I'm not sure what you're getting at either Rudder? What is the more perfect solution you're referring to?rudder wrote:The FOS CA allows all of the E190's to be removed from service without replacement. AC has already announced that 20 are leaving the fleet.Fanblade wrote:
To be honest I don't understand why you would think this idea has any chance at all with the ACPA membership. The disconnect puzzles me.
Why would ACPA “sell" their jobs away? Other than greed for a few, the logic defies me.
.... What am I missing?
Likely outcome is replacement on a less that 1:1 basis.
Eventually, the entire 190 fleet will be replaced by a combination of 737's at mainline and 75 seat jets operated by one or a combination of the CPA carriers (the FOS CA allows for another 29 75 seat jets to be operate by CPA carriers.
For the corporation, the current path is an imperfect solution. A more perfect solution might be more attractive. That report that was just issued suggested that ACPA become more introspective. Perhaps now is that opportunity.
No doubt, at some point the EMJ will leave to fleet, their ASM cost isn't competitive. However, as the contract stands any aircraft with more than 76 seats will be flown by ACPA pilots, if they choose to replace the remaining 25 E190's with larger narrow bodies, just like they plan on replacing the 20 Boeing is purchasing, with 10 larger narrow bodies, that's their decision. If the airline wants to pursue cost reductions instead of departure frequency that's a business decision ACPA can't stand in the way of, but if they wish to fly an aircraft with more than 76 seats, it will be done by ACPA pilots. The E190's will not be transferred to Jazz.
The ASM ratio of 100:29 has also been right at the limit since the E175's were transferred to SR, so if Jazz were to start flying more (up to the 60 MJA limit) CRJ705's or replace classic Dash's with more Q400's it would have to come at the expense of existing Tier 2 flying.
ACPA being introspective doesn't seem like a good thing for other pilot groups, I interpret it to mean that they are willing to throw everyone else under the bus if there is a perceived benefit to its members.