Future Scope
 

Thought you guys may find this interesting/scary. I would hope that mainline ALPA holds scope where it is right now...many say its gotten out of control just getting to 76 six seats. Im sure J.O. is probably sharing the same thoughts as this guy... Taken from http://www.atwonline.com/news/other....=5%2F28%2F2007

Republic Airways President and CEO Bryan Bedford said the regional is "definitely looking" at larger jets, specifically E-190s and CRJ1000s, if it can find interested customers. "I think there is an opportunity out there. We are looking out at least two years for where the opportunity will be," he said at last week's Regional Airline Assn. conference in Memphis. But he pointed out that it is difficult to assess the prospects for larger aircraft because it is unclear if existing scope clauses will allow the operation of aircraft beyond the 70-seat range. "I think everybody is looking at the 190 and the CRJ1000. The question is, who will fly them?"

You know, ALPA could have held the line years ago and put the RJs on mainline property. However the guys that are long since retired were more concerned with hourly rates and pensions which are in some cases long gone as well.

I like to mention this when I'm told that it's our (low timers) fault that we're flying 70 seats for 50 seat rates which are really the same as 19 seat rates.

Actually if you do a little bit of reading, the manufactures pitch it to the majors first, then management pitch it to the pilot groups, and one by one they all said that the 50 seaters were too small for them to fly....five years later, there's an overwhelming amount of regional jets about the place and 70 seaters start coming into the picture. Ten years later we are where we are. At the end of the day the union can only do so much, it was left up to the manipulation of management and the lack of foresight on behalf of the guys at the majors in the mid 90's. CAL held the line and continues to hold it, but outside of that realm all the other players can do now is hold the line at 75 seats or whatever they gave in on.

If you ask me, anything with jet engines should have gone to mainline, but I guess those guys were just too good for them.

Continental's scope is everything over 50 is mainline (for jets). However, are they allowed unlimited number of turboprop's?? If so, that is a huge problem. The Q400's can hold 76 seats, and they are equally as capable as any jet. And now they are being flown at Colgan for less pay than any 50 seat operator!! Less than Mesa and less than GoJet. And for more seats. It is really sad!!

With the exception of Continental's turbo prop clause...
Continental scope is everything above 50
American's scope is everything above 70
United's scope is everything above 70.

Delta's scope is everything above 76
Northwest's scope is everything above 76
I think US Air is everything above 86!:eek: Not sure, but I know the Mesa CRJ-900's hold a lot!! And they are starting to bring EMB-175's online at Republic!:mad:


Continental should be the model. Everything above 50 seats should be at mainline. However, Continental should work to protect mainline flying from advanced turboprops (like the Q400) (in a perfect world). United and American should hold it at 70 seats. This is probably the realistic goal. Everything above 70 seats should be mainline.

The problem is with Delta, Northwest, and US Air. While 6 seats doesn't sound like much, it is a big deal! These airlines are flying CRJ-900's and EMB-175's (that can hold about 86), but they are only flying them with 76 seats (12 first class, 64 coach). That allows them to make more revenue without more pay. In the upcoming negotiations, Delta, Northwest, and US Air should try to make everything over 70 seats mainline. There are not that many 71-76 seat aircraft flying at regionals YET! Yet is the key word. They need to act soon. Otherwise the precident will be set and we will be stuck with 90 seat aircraft at the regionals!!!

ryane,

Great post, I agree with almost everything you said, except I'd argue the scope should be based on distance as well. Any flight over 90 min ought to be flown by mainline pilots, regardless of size a/c.

Let's not all panic at once here...

If you understand all the issues and dynamics you'll see that there are major obstacles to regionals operating jets with more than 76 seats(or 90 in a few cases). Think carefully...no US regional/commuter that I know of has attempted to operate mainline aircrfaft since the advent of the RJ (with one exception).

There are three ways this could happen:

A) A stand-alone branded operation. Reason it is unlikely: Might work on a small scale serving very limited niche markets which do not compete with a major partner. This is what Xjet is trying to do, and they may be able to pull it off with small ERJ'S. But if they try it with anything larger, it will be VERY hard to find markets where:
1) They don't compete with CAL and/or DAL. If they do this they will get fired, and will lose their REAL source of income. Most regionals have two or more major partners, which makes it hard to avoid stepping on somebodies toes.
2) They don't compete with SWA, because theywill get their @ss totally kicked. If you think you can operate a narrowbody somewhere, SW is already there waiting for you :eek:


B) A traditional regional-style pay-for-lift agreement (like RJ's but with bigger planes). The reason it won't happen: Scope prevents this, and hopefully the big boys have wised up and will hold the line. I think they will. It would be nice if big t-props were better accounted for, but ultimately they are slow compared to a 75 or a Bus and would not be used for long-range service.


C) A combination of the two...a branded operation functioning as a code-share with a major partner. This almost happened with mesa and legacy Airways during the BK proceedings in 2003/2004. JO wanted to operate "branded" 737's out of PIT with a US Airways "codeshare". They were going to use BK to get around scope and sell it to the judge as a "codeshare". Mesa alpa refused to fly 73's for RJ rates, so JO backed out. This is hard to accomplish because you still have to get around scope, which allows legit codeshares but would not sit still for regional lift disguised as a codeshare.

Look at all of the recent narrowbody entrants: JetBlue, Virgin America, and SkyBus...all start-up operations who had no pre-existing industry relationships.

Regionals operating bigger airplanes is not really something to worry about. I'd spend more time worrying about Virgin & Skybus, but the good news there is that it's REAL hard to break into the mainline business (see JetBlue). You are going to blow BILLIONS of dollars for a historical 1% chance at long-term success.

The CAL scope is actually for 59 seats, not 50.

Not totally accurate. There is one carrier that is allowed to operate a set amount of aircraft over 70 seats for United...but it is a grandfathered clause.

is that AirWis.. I remeber reading somewhere in the United contract on that but not sure. I think it refered to the Avro's. No more than 18 i think..

Your guess is as good as mine...