Originally Posted by
minimwage4
No in all honesty I just don't understand that weight limit. If you're concerned with "jobs", it doesn't make a difference in the MRJs case as it's the equivalent of a CRJ9 or 175 in seats and pretty much weight but slightly over.
The people who wrote scope found out the hard way over time that management would find work-arounds to the original intent. It's not about number of pax, it's about revenue potential. The original theory behind outsourced flying was that small airplanes did not generate enough revenue to support mainline payscales, but they were necessary to feed the hubs. They were supposed to supplement, not replace mainline flying.
For example, scope often limits the airplane based on how it is CERTIFIED, vice how it is OPERATED. Example, if you put 70 seats in a 90 seat airplane, and now have capacity for a premium class and some cargo then you can make more money on that plane. Now the company is getting the economic benefit of a "larger" airplane even though it falls under a certain seat count.
In fact Bombardier certified a version of the CRJ 700 at a slightly lower weight than the normal 700, solely for the purpose of getting under a certain major's scope. This was not a design change at all, just a paper-work drill...new type number and new MGTOW. This was done to satisfy a scope clause.
Scope is all about limiting revenue at the regional level...that can include number of pax, cargo, premium pax, and even range. If mainline can make more money with RJ's, they will use them to replace mainline flying or potential mainline growth.
Bobman knows what he's talking about.