JetService From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4798 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2109 times:
Here is my understanding...
Airlines like putting RJs on feeder routes because customers simply like them more than turbo-props. Better product. Makes sense. Logical and harmless.
Mainline pilots fear airlines will go beyond that and start replacing legitimate mainline routes with RJs because they will save money. Fair and reasonable concern if you ask me.
So to protect their livlihood, a scope-clause prevents/limits airlines from replacing mainline routes with RJs. The problem is, it also prevents/limits them from putting them on feeder routes. I doubt if pilots intend this, probably an unfortunate by-product of the language of the clause because it is a sweeping limitation on RJs.
I've been saying for a long time that scope clauses should specify routes or at the very least, the size of an airport. In other words, the language could say something like: ---No more than ten 50-seat or less RJs on any routes from large hub or non-hub airports; fifty RJs on routes that include medium non-hub airports and unlimited on small non-hub airports.--- Or even something in the realm of: ---limits on mainline routes but no limits on routes that include cities that have not seen mainline service in the last 10 years.
Anyway, you get the idea. Scope clauses are frustrating to me too because they are too broad and prevent something that is no threat to mainline jobs, but good for all. I just don't understand why they don't specify. It would allow airlines to place RJs on feeder routes and compete for customers while preventing them from raiding mainline routes. Someone tell me why this angle would not work!!!!
Purdue Arrow From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1574 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2107 times:
The points made by JetService are good, and are actually addressed by at least one airline. The TA between Delta and ALPA does set such specifications into the scope clause. I'm not sure I recall the exact numbers, but the following things are included in scope under the TA:
* At least 85% of RJ legs must be less than 900 miles
* No more than 10% of RJ legs may be hub-to-hub
* RJs may not fly routes that are shown to be profitable with mainline equipment
As I said, I'm not sure that the numbers are exactly right (i.e. 85%/90%), but they are close. I don't have the language of the TA in front of me, but I will have access to it again this afternoon to confirm the specific limits.
Rjnut From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1220 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2083 times:
I have the answer!!!
The current distribution sytems...i.e. travel agent Reservations computers, currently are biased towards "on-line" connnections, hence was the need for code-sharing ,which then became an issue as far as labor is concerned... The technology is now available so that the Majors could sell "joint flight connections' thru their hubs, utilizing independently coded and owned regionals...avoiding code-sharing and not requiring joint ownership of these smaller companies...these companies could then buy as many planes as they want and could feed whomever they prefer..so the major gets the feed and the independent could pursue all types of opportunites...Mesa comes closest to this scenario
Airlines like Vanguard and AIr Tran and Frontier could truly benefit from regional jets , as they have no scope clauses