I believe it does in fact limit what size planes skywest can fly for any airline

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

They could fly a 747, but they could not fly it on a route that Delta serves. The scope limit is to prevent one of Delta’s regionals from flying a larger plane on their routes, thereby giving their competition a cost advantage.

 

This is not accurate. Delta has a provision that if SkyWest were to fly another aircraft bigger than the weight limit for any other carrier domestically, that it would render their CPA cancellable by Delta.

 

So how did Republic fly for Delta while also flying 190's?

 

Scope is the #1 thing that needs to be locked down. Guarantee AS will ram 190s down Horizons throat, especially when half the pilot group is already type rated. Would only be differences training.

 

That is exactly what promoted the big three to put "control and affiliation" language into their scope. To prevent Republic from doing just that.

they are not even allowed to have the jets on property.

 

Republic had 3 operating certificates.... SkyWest only has one. I think AS would fly 76+ seaters “in house”... i don’t think they would take a chance, letting Horizon try to manage it in this pilot shortage..

 

Contrary to popular belief, the 3 operating certificates isn't what made republic holdings immune (the holding company is what is looked at for the scope), the Republic 190s and other large jets (such as Frontier when they owned them) were specifically exempted by name in the scope clause. Likewise, the Compass E175s were named by serial number as they have their true MTOW vs the other ones that have a lower one to get past the scope limits. It was an oversight to not include in scope limits that the model couldn't have been originally or ever certified for a non compliant weight.

I do think SkyWest COULD operate larger aircraft, but as said otherwise, they couldn't do it on any route that Delta serves. With the Delta buildout in Seattle, I don't think there are nearly enough potential routes, unless AS wanted to give SkyWest everything in Anchorage other than flights to Seattle.

It's been a few months since I actually looked at the nitty gritty of our scope, but that's what I recall from it.

 

This is not correct. DL and UA scope both limit what THEIR express carriers can fly for OTHER major partners. Pretty sure it also limits what they fly under any other circumstances too (ie hang out a shingle and sell their own tickets).

This aspect of the scope was agreeable to both company and union, because neither want to be at a competitive disadvantage from a regional feeder that THEY subsidized over the years to get big enough to do it. Basically they want to keep some control over their Frankenstein's Monster.

Also... the big regionals know darn well which side of their bread is buttered. Practically speaking there's no way they're going to risk annoying the big legacies by even exploring something like this. Nothing to do with unions or scope, but the big-three managers don't want asymmetric competition.

 

If you're talking about Midwest, IIRC that's what prompted the current scope provisions.