This Is What We're Talking About

[Light Years]

E190

That's one BIG-ass airplane to let another airline fly in US colors!

118 ft, 11 inches of outsourcing... It can be configured for up to 106 seats, with a range of 2,200 nautical miles.

As a comparison, a Boeing 737-300 is 109 ft, 7 inches. An A919 is 111 ft.

This plane is longer than the smallest Airbus and Boeing in the US Airways fleet. Sure will look great with US Airways Express- operated by XYZ Airlines on the side. :down: Why would you even NEED a mainline, especially at US, not exactly a big widebody/long haul airline?

JetBlue will fly this plane- as part of the mainline. Northwest flies same size DC9s- as part of the mainline. American flies F100s- as part of the mainline. Airtran flies B717s- as part of the mainline. Frontier flies A318s- as part of the mainline. Wait, a minute, you mean both legacy carriers AND those LCCs we keep hearing about fly thier 100 seaters on the mainline? Even this same exact type? Hmmmm...

On what planet is this an Express plane, especially one to be flown by an outside airline while US employees lose thier jobs and US planes are parked?

When would now be a good time to stop the outsourcing insanity? Tick, tock, tick, tock...

 

[unit4clt]

If the pilots approve this, they'll approve anything!!! the next thing u know they will outsource A320's!!

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Mabey they might outsource USA320Pilot !!!!!!!!!!!

NH/BB's

 

[FM2436]

Sure is a big airplane. And apparent, had the RC4 permitted a vote on Management's final proposal prior to the RC4 forcing bankruptcy, MDA and/or PSA would have been operating all the E190s.

 

[graayf/a]

American no longer flys the F-100. They were sold to an airline in Europe. Last flight was September 06, 2004.

 

[SoldWholeSale]

Those dimensions are actually the ERJ-195, but the 190 is a large airplane. Yes, Jetblue flies them as part of the same fleet as the A320, but starting pay is $29 a flight hour for pilots...... Do we have any mainline pilots who will fly it for that? The highest paid line Captain at MDA won't break $65,000 this year on the ERJ-170 which can be configured for 78 seats or roughly an F-28.

 

[BoeingBoy]

FM2436,

"MDA and/or PSA would have been operating all the E190s."

You shouldn't pay too much attention to what some say. They do tend to spin things to fit an agenda.

The company's Sept 10 proposal would have amended LOA 91 to include the CRJ-900 and Emb-190. You'll remember that LOA 91 was amended in early summer to allow the company the ability to place the "small jets" at W/O'd or affiliates.

It could be said that the current TA is more restrictive on the transfer of the CRJ-900 and Emb-190 than the Sept 10 proposal, but as always, that is subject to the company's intrepretation.

Jim

 

[ua767fo]

FM2436,


It could be said that the current TA is more restrictive on the transfer of the CRJ-900 and Emb-190 than the Sept 10 proposal, but as always, that is subject to the company's intrepretation.

Jim

[post="188264"][/post]​

I was told be a former Allegheny (late 70's pre USAir) MEC chairman that if it "said Allegheny, it should be flown by an Allegheny pilot". Well, the Allegheny pilots no longer wanted to fly 'propellers' with the M404s being parked. This seems to be the final chapter of the result of not following his leadership. That being said:

HOW MANY PILOT LAYOFFS WILL THIS TA RESULT IN? if passed

And what junior (a very relative term) pilot would NOT vote NO?

And lastly, perhaps the discussion of NATIONAL SENIORITY should come up again.

DENVER, CO

 

[ITRADE]

Well, you could have 1x1 seating and be as long as a 767. The cabin layout has driven the length of the plane.

 

[X-U]

Allowing larger and larger aircraft to be flown by contract carriers reveals what "the plan" has always been, creation of a virtual airline. CCY will still exist, but the rest of the jobs will be outsourced. "We can't make the payments on the A-330 deliveries coming due, so we need to allow CHQ and MSA to fly them..." Or, more likely but less dramatic "We can't make the payments on the upcoming A-330 deliveries, so we need to let LH and BMI fly them..."

 

[Rico]

Well, it is not quite what it says.

This TA would allow the company to acqiure and fly up to 60 E-190 (97 seats max)

Now, If the company makes the order, and cannot complete the order, then they are only allowed to have 25 E-190's total, not 60.

If the order cannot be completed, then Airways can sell the E-190's they have already to, or allow an affiliate company complete the order to bring that affiliate up to 25 aircraft.

So basically, If the company keeps the E-190 in house, they can have 60 or them, if not, they can only have 25.

Now the same thing applies to the CRJ-900's too, except they are limited to 90 seats...

IMO they are more likely for the company to apply the "Escape Clause" allowing them to sell off 25 CRJ-900's to Mesa if they are looking to offload assets later on. IF Airways were to fold, Mesa could use the CRJ-900s at America West, while CHQ would have a tough time finding scope relief for flying thier 190's for any of the carriers that they still fly for (DAL, AAL, UAL)

Remember that MDA is actually a cheaper contract than what CHQ or Mesa uses, so between the ability to go up to 60 aircraft (instead of only 25) and our cheaper costs, economic pressure is towards MDA getting and keeping the E-190's if the TA is approved.

Hope that helps

 

[FM2436]

Allowing larger and larger aircraft to be flown by contract carriers reveals what "the plan" has always been, creation of a virtual airline. CCY will still exist, but the rest of the jobs will be outsourced. "We can't make the payments on the A-330 deliveries coming due, so we need to allow CHQ and MSA to fly them..." Or, more likely but less dramatic "We can't make the payments on the upcoming A-330 deliveries, so we need to let LH and BMI fly them..."

[post="188292"][/post]​

X-U

What are you talking about, this reveals what "the plan" has always been? Do you realize who has affected this plan (or last night's TA)? It can be directly attributed to the actions of the RC4. Had the RC4 permitted the pilots to vote on management's last proposal, the flying of all these aircraft would have remained with MDA and/or PSA. Now I know and understand that TA's can be amended, but had the RC4 authorized a vote on management's last proposal prior to bankruptcy, and the proposal was approved and the company still declared bankruptcy, wouldn't that have offered a piece of paper (evidence) available to the pilots that management once again broke its promises when the pilots are to go before the Judge?

"The Plan" was to originally keep the E190 at MDA and/or PSA, but apparently, the RC4 would not permit that plan to be carry forward. As a result it truns out that the actions of the RC4, whether they realized it or not, created "the current plan," or last nights TA, allowing contract carriers to have the opportunity to operate those aircraft under the US Airways colors.

 

[BoeingBoy]

FM2436,

""The Plan" was to originally keep the E190 at MDA and/or PSA"

Long on propaganda but short on facts.

EVERY proposal the company made revised LOA 91 to include the Emb-190 and CRJ-900. Most included the Emb-195 as well.

That does not seem to be that difficult to understand, but I'm continually amazed at the "spin" of some....

Jim

 

[AAviator]

How do they fit into the plan? Do they replace narrow body hub flying, or are they a point to point vehicle?

 

[Light Years]

Those dimensions are actually the ERJ-195, but the 190 is a large airplane....Do we have any mainline pilots who will fly it for that?

[post="188260"][/post]​

No they are not. The E195 is 126 ft, 10 inches. It seats up to 116. Like I said, the E190 is 118 ft, 11 inches.

And seeing as there are 250 pilots and 250 F/As already flying for MDA, 500 crewmembers, and more awaiting class dates/deliveries, my bet is yes, plenty of laid off mainline employees would be happy to fly it.