Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
OA940
Topic Author
Posts: 1990
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:18 am

Scope clause question

Tue Jul 17, 2018 7:45 pm

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, scope clauses are really a thing only in the US. My question is: why do they exist? As far as aircraft go, the limitations as far as the US3 are concerned really limit their options. Why is there a weight limit on a certain category of aircraft? That just seems stupid. I can get why you'd wanna limit the amount of aircraft an airline orders, but there seems to be no reasoning behind the weight limitations. Basically in 10-15 years when the bulk of E175s of US carriers need replacing, the E2 won't be an option because it's too heavy? I do realise that the contracts can be renegotiated, but still, the weight limit doesn't make sense.
A350/CSeries = bae
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 3018
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Scope clause question

Tue Jul 17, 2018 7:57 pm

See this topic for some help:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1372619

For added commentary from myself: This is just another way that passengers are currently put at a disservice.
Last edited by trpmb6 on Tue Jul 17, 2018 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
slider
Posts: 7626
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

Re: Scope clause question

Tue Jul 17, 2018 8:01 pm

In short, they're a construct of collective bargaining over the years.
 
bigb
Posts: 1134
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Re: Scope clause question

Tue Jul 17, 2018 8:01 pm

Weight limit is there to prevent mainline from outsourcing bigger jets. Without the weight limit, then mainline can use the E2s at the regional level (cheaper labor) to fly longer distances therefore displacing mainline jobs.
 
windy95
Posts: 2782
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

Re: Scope clause question

Tue Jul 17, 2018 8:07 pm

Most scope clauses are by seats and not weight. They protect the mainline employees from having to many routes farmed out to subsidiaries for cheaper labor. Some maintenance scope clauses are also worded to say if mainline pilots fly it then they will be the ones fixing it.
 
User avatar
SierraPacific
Posts: 435
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am

Re: Scope clause question

Tue Jul 17, 2018 8:09 pm

It is because unlike other airlines in different parts of the world, The Big 3 are perfectly fine being booking agencies with no real flights of there own. The Delta JV network is a great example of this where most overseas flying booked on Delta.com is not going to be flown on Delta metal outside of ICN, AMS, and LHR. The scope clause prevents an airline from completely outsourcing domestic flying. It is widely considered the most important part of a pilot contract since it is the sole document that prevents United, for example, contracting Expressjet to fly 737's in a United paint scheme while paying a captain 70k a year while a United captain would make 280k a year. The weight limits were arbitrarly set back in the day to prevent that and keep regionals flying regional routes. Regionals back in the day used to fly from Memphis to Little Rock whereas now they fly 4 hour legs quite regularly which destroys the pilot career since mainline jobs (highest paying and most stable) shrink with the growth of regional airlines. Alaska has no scope (as far as I know) and pretty much all flying growth in the past 5 years has been through low paying outsourced E 175's which is a problem that a good scope clause prevents.
 
nmdrdh787
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:39 am

Re: Scope clause question

Tue Jul 17, 2018 8:27 pm

SierraPacific wrote:
It is because unlike other airlines in different parts of the world, The Big 3 are perfectly fine being booking agencies with no real flights of there own. The Delta JV network is a great example of this where most overseas flying booked on Delta.com is not going to be flown on Delta metal outside of ICN, AMS, and LHR. The scope clause prevents an airline from completely outsourcing domestic flying. It is widely considered the most important part of a pilot contract since it is the sole document that prevents United, for example, contracting Expressjet to fly 737's in a United paint scheme while paying a captain 70k a year while a United captain would make 280k a year. The weight limits were arbitrarly set back in the day to prevent that and keep regionals flying regional routes. Regionals back in the day used to fly from Memphis to Little Rock whereas now they fly 4 hour legs quite regularly which destroys the pilot career since mainline jobs (highest paying and most stable) shrink with the growth of regional airlines. Alaska has no scope (as far as I know) and pretty much all flying growth in the past 5 years has been through low paying outsourced E 175's which is a problem that a good scope clause prevents.


Oh please. Scope erosion is not the thing destroying pilots careers.

The traveling public's demand for low prices, FAA hours rules, cost of schooling, etc are. If AS could make a dime flying the 175 routes with mainline, don't you think they would?

Gotta take everything into perspective.
 
WkndWanderer
Posts: 291
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:36 pm

Re: Scope clause question

Tue Jul 17, 2018 8:48 pm

SierraPacific wrote:
It is because unlike other airlines in different parts of the world, The Big 3 are perfectly fine being booking agencies with no real flights of there own. The Delta JV network is a great example of this where most overseas flying booked on Delta.com is not going to be flown on Delta metal outside of ICN, AMS, and LHR. The scope clause prevents an airline from completely outsourcing domestic flying. It is widely considered the most important part of a pilot contract since it is the sole document that prevents United, for example, contracting Expressjet to fly 737's in a United paint scheme while paying a captain 70k a year while a United captain would make 280k a year. The weight limits were arbitrarly set back in the day to prevent that and keep regionals flying regional routes. Regionals back in the day used to fly from Memphis to Little Rock whereas now they fly 4 hour legs quite regularly which destroys the pilot career since mainline jobs (highest paying and most stable) shrink with the growth of regional airlines. Alaska has no scope (as far as I know) and pretty much all flying growth in the past 5 years has been through low paying outsourced E 175's which is a problem that a good scope clause prevents.


You've effectively painted a backward picture of how joint venture flying actually works in your description...if you're flying to or through ICN, CDG, LHR, or AMS on a Delta ticket, you're much MORE likely to be flying on a JV partner...if you're going to any of Delta's other non-JV hub intercontinental destinations you're much more likely to be flying on Delta. I have no clue if you looked at the mainline growth numbers before you made your comments about Alaska's growth before you posted them, but saying that "pretty much all the flying growth" has been on regional partners is totally untrue. Alaska mainline's ASM's grew ~19% in the two years before their merger and another 6.9% in the first year after their merger for the combined mainline carriers. They have used the E175 to open up or mature new, thinner mid-con markets that they previously had zero market presence in that couldn't support the mainline gauge size or cost base out of the gate. You may think that's a "problem" if you're a mainline pilot who thinks that should be "their" flying, but if you're actually a community that has gained new non-stop service that you otherwise wouldn't have gotten into a new longer and thinner market that wouldn't have been launched on a 739 you probably don't see it that way. There is a place for regional and CPA flying, but there is also a balance to be struck between allowing for network flexibility in terms of gauge and service cost, and still ensuring mainline flying continues in places that can justify it and isn't supplanted solely to undercut costs in markets that would still otherwise be served...that's what a good scope clause should aim to do in my opinion.
 
User avatar
SierraPacific
Posts: 435
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am

Re: Scope clause question

Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:54 pm

nmdrdh787 wrote:
SierraPacific wrote:
It is because unlike other airlines in different parts of the world, The Big 3 are perfectly fine being booking agencies with no real flights of there own. The Delta JV network is a great example of this where most overseas flying booked on Delta.com is not going to be flown on Delta metal outside of ICN, AMS, and LHR. The scope clause prevents an airline from completely outsourcing domestic flying. It is widely considered the most important part of a pilot contract since it is the sole document that prevents United, for example, contracting Expressjet to fly 737's in a United paint scheme while paying a captain 70k a year while a United captain would make 280k a year. The weight limits were arbitrarly set back in the day to prevent that and keep regionals flying regional routes. Regionals back in the day used to fly from Memphis to Little Rock whereas now they fly 4 hour legs quite regularly which destroys the pilot career since mainline jobs (highest paying and most stable) shrink with the growth of regional airlines. Alaska has no scope (as far as I know) and pretty much all flying growth in the past 5 years has been through low paying outsourced E 175's which is a problem that a good scope clause prevents.


Oh please. Scope erosion is not the thing destroying pilots careers.

The traveling public's demand for low prices, FAA hours rules, cost of schooling, etc are. If AS could make a dime flying the 175 routes with mainline, don't you think they would?

Gotta take everything into perspective.


Do you really think that if United could not get Mesa (or any terrible regional) to fly a 767 on regional rates and with regional airline level benefits? The Profit Margins on subcontracting is much higher than flying an Alaska crewed 737 so of course Alaska would rather fly grow ERJ's compared to their own fleet. Just look on Airline Pilot Central to get an idea how much pilots and flight attendants need scope. The regionals are an easy whipsaw that scope prevents and hopefully forces big airlines to bring E 175's and CRJ's to mainline and staffed by mainline crews. I am currently in the process of becoming an airline pilot in America so I know about the cost of schooling and while high is easily justifiable by the wages earned it makes sense but regional airlines (not really regional anymore) absolutely kill any reason to do anything career-wise related to aviation. The piloting profession currently is looking the best it has looked in 30 years because regionals are finally getting beat back to regional routes and they are starving for pilots. Regional airlines that fly mainline routes are cancer to aviation and scope clauses effectively prevent them from spreading. Ask any regional pilot today if they would want scope relaxation and every one of them would say absolutely not since it destroys career progression.


Regionals are good for CEO's since they can outsource everything to cheap labor but bad for anyone who works for a mainline airline.
 
User avatar
SierraPacific
Posts: 435
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am

Re: Scope clause question

Tue Jul 17, 2018 10:05 pm

WkndWanderer wrote:
SierraPacific wrote:
It is because unlike other airlines in different parts of the world, The Big 3 are perfectly fine being booking agencies with no real flights of there own. The Delta JV network is a great example of this where most overseas flying booked on Delta.com is not going to be flown on Delta metal outside of ICN, AMS, and LHR. The scope clause prevents an airline from completely outsourcing domestic flying. It is widely considered the most important part of a pilot contract since it is the sole document that prevents United, for example, contracting Expressjet to fly 737's in a United paint scheme while paying a captain 70k a year while a United captain would make 280k a year. The weight limits were arbitrarly set back in the day to prevent that and keep regionals flying regional routes. Regionals back in the day used to fly from Memphis to Little Rock whereas now they fly 4 hour legs quite regularly which destroys the pilot career since mainline jobs (highest paying and most stable) shrink with the growth of regional airlines. Alaska has no scope (as far as I know) and pretty much all flying growth in the past 5 years has been through low paying outsourced E 175's which is a problem that a good scope clause prevents.


You've effectively painted a backward picture of how joint venture flying actually works in your description...if you're flying to or through ICN, CDG, LHR, or AMS on a Delta ticket, you're much MORE likely to be flying on a JV partner...if you're going to any of Delta's other non-JV hub intercontinental destinations you're much more likely to be flying on Delta. I have no clue if you looked at the mainline growth numbers before you made your comments about Alaska's growth before you posted them, but saying that "pretty much all the flying growth" has been on regional partners is totally untrue. Alaska mainline's ASM's grew ~19% in the two years before their merger and another 6.9% in the first year after their merger for the combined mainline carriers. They have used the E175 to open up or mature new, thinner mid-con markets that they previously had zero market presence in that couldn't support the mainline gauge size or cost base out of the gate. You may think that's a "problem" if you're a mainline pilot who thinks that should be "their" flying, but if you're actually a community that has gained new non-stop service that you otherwise wouldn't have gotten into a new longer and thinner market that wouldn't have been launched on a 739 you probably don't see it that way. There is a place for regional and CPA flying, but there is also a balance to be struck between allowing for network flexibility in terms of gauge and service cost, and still ensuring mainline flying continues in places that can justify it and isn't supplanted solely to undercut costs in markets that would still otherwise be served...that's what a good scope clause should aim to do in my opinion.


I agree but Delta's route map has shrunk quite considerably overseas. This is from JV's and why Delta's 2020 pilot contract is going to be quite a doozie of a battle. I would compare the international route maps of Delta post-NW merger to now it has shrunk a ton overseas. I personally believe that regional carriers should be regional carriers not flights from Portland to St Louis. I would have no problems with communities gaining service if the crew of the flight with chester the eskimo on the tail was also on Alaska seniority list. My opinion is that rates should be negotiated for the 175's and CRJ9 at the mainline level so it isn't just being outsourced to scumbag operators that skimp on the bare necessities. I think that would be a huge step in the right direction and be beneficial to the company (since they could fly ERJ's as much as they want), pilots (everyone is on seniority list), and recruiting (better career path which is very desirable in the current recruiting environment).
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5087
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Scope clause question

Tue Jul 17, 2018 10:34 pm

windy95 wrote:
Most scope clauses are by seats and not weight. They protect the mainline employees from having to many routes farmed out to subsidiaries for cheaper labor. Some maintenance scope clauses are also worded to say if mainline pilots fly it then they will be the ones fixing it.

The Latest scope clauses are by seat count AND Max Gross weight. Which is why the E-175 and NOT the E173E2 can be flown in Regional service and all are limited to 76 seats.
 
AAirbusCA
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2016 12:08 pm

Re: Scope clause question

Fri Jul 20, 2018 12:33 am

Weight is important to Scope clauses to prevent management from operating mainline aircraft at their regional partners by reducing the number of seats. For example, if the BA 318 used from London City were operated by AA, it would have to be operated by mainline, because even though the seats may meet the Scope requirements, the gross weight doesn’t. Gross weight limits are extremely important to protecting mainline jobs in the USA and will, IMO, never be negotiated away.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos