Scope Clause: The Regional Airlines' Capacity Cap Explained

[@alaskadrifter]

The efficiency of the new Embraers should be enough to offset the increased labor costs. Also pilot/FA costs are a fraction of ticket prices.

[@StellarEminBS]

As a Turk, I am obviously impressed by your system. There are dozens of airlines operating in my country, Turkey, and most of them fly with Airbus A320 and Boeing 737. I think they made a few trips with the Embraer ERJ series, but they also rented it, it didn't have much life in Turkish airspace. We have never tried Bombardier. We had flown the Avro RJ, but it was replaced by the A320 and B737 after 10 years of service. So Turkey is not very pro-small aircraft.

[@MirzaAhmed89]

This is not a good thing, believe me. It leads to higher fares for passengers.

[@jfmezei]

Checked out the Air Canada scope clause in the 2020 contact. It is more complex because it also has specification for block hosue flown on mainline vs regional, and covers aspects of capacity purchase agreements as well as code sharing. CPA = Capacity Purchase Agreement (aka regionals). SPA, MPA : Small (23) and medium Propellor Aircraft (80 seats) SJA: Small Jet Aircraft defined as having max 55 seats. The exemption to 76 allows the CRJ900 and Embraer 175 as well as the Dash-8-400 to 78 pax. (though MPA at 80 no lonegr exemption since the definition is max 80). 1.10.02.01 CPA carriers are limited to operating the Aircraft Categories specified below and subject to the terms and conditions specified below: 1.10.02.01.01 1.10.02.01.02 CPA carriers may operate any SPA, MPA or SJA equipment. On an exceptional basis, and notwithstanding the Small Jets Settlement Agreement of Mr. Martin Teplitsky of July 12, 2004, and A1.10.02.01.01, CPA carriers may operate MJA configured at a maximum of 76 seats and/or MPA configured at a maximum of 80 seats inclusive of all classes

[@soccerguy2433]

I wish the scope clause MTOW was negotiated higher. Would be great to have more efficient planes flying. The passenger limit shouldn't change much if at all

[@jamestwojames]

They can fly, just have pilots on the main airline’s seniority list flying them. Scope only limits outsourcing to other (lesser paid) carriers.

[@alaskadrifter]

Mainlines are welcome to bring any airframes they want onboard. In fact mainline pilots would be excited to have RJs back in house.

[@ABIAviation]

Why can’t aa just operate the E175-E2 as mainline?

[@pvsmith2]

they could, but that would require a new type and pilot group. they used to operate E190s, and killed the type a couple years ago.

[@nixonvlark6390]

It’s not big enough and would cost more to operate and maintain when using the higher paid mainline pilots mechanics and flight attendants, thus making the cost savings negligible

[@Archduke17]

The ERJ-140 was designed at American Airlines' request to get under their scope clause.

[@MDLC424]

You’re thinking of the CRJ-550

[@Archduke17]

@@MDLC424 - No, the CRJ-550 is with United.

[@jfmezei]

back when regional airlines were separately owned and only operated on small routes to connect to mainline carrier it wasn't a problem. The advent of regional jet where mainline could replace 1 mainline flight with 2 regionals to increase frequecy, it became a problem because the regiuonal carruers were now operatijg what used to be mainline routes. And once the mainline carrier owns the regional, it becomes much easier fo rmainline to play the the games of replacing expensive mainline operatios with chepear reguionals. So mainline unions fought back to protect their jobs. Am curious why this was not an issue in europe and what scope clauses still exist (if any) in Australia.

[@jaysmith1408]

Two things, first, the regional airlines could easily compete with the main lines, since the main line airlines have not shown interest in smaller fields in years, nor do they have the aircraft for it anyways. Second, (just as I was typing this, is was mentioned), couldn’t the mainline carriers just operate the smaller aircraft themselves? Look at Porter and Air Canada, their Embraers are operated in house. When the E2 came out, they went out and bought them. The C-Series sold like hot cakes. And I absolutely cannot stand the CR9. Far too cramped for the size.

[@jaysmith1408]

@@smoketinytom that’s what I’m fishin for, there is a considerable market for the jets, why not operate them in house at the same pay grade (use the union against them), and reap the efficiency gains?

[@willroswell]

Air Canada does not operate the Embraer’s in house. They are operated by Jazz Aviation which is subject to a similar scope clause.

[@jaysmith1408]

@@willroswell I was thinking of the 190’s, and they were in house for the launch 2005-2013. I missed the memo.

[@soccerguy2433]

management tries to lower wage and benefit standards to make its product cheaper -either by driving its own employee costs down or by moving work to a lower-cost entity. Because airline managements compete with each other (unlike employees), management typically tries to avoid consistency of wages, except to match the lowest industry cost.

[@Apollo580]

The 220 series is not a regional airplane. They can do the same distance as a 737 or an A320

[@nixonvlark6390]

As someone who was at a regional fleet. It was a LONGER wait to get to the parent company than it was from an outside carrier

[@ondrejkonopasek9363]

long story short: Its a solution for the problem that never needed to be created but they have done it anyway

[@ronparrish6666]

Would be nice to see the 220 at American Airlines and United been on the Delta and Air Canada 220 and they are a nice plane with the 2 by 3 seating going on Porters 220 to Vegas next month looking forward to it and that's a 5 hour flight from Toronto

[@alexszok-pb8bd]

porter flies the e195 e2, not the 220

[@stickynorth]

I think they are outmoded concept to give a break to the airlines and screw over labor especially when labor is only small fraction of the overall cost of a flight. Fuel and airport surcharges are probably a larger overall part of your ticket.

[@tomoconnell2320]

Most airport surcharges are tied to aircraft weight, are they not?

[@jfmezei]

Labour ia about 1/3 the cost of operating aircraft so it is a big item. The ratio changes depending on fuel prices, but is in the 1/3 ballpark.

[@Dave_Sisson]

Wow, the U.S. is so over regulated. The 'scope clause' would be illegal in most western countries because it is both a restraint of trade and cartel behaviour.

[@soccerguy2433]

Except the airlines would push everything down and wages would fall.

[@soccerguy2433]

management tries to lower wage and benefit standards to make its product cheaper -either by driving its own employee costs down or by moving work to a lower-cost entity. Because airline managements compete with each other (unlike employees), management typically tries to avoid consistency of wages, except to match the lowest industry cost.

[@soccerguy2433]

Most regionals are not competing with the majors but are subsidiaries of the major.

[@mikebaker2436]

You clearly have never dealt with EASA if you think the US is the most regulated western country in terms of aviation.

[@PeterLindstrom-x4w]

How is it cartel behavior? Cartel behavior would be cooperation between airlines (or other businesses) to raise prices. This is a contract between an airline and its employees, represented by a union. I'm not arguing for or against the scope clause. I just don't see how this has anything to do with a cartel.

[@Zfx13]

I’ll never understand American system, always making things harder. I’m a pilot

[@jantjarks7946]

The scope clause makes sure that new and efficient plane types won't be utilized. But that old gas guzzlers are kept flying. The typical nonsense when asocio political interests are more important than rewarding people who keep a company up.

[@soccerguy2433]

Size of the aircraft has nothing to do with "gas guzzlers". The scope clause long predates the newest generation of engines

[@soccerguy2433]

That argument also means a lot of people should just drive to the hub airport instead of taking a regional

[@stickynorth]

The solution is trains. Much more trains. Local, regional, Inter City Express...

[@jantjarks7946]

@@soccerguy2433 I don't know what your comments are having to do with mine. It's neither about the size of a plane, nor about the commute towards an airport.

[@pesawatindonesia]

Beautiful Discover friend Amazing share

[@alexanderlane6007]

Scope clauses should be scrapped

[@KarmaFlight]

All flying should be mainline.

[@lawrencepll76]

A smaller A220 Variant to fit inside the Scope Clause might be a crucial move for Airbus.

[@oiphebal]

that doesn't make any sense. the a220s are much, much larger than the e-jets. the a220-100 has room for up to 130 pax and the -300 for up to 160. their mtow are 140k lb and 156k lb, respectively. there is no way you can remove almost half of your mtow only by making the plane shorter. it would probably be an almost clean sheet design, requiring major rework on wings and tail, and probably adopting another engine family.

[@stickynorth]

I love the A220 but it doesn't need to get any smaller. It's already capable of service from a 5000' ish runway like London City while flying Trans-Atlantic... If anything bring on the 500 level A220 with more seats!

[@oiphebal]

yeah - it would make much more sense in my opinion too.

[@Da__goat]

Unions

[@sainnt]

The scope clause may also be the reason why the US has some of the worst inflight services in the world, but it works both ways. Airline pilots for mainline carriers are well paid, while regional aircraft pilots are paid very little. Some of them barely make more than a McDonald's shift manager. Regional operations allowed for lower airfares in some markets, which has lowered profit margins, but airlines have made up for it by giving passengers very little during flights and charging more fees for everything. In capitalist societies, greed always wins.

[@antoniobellington1588]

If you think the regional pilots don't make enough get ready to learn how regional FAs often work 12 hour days and earn like $100

[@MirzaAhmed89]

What a horribly anti-competitive practice! Forcing passengers to pay more.

[@PakaBubi]

We like to make things complicated innit haha

[@neilpountney9414]

More tail wagging the dog!

[@thomasburke7995]

Airtravel is now a commodity. The SCOPE clause is being used to artificially keep ticket prices inflated. With little to no competition from any sources there is no impatience for the unions to eliminate a rule that benefited only the unions.