SierraPacific wrote:

stburke wrote:

Once again, absurd scope clauses keeping the reigns tightened on small aircraft and small communities.

Thanks ALPA.

I do not see how more E 175's would affect this since E 175's are mainly used on routes that used to be mainline back in the day (PHX-LAX)(IAH-ATL)(PDX-STL) for example. These small communities just do not make sense from a business perspective rather than some evil pilot union saying that people in Macon Georgia should not have air service. The big 3 could run Saab 340's to Greenville Mississippi from Atlanta or Houston if they truly wanted tomorrow without talking to ALPA but management would rather use E 175's to fly routes that were historically mainline 15 years ago (SFO-AUS is a good example of this strategy). If ALPA would allow regional scope relaxation the big 3 wouldn't be airlines anymore rather just a place to book tickets on regional carriers that still do not serve little towns across America.

UpNAWAy wrote:

Regional Airlines would not even exist if not for the mainline Pilots unions. They would fly them in house and have multi teared wages that make the economics work.

BTW there is no loosing of Pilots jobs, every increasing flying has created more jobs. They estimate as many as a half million more will be created in the next 20 years.

unusualattitude wrote:

nmdrdh787 wrote:

Issue is the current scope weight. When that is fixed in the next two years (pilot agreements are expiring then), the E2 will have more orders. I bet that they may have the option to move this to the 175E2 in the agreement.

Flawed thinking. Pilot agreements do not expire under the RLA (Railway Labor Act), they become amendable. Therefore unless both sides agree to a new contract, the current language remains. What makes you think any of the legacy pilot groups are going to have any interest in giving up more scope with the airlines raking in cash they are. If anything I could see tightening of the scope as the pilots groups have had quite a bit of leverage in the last few cycles.

drdisque wrote:

Yes, the original Mesa CR-9's is what I see a lot of these replacing. These are configured for over 70 seats, are getting up there in age and cycles, and were not next-gen so they have small bins and low/small windows.

iceberg210 wrote:

Hadn't seen this tidbit before

Embraer chief commercial officer Arjan Meijer says the airline has the ability to convert the aircraft to the E175-E2 if major US airlines attain scope clause relief in their pilot contracts.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 18-450277/

Might mean that folks are lining up for the 175E1 also to get in line for a possible E2 if it works out. Very interesting detail that I'm not surprised was the case but glad to see confirmed.

mikejepp wrote:

mcdu wrote:

What’s really odd is the mainline pilots are blamed by the RJ pilots for allowing RJ’s. And mainline pilots are blamed by anet armchair experts for not allowing more RJ’s. Perhaps those two groups could get together and figure who really is the bad guy. What’s next? Blame mainline pilots because you didn’t get a pony for Christmas?

Incorrect. Mainline pilots blame the RLA and Chapter 11 process for allowing management to make RJs happen. The vast majority of mainline pilots wish their fellow RJ pilots were on the same seniority list with them.

As far as A.net experts go.... well, I suppose it is hard for a teenager to weigh someone's job as more important than getting a shiny jet at their airport.

stburke wrote:

Once again, absurd scope clauses keeping the reigns tightened on small aircraft and small communities.

Thanks ALPA.

raylee67 wrote:

This is not a good thing for Embraer actually. It means the E2 is a failure, at least for the regional carriers, which is supposed to be a big chunk of the projected market for the E2. They now rather get more of the old plane than going to the new one. They are getting the E-Jet because there is no better replacement. Embraer is able to sell these 100 jets only because the others have failed even more spectacularly.

Arguably, the only other one on the market is MRJ, which is also exactly on the 70-100 seat range, same as the E2. SSJ cannot cover the lower size of the range, CSeries/A220 is not a competitor as it is going for 100-130 seat. It's more of a A318/736 replacement.

The airlines are probably hoping and praying someone will be able to do better with a new and more efficient plane at the 70-90 seat range, especially soon the 50-seat RJs will need to be replaced too, and there is no new product there.

mcdu wrote:

stburke wrote:

Once again, absurd scope clauses keeping the reigns tightened on small aircraft and small communities.

Thanks ALPA.

Scope protect the consumer as well as the employees. How many times have we seen issues arise on outsourced carriers and the consumer complain about the fact it’s not mainline operated.

kitplane01 wrote:

mcdu wrote:

stburke wrote:

Once again, absurd scope clauses keeping the reigns tightened on small aircraft and small communities.

Thanks ALPA.

Scope protect the consumer as well as the employees. How many times have we seen issues arise on outsourced carriers and the consumer complain about the fact it’s not mainline operated.

I have never in my entire long life heard a friend complain that a plane was operated by an affiliate, and not the mainline. Not once ever. I have had friends complain that airline prices are too high. And scope clauses reduce flexibility, and therefore increase costs.

Scope clauses are good for mainline pilots, but bad for consumers.

bahadir wrote:

stburke wrote:

Once again, absurd scope clauses keeping the reigns tightened on small aircraft and small communities.

Thanks ALPA.

Absurd ?? Yeah right. These airplanes should be flown by mainline pilots. I just hope that they won't cave in more on the scope clauses.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

mcdu wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

mcdu wrote:

Scope protect the consumer as well as the employees. How many times have we seen issues arise on outsourced carriers and the consumer complain about the fact it’s not mainline operated.

I have never in my entire long life heard a friend complain that a plane was operated by an affiliate, and not the mainline. Not once ever. I have had friends complain that airline prices are too high. And scope clauses reduce flexibility, and therefore increase costs.

Scope clauses are good for mainline pilots, but bad for consumers.

Where is the consumer not able to fly as a result of scope clauses? To the consumer it has zero effect.

Midwestindy wrote:

From all indications this will mean growth from Republic rather than sheer replacement of older frames, not sure where the growth will go to but it seems to be the case.

mcdu wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

mcdu wrote:

Scope protect the consumer as well as the employees. How many times have we seen issues arise on outsourced carriers and the consumer complain about the fact it’s not mainline operated.

I have never in my entire long life heard a friend complain that a plane was operated by an affiliate, and not the mainline. Not once ever. I have had friends complain that airline prices are too high. And scope clauses reduce flexibility, and therefore increase costs.

Scope clauses are good for mainline pilots, but bad for consumers.

Where is the consumer not able to fly as a result of scope clauses? To the consumer it has zero effect.

MIflyer12 wrote:

mcdu wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I have never in my entire long life heard a friend complain that a plane was operated by an affiliate, and not the mainline. Not once ever. I have had friends complain that airline prices are too high. And scope clauses reduce flexibility, and therefore increase costs.

Scope clauses are good for mainline pilots, but bad for consumers.

Where is the consumer not able to fly as a result of scope clauses? To the consumer it has zero effect.

If you're increasing the cost of flying (by limiting the number of economically-efficient jets than can be flown by regional carriers, or mandating mainline flying), you're limiting cities and frequencies. That's bad for consumers.

PPVRA wrote:

bahadir wrote:

stburke wrote:

Once again, absurd scope clauses keeping the reigns tightened on small aircraft and small communities.

Thanks ALPA.

Absurd ?? Yeah right. These airplanes should be flown by mainline pilots. I just hope that they won't cave in more on the scope clauses.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

Then quit complaining and do something about it. Starting with realistic pay scales for smaller aircraft would be a great way to go. Alas, I wonder if pilot unions have the wisdom to accept lower pay scales during a time they enjoy record breaking bargaining power.

If all legacy pilots want to fly is A321s, you're just becoming a giant version of Spirit. You're not hub and spoke without spokes. You're the LCC with the worst cost structure, doomed to shrink as real LCCs continue to rise.

But go ahead, continue to bargain yourselves into an ever shrinking number of larger aircraft. . .until one day you shrink the legacies out of existence, and with it your jobs.

A lot of power is a great thing to have, but remember great and grave mistakes have been made by people with a lot of power.

mcdu wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

mcdu wrote:

Where is the consumer not able to fly as a result of scope clauses? To the consumer it has zero effect.

If you're increasing the cost of flying (by limiting the number of economically-efficient jets than can be flown by regional carriers, or mandating mainline flying), you're limiting cities and frequencies. That's bad for consumers.

Routes are flown by carries that have much lower compensation than the mainline carrier. Their cost being lower should be a boon for the consumer.

mcdu wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

bahadir wrote:

Absurd ?? Yeah right. These airplanes should be flown by mainline pilots. I just hope that they won't cave in more on the scope clauses.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

Then quit complaining and do something about it. Starting with realistic pay scales for smaller aircraft would be a great way to go. Alas, I wonder if pilot unions have the wisdom to accept lower pay scales during a time they enjoy record breaking bargaining power.

If all legacy pilots want to fly is A321s, you're just becoming a giant version of Spirit. You're not hub and spoke without spokes. You're the LCC with the worst cost structure, doomed to shrink as real LCCs continue to rise.

But go ahead, continue to bargain yourselves into an ever shrinking number of larger aircraft. . .until one day you shrink the legacies out of existence, and with it your jobs.

A lot of power is a great thing to have, but remember great and grave mistakes have been made by people with a lot of power.

Legacy pilots don’t want to just fly A321’s. In fact UA ALPA has said they want the 175’s in house. Also we have payrates in our current contract to fly those aircraft (E-jet) and including the A200 series. So the contract the company signed would allow the planes to be flown by mainline. Why would they agree to rates that they couldn’t support? Ball is in their court.