Justdoinmyjob

Then you should know what scope clauses are.

sulkair

WHY? What am I missing? Forget about the topic, can you just tell me why it can't even be responded to?

I'm honestly in the dark here guys. Is it too of an emotional topic to even broach? What?

I understand it isn't as simple as I laid it out, but sometimes things can be deconstructed to a few simple common denominators, just to facilitate discussion? No?

sulkair

Of course I know what they are. Are they always bullet proof?

You didn't misinterpret that I'm advocating for this did you?

Bozo

Might you be talking about:

C. SCOPE

D. Scope Exception: Commuter Air Carriers and Commuter Aircraft at Non-owned Air Carriers

1. Commuter Air Carriers, Non-owned Air Carriers that operate Commuter
Aircraft, and Section 1 Limitations.

a. The Company or an Affiliate may create, acquire, maintain an equity
position in, enter into franchise type agreements with, and/or codeshare
with a Commuter Air Carrier, and flying by any such Commuter Air Carrier
shall not be subject to the limitations of Section 1.C. above, so long as any
such Commuter Air Carrier operates in accordance with the limitations set
forth in this Section 1.D.

b. The Company may codeshare with and/or enter into franchise type
agreements with non-owned Air Carriers that operate both (a) Commuter
Aircraft and (b) aircraft that are not Commuter Aircraft.with respect to
Commuter Aircraft operated by such non-owned Air Carriers and so long as
any such Commuter Aircraft are operated in accordance with the limitations
set forth in this Section 1.D.

c. The term “franchise type agreement” includes any agreement or
arrangement with an Air Carrier that permits (i) that Air Carrier to use on
Commuter Aircraft the Company name, trademarks, trade name, logo,
livery (as provided in Section 1.F.1) and/or service marks and/or (ii) other
joint marketing actions permitted as a matter of past practice under the
“franchise type agreements” provision of Section 1.D.1.a and including
linked frequent flyer programs.

Ultralight

Hang in there Sulkair. Eventually someone will come on here and post a reply worth reading.
If I were a greedy fat cat in a suit, I would be playing with the idea of an airline sponsored flight training program. Example, someone with a PPL and a college degree gets his flight training paid in exchange for a 5 year pro-rated contract at a crappy regional. This isn't a new idea by the way. Easy Jet in europe pay for the pilots type rating, then deduct the cost from their monthly paycheck.
This would solve the problem of regionals struggling to find pilots and would solve the problem of pilots trying to get into this career but can't get financing.
I would expect the mastermind of a plan like this to charge a high interest rate and pay himself a nice bonus for his efforts.

Like you, I am not advocating this idea or trying to stir up a hornets nest. I'm sure someone on here will get their panties in a wad and nominate me for the tool of the day award. (Yawn)

sulkair

Bozo,

Actually this is what I read:

It also establishes new work rules requiring more flight time for pilots and freezes their pension. And it allows American’s regional airline partners to fly bigger planes, an issue that has long been a sticking point in labor talks.

11th Paragraph of this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/bu...ewanted=1&_r=1

N2Core

If a were a fat cat in a suit, I would take advantage of the fact that most major airline pilot are senior and facing retirement, line their pockets with a little more cash during contract negotiations and watch them sell out scope bigtime. I think the OP has legitimate concerns and that is a real possibility in the future.

sulkair

You'll have to wait until Monday - I hold the award for the whole weekend I think.

BoilerUP

For a long while, the "small jet" line in the sand was 50 seats. Then, 70 seats were surrendered.

Then came post-9/11 bankruptcy for the legacies where scope was partially sold, partially taken. If you throw out the unique United/Air Wisconsin B146 situation, Airways allowing CRJ-900s was the first big hit to scope but it wasn't until Delta allowed 76 seaters that things REALLY took off.

DALPA's post-bankruptcy contracts have become the defacto "industry standard" with regard to scope; you can see the impact that had on the recently ratified 1113 contract for AA and the UAL/CAL TA currently under vote.

Basically, 76 seats is now the industry-standard "line in the sand" regarding "large small jet" scope, with the exception of Airways flying some 86 (I think?) seat CR9s and E175s.

The DALPA contract, APA contract as well as the UAL/CAL TA tie the number of "large small jets" to mainline fleet size. In order to add large small jets, the number of mainline planes has to go up.

Of course, throw in another force majeure event like 9/11 and the scope restrictions could go out the window...

minimwage4

The magic 8 ball answer to your question is "outlook good"