Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
How To Get Rid Of Scope Clouses?  
User currently offlineKUGN From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 615 posts, RR: 6
Posted (13 years 2 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2127 times:

I'm reading about all these limitations on major and feeder/regionals regarding scope closes on the sizes of aircrafts in US. This is frustrating to me.

How could this be eliminated?

What would airlines have to do in order to be able to fully maximize potential of today's technology available on the market?

I'm talking about purchasing full sized CRJs, ERJs, AVROs, and future Dorniers.

Why not open the gates, and start more point to point services. If regionals can order quantities like 50, 100 or 200 airframes, certainly there is market need and business potential.

I think if scope clauses were scrapped, it would benefit everyone - more aircrafts, more demand for pilots, more point to point services, less pressure on congestion points.

Who or what is keeping us from progress here?

5 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBoiler Special From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 135 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (13 years 2 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2085 times:

"Who or what is keeping us from progress here?"

The fact that the only people who wouldn't benefit are the mainline pilots.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Most likely you will fail to see the day when scope clauses are eliminated from a union contract.

-Kevin


User currently offlineJetService From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4798 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (13 years 2 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2082 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!!!!



"Shaddap you!"
User currently offlinePurdue Arrow From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1574 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (13 years 2 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2080 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.


User currently offlineRjnut From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1210 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (13 years 2 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2056 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
ut


User currently offlinePurdue Arrow From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1574 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (13 years 2 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2036 times:

Corrections/addendums to what I worte before re:DL:

* At least 85% of Delta Connection flight segments under 900 statute miles.

* At least 90% of Delta Connection flight segments to operate to or from hubs.

* No more than 6% of Delta Connection flight segments may be hub to hub (exception for TPA, MCO, FLL operations).


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
AS To Get Rid Of Free Meals On Mid-Cons posted Mon Jul 17 2006 06:10:12 by RwSEA
NW To Get Rid Of Ten A319s? posted Tue Jun 27 2006 17:13:54 by Flying Belgian
DL To Get Rid Of It's 767-200s And 737-200s? posted Sun Nov 7 2004 18:57:31 by CLT18R
Biman Wants To Get Rid Of F-28 - Month Old posted Sun Jul 25 2004 18:32:09 by GF-A330
Gulf Air Future Plans - To Get Rid Of Widebodies posted Sun Mar 24 2002 18:04:12 by GF-A330
AA To Get Rid Of TWA 717's By End Of The Year? posted Wed Jan 30 2002 05:04:26 by Westjet_8
United Planning To Get Rid Of Their 747s? posted Sat Dec 15 2001 02:52:22 by 2cn
Gulf Air To Get Rid Of A340s And A320s posted Sat Dec 1 2001 01:43:34 by GF-A330
Brittania To Get Rid Of 'Warrior Queen' posted Wed Aug 29 2001 19:17:33 by Jaspike
American To Get Rid Of MD-80s? posted Sun Sep 17 2000 23:24:11 by ILUV767