Aloha All,

I know very little about the regional aircraft scope clauses of the major carriers other than they are often based 1) seat count or 2) aircraft weight. The other thing I know is that scope clauses are a very contentious topic on a.net and within the commercial aviation industry.

One question I have about them is if they are ever based on market type vs seat count or aircraft weight?
For example, are there examples of scope clauses that say regional carriers are not allowed to operate hub-hub or between hub-primary markets (think top 20 largest metros in the US) but can operate between hub-secondary/tertiary?

If this is not widely employed, which it doesn't seem to be, at least at some carriers, is this scenario a possible outlet for airline management and crew unions who are at odds over scope? If airlines offered to limit contract RJ service to only smaller secondary and tertiary markets could there be leeway to allow for more RJs (such as 70/76 seaters)?

77H

There is zero leeway in scope. Pilots learned their lesson, and many of today’s mainline pilots felt the effects of scope erosion while they were stuck at a regional for the lost decade. Not one more seat, not one more pound, not one more plane.

Here’s the only way to see more RJs at a US airline (outside of contractual allowances under scope sections): put the large “RJs” at mainline where they belong. What region do RJs fly in? They aren’t little regional jets anymore. They shouldn’t be outsourced at all.

UAL’s scope allows for more large RJs as a ratio to a new small narrow body addition. All Scott Kirby has to do is buy some E195s or A220s and he can get more large RJs at UAL. Or he can stop being the cheap outsourcer he is and put the RJs at mainline. Ditto for DUI Doug and Ed.

To answer your first question, I believe some scope sections address hub to hub flying. Not sure if that’s still current and/or what airline(s) it applies to, if any.

impilot wrote:

There is zero leeway in scope. Pilots learned their lesson, and many of today’s mainline pilots felt the effects of scope erosion while they were stuck at a regional for the lost decade. Not one more seat, not one more pound, not one more plane.

Here’s the only way to see more RJs at a US airline (outside of contractual allowances under scope sections): put the large “RJs” at mainline where they belong. What region do RJs fly in? They aren’t little regional jets anymore. They shouldn’t be outsourced at all.

UAL’s scope allows for more large RJs as a ratio to a new small narrow body addition. All Scott Kirby has to do is buy some E195s or A220s and he can get more large RJs at UAL. Or he can stop being the cheap outsourcer he is and put the RJs at mainline. Ditto for DUI Doug and Ed.

To answer your first question, I believe some scope sections address hub to hub flying. Not sure if that’s still current and/or what airline(s) it applies to, if any.

Thanks for the insight. I recall talking to a HA pilot who mentioned the Empire dBa ‘ohana operation is barred from operating on HA’s trunk routes and is limited to the commuter airports like JHM, LNY and MKK. Market scopes such as detailed seem like a good way to maintain mainline flying while also allowing the company to grow where it simply might not make sense to operate mainline. But again, I’m no expert in this nor am I an ATP holder.

77H

77H wrote:

One question I have about them is if they are ever based on market type vs seat count or aircraft weight?

The scope agreement is whatever is negotiated between the carrier and the representative union. There's a clear game of 'follow the leader' where language and structure gets copied at other carrier - example, Delta's 'add a small narrowbody' language at United. So, there's no reason you couldn't have a market type restriction.

Impilot's thinking on the subject is a little narrow. Sure, pilots would demand something in exchange for scope relief. Adding mainline jobs with a new small narrowbody is one path. How about big raises for mainline pilots and no new narrowbody? Would pilots refuse a big pile of money? More time off? Better retirement provisions? Just saying 'NO' isn't negotiating - and it leaves you with the status quo.

Delta's scope restrictions apply to:

segment length (statue miles-based). A high percentage of RJ flying must be under 900SM.

The vast majority of RJ flying must be from hub cities or strong focus cities. Very little non-hub point to point flying.

A very small percentage (single digit) of RJ flying is allowed between the cities described above.

This purposefully vague since I didn’t want to copy the exact language which I didn’t feel was appropriate.

MIflyer12 wrote:

77H wrote:

One question I have about them is if they are ever based on market type vs seat count or aircraft weight?

Impilot's thinking on the subject is a little narrow. Sure, pilots would demand something in exchange for scope relief. Adding mainline jobs with a new small narrowbody is one path. How about big raises for mainline pilots and no new narrowbody? Would pilots refuse a big pile of money? More time off? Better retirement provisions? Just saying 'NO' isn't negotiating - and it leaves you with the status quo.

The pilot unions HAVE refused a big pile of money, but they haven't just said NO. Quite the contrary, they have offered to accept very LOW pay on 70-90 seat aircraft if the airlines will bring those aircraft to mainline.

If 70-90 seat aircraft are at mainline, carriers can fly as many of them as they want anywhere that they want. But the carriers just say NO to the pilots' offers, and instead continue to pursue scope relaxation. Why are the carriers doing this? Why don't they want more 70-90 seat aircraft at mainline?

The answer is that carriers don't really want more 70-90 seat aircraft. What they really want, and have always wanted, is a little leverage to use in future negotiations against the mainline pilots.

How much pay, time off, and retirement is scope worth to pilots? I'm not sure, but historically speaking, getting scope 'back' always seems to cost the pilots more in pay cuts, more time worked, and less retirement than was gained by giving it up in the first place.

77H-

This is a good question. For a specific answer, when I was a UA flight attendant, one of the many scope provisions for our pilots was that no hub-to-hub flying could be done with RJs. That is one concrete example of a market type determining scope.

One thing to remember is that most people - union and non - have a scope clause at work. I am a college professor. If the recycling containers in the hallway are overflowing, I do not collect the contents and bring it down to the central garbage facility at the college, because doing so is beyond the scope language in my employment contract, and within the language of someone else's, which in that case is the custodial staff. Where it got controversial in the 1990s is that the airlines began hiring people to do work within the scope of pilots, flight attendants, and above- and below-wing crews, but who did not actually work for each airline. As a result of that practice, the "scope clause" in our contracts became much more political. Whereas it once described which tasks we were expected to perform (pilots fly the plane, flight attendants provide service and safety, etc.), but the year 2000 the scope clause existed to defend how far the line could go on outsourcing. Thus I agree with the poster above that workers now are at the point of not one more aircraft, pound, route, etc., because so much work has disappeared.

ilovelamp wrote:

Delta's scope restrictions apply to:

segment length (statue miles-based). A high percentage of RJ flying must be under 900SM.

The vast majority of RJ flying must be from hub cities or strong focus cities. Very little non-hub point to point flying.

A very small percentage (single digit) of RJ flying is allowed between the cities described above.

This purposefully vague since I didn’t want to copy the exact language which I didn’t feel was appropriate.

The agreement is public knowledge...

https://www.airlinepilothiring.net/Tent ... 6Delta.pdf

Rdh3e wrote:

ilovelamp wrote:

Delta's scope restrictions apply to:

segment length (statue miles-based). A high percentage of RJ flying must be under 900SM.

The vast majority of RJ flying must be from hub cities or strong focus cities. Very little non-hub point to point flying.

A very small percentage (single digit) of RJ flying is allowed between the cities described above.

This purposefully vague since I didn’t want to copy the exact language which I didn’t feel was appropriate.

The agreement is public knowledge...

https://www.airlinepilothiring.net/Tent ... 6Delta.pdf

That’s a TA and not the most up-to-date version.


ILL

Scope will likely continue to be based on seats, weight and number of aircraft. Markets change quickly and airlines can move mainline and regional planes around to satisfy market changes.

Is there any country other than the auSS that has similar scope clauses?

They are talked about endlessly on here but seem to only apply in one market?

CallmeJB wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

77H wrote:

One question I have about them is if they are ever based on market type vs seat count or aircraft weight?

Impilot's thinking on the subject is a little narrow. Sure, pilots would demand something in exchange for scope relief. Adding mainline jobs with a new small narrowbody is one path. How about big raises for mainline pilots and no new narrowbody? Would pilots refuse a big pile of money? More time off? Better retirement provisions? Just saying 'NO' isn't negotiating - and it leaves you with the status quo.

The pilot unions HAVE refused a big pile of money, but they haven't just said NO. Quite the contrary, they have offered to accept very LOW pay on 70-90 seat aircraft if the airlines will bring those aircraft to mainline.

If 70-90 seat aircraft are at mainline, carriers can fly as many of them as they want anywhere that they want. But the carriers just say NO to the pilots' offers, and instead continue to pursue scope relaxation. Why are the carriers doing this? Why don't they want more 70-90 seat aircraft at mainline?

The answer is that carriers don't really want more 70-90 seat aircraft. What they really want, and have always wanted, is a little leverage to use in future negotiations against the mainline pilots.

How much pay, time off, and retirement is scope worth to pilots? I'm not sure, but historically speaking, getting scope 'back' always seems to cost the pilots more in pay cuts, more time worked, and less retirement than was gained by giving it up in the first place.

Because the cost basis of literally everything and everyone else at mainline is significantly higher than at a regional shop. To make it competitive cost wise the mainline pilot wages would have to be far lower than those at a regional and even then they'd be well behind cost wise considering everyone and everything else that touches the operation is more expensive.

madpropsyo wrote:

CallmeJB wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Impilot's thinking on the subject is a little narrow. Sure, pilots would demand something in exchange for scope relief. Adding mainline jobs with a new small narrowbody is one path. How about big raises for mainline pilots and no new narrowbody? Would pilots refuse a big pile of money? More time off? Better retirement provisions? Just saying 'NO' isn't negotiating - and it leaves you with the status quo.

The pilot unions HAVE refused a big pile of money, but they haven't just said NO. Quite the contrary, they have offered to accept very LOW pay on 70-90 seat aircraft if the airlines will bring those aircraft to mainline.

If 70-90 seat aircraft are at mainline, carriers can fly as many of them as they want anywhere that they want. But the carriers just say NO to the pilots' offers, and instead continue to pursue scope relaxation. Why are the carriers doing this? Why don't they want more 70-90 seat aircraft at mainline?

The answer is that carriers don't really want more 70-90 seat aircraft. What they really want, and have always wanted, is a little leverage to use in future negotiations against the mainline pilots.

How much pay, time off, and retirement is scope worth to pilots? I'm not sure, but historically speaking, getting scope 'back' always seems to cost the pilots more in pay cuts, more time worked, and less retirement than was gained by giving it up in the first place.

Because the cost basis of literally everything and everyone else at mainline is significantly higher than at a regional shop. To make it competitive cost wise the mainline pilot wages would have to be far lower than those at a regional and even then they'd be well behind cost wise considering everyone and everything else that touches the operation is more expensive.

That sounds like a problem between the various companies, not a pilot problem.

madpropsyo wrote:

CallmeJB wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Impilot's thinking on the subject is a little narrow. Sure, pilots would demand something in exchange for scope relief. Adding mainline jobs with a new small narrowbody is one path. How about big raises for mainline pilots and no new narrowbody? Would pilots refuse a big pile of money? More time off? Better retirement provisions? Just saying 'NO' isn't negotiating - and it leaves you with the status quo.

The pilot unions HAVE refused a big pile of money, but they haven't just said NO. Quite the contrary, they have offered to accept very LOW pay on 70-90 seat aircraft if the airlines will bring those aircraft to mainline.

If 70-90 seat aircraft are at mainline, carriers can fly as many of them as they want anywhere that they want. But the carriers just say NO to the pilots' offers, and instead continue to pursue scope relaxation. Why are the carriers doing this? Why don't they want more 70-90 seat aircraft at mainline?

The answer is that carriers don't really want more 70-90 seat aircraft. What they really want, and have always wanted, is a little leverage to use in future negotiations against the mainline pilots.

How much pay, time off, and retirement is scope worth to pilots? I'm not sure, but historically speaking, getting scope 'back' always seems to cost the pilots more in pay cuts, more time worked, and less retirement than was gained by giving it up in the first place.

Because the cost basis of literally everything and everyone else at mainline is significantly higher than at a regional shop. To make it competitive cost wise the mainline pilot wages would have to be far lower than those at a regional and even then they'd be well behind cost wise considering everyone and everything else that touches the operation is more expensive.

If a route has to be operated with Flight Attendants making 1500 bucks a month and pilot wages sub 50k a year, it isn't a viable route. Airlines asking for relaxation on scope is simply outsourcing to a contractor that has no benefits and has no career progression as most American companies do.

Scope will never be relaxed ever and the American airline industry will be much better off because of it.

I don't understand why the unions don't push to bring it all in house. That would give everyone currently at mainline a huge seniority push and cushion as well as increase the union rank and file. All they would have to do is allow wages on the smaller aircraft that would make it work. Make those entry level and let employees get experience and move up the ranks from there. Ultimately in the long run it would be a win for everyone IMHO.

UpNAWAy wrote:

I don't understand why the unions don't push to bring it all in house. That would give everyone currently at mainline a huge seniority push and cushion as well as increase the union rank and file. All they would have to do is allow wages on the smaller aircraft that would make it work. Make those entry level and let employees get experience and move up the ranks from there. Ultimately in the long run it would be a win for everyone IMHO.

They do, every US airline pilot group has begged for regionals to be stapled on at the bottom with the same pay rates as at the regionals. Management wouldn't do that because it defeats the purpose of outsourcing labor to subcontractors that are rotated every 3 years to keep costs down.

Bringing all in house is way complicated. It's unlikely anything game changing at the regional level will change until some consolidation occurs. It's begun, slowly. The current regional situation between wholly-owned and 3rd party carriers is a relatively fragmented mess. Once it all Darwin's out, there may be talk of an 'in-house' move. Even then, I suspect it's unlikely. All opinion, of course, and very subjective.

SierraPacific wrote:

If a route has to be operated with Flight Attendants making 1500 bucks a month and pilot wages sub 50k a year, it isn't a viable route.

The pilots and FA's flying this hypothetical flight would rather be working the flight than be unemployed. If you're cancelling the route .. then there are fewer jobs available. And if you somehow cause the ticket prices to go up, there will be fewer passengers and therefore fewer jobs.

I understand I won't change your mind, but sometimes the choice is not between low paying job and high paying job. Sometimes it's between low paying job and no job. In the airline context, some routes will not work with a high price airline, but will work with a low cost airline, and that airline provides employment to people who want the employment at the pay scale being offered.

kitplane01 wrote:

SierraPacific wrote:

If a route has to be operated with Flight Attendants making 1500 bucks a month and pilot wages sub 50k a year, it isn't a viable route.

The pilots and FA's flying this hypothetical flight would rather be working the flight than be unemployed. If you're cancelling the route .. then there are fewer jobs available. And if you somehow cause the ticket prices to go up, there will be fewer passengers and therefore fewer jobs.

I understand I won't change your mind, but sometimes the choice is not between low paying job and high paying job. Sometimes it's between low paying job and no job. In the airline context, some routes will not work with a high price airline, but will work with a low cost airline, and that airline provides employment to people who want the employment at the pay scale being offered.

The problem with this line of thinking is that both the pilots and flight attendants union's have begged management to move the flying to the mainline certificate for the same benefits as the regional carrier provides. It is easier for an airline to not have any employees (be a virtual airline) and without scope clauses, I doubt that any of the big 3 in the US would have any flying that was not contracted out.

For instance, United runs regionals from hub to hub and on flights up to 4 hours. That is no longer a regional flight and should be operated by United employees.

This is all coming from a person that is about to be a regional airline employee in the near future

SierraPacific wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

SierraPacific wrote:

If a route has to be operated with Flight Attendants making 1500 bucks a month and pilot wages sub 50k a year, it isn't a viable route.

The pilots and FA's flying this hypothetical flight would rather be working the flight than be unemployed. If you're cancelling the route .. then there are fewer jobs available. And if you somehow cause the ticket prices to go up, there will be fewer passengers and therefore fewer jobs.

I understand I won't change your mind, but sometimes the choice is not between low paying job and high paying job. Sometimes it's between low paying job and no job. In the airline context, some routes will not work with a high price airline, but will work with a low cost airline, and that airline provides employment to people who want the employment at the pay scale being offered.

The problem with this line of thinking is that both the pilots and flight attendants union's have begged management to move the flying to the mainline certificate for the same benefits as the regional carrier provides. It is easier for an airline to not have any employees (be a virtual airline) and without scope clauses, I doubt that any of the big 3 in the US would have any flying that was not contracted out.

For instance, United runs regionals from hub to hub and on flights up to 4 hours. That is no longer a regional flight and should be operated by United employees.

This is all coming from a person that is about to be a regional airline employee in the near future

I honestly don't see how what you wrote contradicts what I wrote. I think both are true.

Also, don't mainline carriers have a higher cost structure in every way, not just pilot and FA wages?

kitplane01 wrote:

SierraPacific wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

The pilots and FA's flying this hypothetical flight would rather be working the flight than be unemployed. If you're cancelling the route .. then there are fewer jobs available. And if you somehow cause the ticket prices to go up, there will be fewer passengers and therefore fewer jobs.

I understand I won't change your mind, but sometimes the choice is not between low paying job and high paying job. Sometimes it's between low paying job and no job. In the airline context, some routes will not work with a high price airline, but will work with a low cost airline, and that airline provides employment to people who want the employment at the pay scale being offered.

The problem with this line of thinking is that both the pilots and flight attendants union's have begged management to move the flying to the mainline certificate for the same benefits as the regional carrier provides. It is easier for an airline to not have any employees (be a virtual airline) and without scope clauses, I doubt that any of the big 3 in the US would have any flying that was not contracted out.

For instance, United runs regionals from hub to hub and on flights up to 4 hours. That is no longer a regional flight and should be operated by United employees.

This is all coming from a person that is about to be a regional airline employee in the near future

I honestly don't see how what you wrote contradicts what I wrote. I think both are true.

Also, don't mainline carriers have a higher cost structure in every way, not just pilot and FA wages?

They usually use the same ground handling at most stations, the only thing that would be more expensive is the dispatchers but they are slowly shrinking in number because of technology. I think that the regional model is slowly going to be reduced to what it was before 9-11 (small turboprops and 50 seat jets going from Atlanta to Valdosta for example).

I think we are on the same page