Originally Posted by
LeineLodge
In light of the recurring rumor that a Scope trade-off is being negotiated, I thought it would be informative to pin down exactly what is wrong with our Top End Scope: JV/Codeshare/Revenue Sharing/Cabotage/Foreign Ownership/etc.
It appears that we all have a good grasp on RJ scope and that's good. However, I've noticed that pilots are a lot less clear on our upper end scope protections, or lack thereof. If we are going to be engaging in some sort of Scope trade, then we need to understand the value of the pieces in play. This way we'll be able to better evaluate any potential risk vs. reward of playing ball on "just a few more 76 seaters" or whatever the offer ends up being.
I'm the first to admit that I don't know enough to make an informed decision on that end of the Scope spectrum. With the resident experts around here (ACL, George, Gloopy, Sailing, FTB . . .) I'm hoping we can put together a plain English version of our biggest threats and what would constitute a worthwhile trade.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm loathe to accept 1 single more RJ, but if the payback is so significant on the top end that it makes good business sense to patch the "gaping holes" that I keep hearing about, then I think we owe it to ourselves to understand what we're dealing with here.
Maybe I'm naive but...
I can't believe what I'm reading! How eroded has this industry become because of statements just like that?
The worst part is that there may be people from this thread on the radio broadcasting snide remarks about all the RJs you see lined up for takeoff ahead of you.
You want to talk strategy? Try this: Don't give up one more aircraft or seat in scope. Convince your company that they should right size the aircraft to the market. An E-190 sized aircraft makes good sense in certain markets. Flown by pilots at your airline, aircraft like that will help return this industry to stronger proffitts. If a 76 seater is truely needed in certain markets then it should be a good fit to put a 175 where needed as it is a common type with the 190 and shares 90 percent common parts with the 190. It appears to be working well for Air Canada. Then, begin the process of removing the 50 seat jet. It never really made sense and it certainly doesn't now with fuel costing as much as it does. Explore the possibilities of larger turboprops.
Last and most importantly, please don't consider the idea of giving up additional scope an option.
I'm looking forward to hearing your constructive ideas on how to increase proffittability and raise top end wages to what they should be.