This is the closest question and answer from the TA website on a scope concern

Does our Scope clause protect us from having regional airlines doing Spirit flying? I’ve heard that SkyWest and Trans States have the Mitsubishi MRJ on order with no customer.

No other carrier, regional, or otherwise can do Spirit’s flying, except if Spirit contracts out to have it performed. Such contracting would be subject to the time limits and circumstances in Section 1.B.2. Spirit could, perhaps, code share with a regional carrier using the MRJ. However, in a typical code share agreement the carrier doing the flying keeps 99% of the revenue and, as with contracting out, there is no reason for Spirit to give up revenue from a profitable route just to have a regional carrier perform it using equipment with less seating capacity. Fee for service arrangements would be even more impractical because Spirit would not only be losing much of the revenue from the flying, they would be paying to have another carrier do flying Spirit that could do profitably, or for passenger feed – something Spirit has never done and which would make no sense.

Finally, Spirit could acquire a regional carrier that used Mitsubishi aircraft. However, the Mitsubishi (at 88,000 pounds) is above the weight limits for regional aircraft as defined in Section 1.BL of the TA and, therefore, any growth in flying performed by a carrier using the Mitsubishi would have to be accompanied by comparable growth in Spirit flying.



My question:

1. A fee for service agreement (CPA) is not structured like a typical codeshare agreement. Do fee for service agreements (CPAs) fall under the protections of 1.B.2 (90 day) or 1.B.3 (codesharing). Art had said codesharing which means unlimited in size of aircraft and amount.

2. If fee for service agreements are not profitable why does every legacy carrier use them up to their max allowable limit by their pilots scope clause? Why do they constantly seek to increase the size of aircraft and amount of these agreements through scope concessions? Why did the united pilots implement the “scope choke” in their last contract? Surely the entire domestic network cannot be unprofitable and just feed for the only profitable Intl flying. We have no size or volume restrictions on this type of agreement if it falls under 1.B.3. We just can’t be reduced.

Spirit may have not done this before but it doesn’t mean they won’t when the time is right. It doesn’t have to be RJs which currently don’t match the high density model. The legacies use “RJs” because it’s whats allowed by pilots scope. Is the E175 really an Rj anyway? It could be MRJs, Cseries, E190/E195s, 737/320s. If the argument is because we are not hub and spoke I’d say the closer to the Airbus it is the less it’s about feed and the more it’s about replacement. FLL is also largely hub and spoke and our largest station.

The other carriers have pages upon pages on this topic because it bit them before they knew how bad it could be. Is Spirit just so different that it couldn’t happen and we are wasting our time to insure against it or have we and I’m just not understanding. Am I just crazy to think this?