wrote:
stburke wrote:
Once again, absurd scope clauses keeping the reigns tightened on small aircraft and small communities.

Thanks ALPA.


Scope protect the consumer as well as the employees. How many times have we seen issues arise on outsourced carriers and the consumer complain about the fact it’s not mainline operated.



I have never in my entire long life heard a friend complain that a plane was operated by an affiliate, and not the mainline. Not once ever. I have had friends complain that airline prices are too high. And scope clauses reduce flexibility, and therefore increase costs.

Scope clauses are good for mainline pilots, but bad for consumers.


Where is the consumer not able to fly as a result of scope clauses? To the consumer it has zero effect.

Re: Republic Airways orders 100 E175 plus 100 options

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 6:08 pm
by PPVRA
bahadir wrote:
stburke wrote:
Once again, absurd scope clauses keeping the reigns tightened on small aircraft and small communities.

Thanks ALPA.
Absurd ?? Yeah right. These airplanes should be flown by mainline pilots. I just hope that they won't cave in more on the scope clauses.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


Then quit complaining and do something about it. Starting with realistic pay scales for smaller aircraft would be a great way to go. Alas, I wonder if pilot unions have the wisdom to accept lower pay scales during a time they enjoy record breaking bargaining power.

If all legacy pilots want to fly is A321s, you're just becoming a giant version of Spirit. You're not hub and spoke without spokes. You're the LCC with the worst cost structure, doomed to shrink as real LCCs continue to rise.

But go ahead, continue to bargain yourselves into an ever shrinking number of larger aircraft. . .until one day you shrink the legacies out of existence, and with it your jobs.

A lot of power is a great thing to have, but remember great and grave mistakes have been made by people with a lot of power.

Re: Republic Airways orders 100 E175 plus 100 options

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 6:14 pm
by MIflyer12
mcdu wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
mcdu wrote:

Scope protect the consumer as well as the employees. How many times have we seen issues arise on outsourced carriers and the consumer complain about the fact it’s not mainline operated.



I have never in my entire long life heard a friend complain that a plane was operated by an affiliate, and not the mainline. Not once ever. I have had friends complain that airline prices are too high. And scope clauses reduce flexibility, and therefore increase costs.

Scope clauses are good for mainline pilots, but bad for consumers.


Where is the consumer not able to fly as a result of scope clauses? To the consumer it has zero effect.


If you're increasing the cost of flying (by limiting the number of economically-efficient jets than can be flown by regional carriers, or mandating mainline flying), you're limiting cities and frequencies. That's bad for consumers.

Re: Republic Airways orders 100 E175 plus 100 options

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 6:16 pm
by tphuang
Midwestindy wrote:
From all indications this will mean growth from Republic rather than sheer replacement of older frames, not sure where the growth will go to but it seems to be the case.

If you believe what cranky flier wrote, then the answer is nowhere. Seems weird to me that they are doing this if legacies are often buying regional jets and placing them with regional carriers.

Re: Republic Airways orders 100 E175 plus 100 options

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 7:30 pm
by Murf
mcdu wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
mcdu wrote:

Scope protect the consumer as well as the employees. How many times have we seen issues arise on outsourced carriers and the consumer complain about the fact it’s not mainline operated.



I have never in my entire long life heard a friend complain that a plane was operated by an affiliate, and not the mainline. Not once ever. I have had friends complain that airline prices are too high. And scope clauses reduce flexibility, and therefore increase costs.

Scope clauses are good for mainline pilots, but bad for consumers.


Where is the consumer not able to fly as a result of scope clauses? To the consumer it has zero effect.



Not sure I'd say scope has zero effect on the consumer... what it has done is give me more choices in when I choose to fly...on a route I fly on frequently, what used to be 2 A320 flights a day in 2002 in 2003 became 4 CRJ 200 flights per day...today it's
2 737's, 2 CRJ 700's and 1 CRJ 200...now...I am not pro CRJ 200... however...it has given the consumer frequency... if mainline can fly the 737's and keep the route frequency the same as when running regional planes... hell yeah... I'm on board for mainline doing all the flying... if not...as the consumer I'm ok with a regional planes as long as I get more than 1 or 2 flight choices per day for the route I'm flying

Re: Republic Airways orders 100 E175 plus 100 options

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 9:17 pm
by mcdu
MIflyer12 wrote:
mcdu wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:

I have never in my entire long life heard a friend complain that a plane was operated by an affiliate, and not the mainline. Not once ever. I have had friends complain that airline prices are too high. And scope clauses reduce flexibility, and therefore increase costs.

Scope clauses are good for mainline pilots, but bad for consumers.


Where is the consumer not able to fly as a result of scope clauses? To the consumer it has zero effect.


If you're increasing the cost of flying (by limiting the number of economically-efficient jets than can be flown by regional carriers, or mandating mainline flying), you're limiting cities and frequencies. That's bad for consumers.


Routes are flown by carries that have much lower compensation than the mainline carrier. Their cost being lower should be a boon for the consumer.

Re: Republic Airways orders 100 E175 plus 100 options

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 9:22 pm
by mcdu
PPVRA wrote:
bahadir wrote:
stburke wrote:
Once again, absurd scope clauses keeping the reigns tightened on small aircraft and small communities.

Thanks ALPA.
Absurd ?? Yeah right. These airplanes should be flown by mainline pilots. I just hope that they won't cave in more on the scope clauses.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


Then quit complaining and do something about it. Starting with realistic pay scales for smaller aircraft would be a great way to go. Alas, I wonder if pilot unions have the wisdom to accept lower pay scales during a time they enjoy record breaking bargaining power.

If all legacy pilots want to fly is A321s, you're just becoming a giant version of Spirit. You're not hub and spoke without spokes. You're the LCC with the worst cost structure, doomed to shrink as real LCCs continue to rise.

But go ahead, continue to bargain yourselves into an ever shrinking number of larger aircraft. . .until one day you shrink the legacies out of existence, and with it your jobs.

A lot of power is a great thing to have, but remember great and grave mistakes have been made by people with a lot of power.


Legacy pilots don’t want to just fly A321’s. In fact UA ALPA has said they want the 175’s in house. Also we have payrates in our current contract to fly those aircraft (E-jet) and including the A200 series. So the contract the company signed would allow the planes to be flown by mainline. Why would they agree to rates that they couldn’t support? Ball is in their court.

Re: Republic Airways orders 100 E175 plus 100 options

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 10:29 pm
by ridgid727
Do the "at risk" flights that SkyWest operate as DL Connection Flights constrict the number of seats the aircraft may have? (although most of these markets couldn't support anything larger than 50 seats) Is it possible for OO to operate at risk using larger aircraft? I also wondered by OO did not step into some of the AS markets that AS is giving up, as an at risk operator. (Perhaps AS does not allow at risk flying) Any other regionals beside OO operate at risk flying on behalf of another carrier (not speaking of EAS flying) ?

Re: Republic Airways orders 100 E175 plus 100 options

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2018 5:58 am
by kitplane01
mcdu wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
mcdu wrote:

Where is the consumer not able to fly as a result of scope clauses? To the consumer it has zero effect.


If you're increasing the cost of flying (by limiting the number of economically-efficient jets than can be flown by regional carriers, or mandating mainline flying), you're limiting cities and frequencies. That's bad for consumers.


Routes are flown by carries that have much lower compensation than the mainline carrier. Their cost being lower should be a boon for the consumer.


What you wrote is true, but not the point.

Right now the system prohibits certain options. Allowing those options would reduce costs. And help the consumers.

In particular, allowing regionals to fly Embrair E2s would reduce costs over forcing them to fly E1s. Other examples are available.

Re: Republic Airways orders 100 E175 plus 100 options

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2018 4:01 pm
by PPVRA
mcdu wrote:
PPVRA wrote:
bahadir wrote:
Absurd ?? Yeah right. These airplanes should be flown by mainline pilots. I just hope that they won't cave in more on the scope clauses.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


Then quit complaining and do something about it. Starting with realistic pay scales for smaller aircraft would be a great way to go. Alas, I wonder if pilot unions have the wisdom to accept lower pay scales during a time they enjoy record breaking bargaining power.

If all legacy pilots want to fly is A321s, you're just becoming a giant version of Spirit. You're not hub and spoke without spokes. You're the LCC with the worst cost structure, doomed to shrink as real LCCs continue to rise.

But go ahead, continue to bargain yourselves into an ever shrinking number of larger aircraft. . .until one day you shrink the legacies out of existence, and with it your jobs.

A lot of power is a great thing to have, but remember great and grave mistakes have been made by people with a lot of power.


Legacy pilots don’t want to just fly A321’s. In fact UA ALPA has said they want the 175’s in house. Also we have payrates in our current contract to fly those aircraft (E-jet) and including the A200 series. So the contract the company signed would allow the planes to be flown by mainline. Why would they agree to rates that they couldn’t support? Ball is in their court.


Throwing it on paper is easy if they had no expectation of ever operating the aircraft in house, and it appeases the union.

If unions fail to bring the 175 in house, it’s their loss as much as the company’s.