I need help with understanding something about scope. I understand the airline's point of view that RJs make service more attractive on feeder routes thus attracting more pax who will likely then connect and get on a mainline jet. I can also understand how the mainline pilots want to make sure the airline doesn't replace traditional mainline routes with cheaper RJ service. And I understand how scope basically tells airlines how many RJs they can deploy under a feeder name.
So while scope protects mainline routes, at the same time it drives pax from medium and smaller markets to competitors that are using RJs.
To me a simple solution would be to define scope by routes. Pilots and management could get together and define RJ limitation route-by-route.
ORD-MCO, DTW-MIA, SFO-DFW, etc, etc - absolutely no RJS!!!
ORD-MCI, DTW-IND, SFO-MSY, etc, etc - 2 daily RJ max
DEN-FWA, CLE-GRR, SFO-TUC, etc, etc - unlimited RJs
(I'm just throwing routes out there as example, so please don't dispute them. That's what would be negotiated.)
Airline's get to put RJs on those precious feeder routes they need so badly while mainline routes can be protected.
Can someone please explain what I am missing and why this would be so illogical? Thanks!
Disclaimer: I'm admittedly not very knowledgable on this issue, so please don't be nasty.