CAL To Order Turboprops

[jetjockey#1]

What's the scope clause on props over 50 pax?

 

[groggy]

T-props forever

Yeah, what is wrong with the turboprops!?

 

[Hutchman]

What's the scope clause on props over 50 pax?

There is not a scope on Turbo Props, only Jets.

 

[jonjuan]

There is not a scope on Turbo Props, only Jets.

Oops...Someone at CAL MEC forgot to catch that loophole a few years ago.

 

[nimtz]

Oops...Someone at CAL MEC forgot to catch that loophole a few years ago.

Seemed kind of pointless when Management (with eyes shinning) was talking about EMB-135's replacing 1900's on runs like CLE-SBN, because the awesome RJ draws so many more customers. I'd be glad to see larger t-props on the short runs, especially in EWR since it's about as maxed out as I've ever seen it. Now anything over 59 seats with turbofans on it, no f ing way...

 

[Captzaahlie]

Not to ruin the party or anything, but here goes.....

I fly the Q400 for a scandinavian carrier. We have had the thing since 2000 and we were the launch customer I believe. I have only been on it for about a year and came from the MD80. I bid it for the chance to fly left seat.

It absolutely STINKS!! It is the worst airplane I have ever flown. Oh, the screens are nice and it has alot of power. Granted. But everything else is a disaster. Six years on it is not uncommon to have anywhere from 2 to 6 airplanes grounded on a daily basis(of the 13 airplanes in my base). It breaks down constantly, and for different reasons. Talking to people who have been on it from the get-go, it becomes apparent that nothing has really changed.

I still like my job and I enjoy going to work. It could however, be ALOT more enjoyable if we didn't have to put with constant tech issues, delays and cancellations. It may be cheap to buy and it may be cheap to run(on paper), but it still has to fly to make money.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful......... but maybe it's your maintenance department?

It took ours a while to work out the bugs but after that things got pretty dependable.

 

[terryhfly]

Lynx Aviation will fly the airplanes.

 

[Pig]

I know jet scope is at 50 and I THINK turbo prop scope is at 70, which is why the Q400 would be of interest to CAL.

Also, as Express Jet continues to pull 12 50 seat RJ's out of CAL service each month, being replaced by Chatauqua RJ's, I guess they still need something to replace the capacity Express Jet is keeping.

Scope relief was addressed by CAL to CALALPA but nothing has come of it that I know of, thankfully. At least not yet.

 

[Palomino]

Oops...Someone at CAL MEC forgot to catch that loophole a few years ago.

nope. all part of negotiations.

think our scope has holes? wrong. look around the industry and see the mish-mash of lift providers flying under the UsAir, Delta, etc banners.

we have a lot of loopholes and just plain gaping holes in our deal. scope ain't one of them. we have held strong on scope...to date. hopefully that holds true going forward.

 

[The_Russian]

Not to ruin the party or anything, but here goes.....

I fly the Q400 for a scandinavian carrier. We have had the thing since 2000 and we were the launch customer I believe. I have only been on it for about a year and came from the MD80. I bid it for the chance to fly left seat.

It absolutely STINKS!! It is the worst airplane I have ever flown. Oh, the screens are nice and it has alot of power. Granted. But everything else is a disaster. Six years on it is not uncommon to have anywhere from 2 to 6 airplanes grounded on a daily basis(of the 13 airplanes in my base). It breaks down constantly, and for different reasons. Talking to people who have been on it from the get-go, it becomes apparent that nothing has really changed.

I still like my job and I enjoy going to work. It could however, be ALOT more enjoyable if we didn't have to put with constant tech issues, delays and cancellations. It may be cheap to buy and it may be cheap to run(on paper), but it still has to fly to make money.

The E-120 breaks all the time. But, it is still a bad azz TP.