As an aviation enthusiast on the European side of the pond, I frequently get lost when reading threads about pilot contracts and scope issues in the US. More recently, I am intrigued how such contracts can affect the type of aircraft an airline may procure.

When I'm in the US, I frequently fly Delta, so my interest is initially with them.

Would someone with far more knowledge than me be able to explain how such contracts work, how those contracts evolve and how an airline introducing a new type can affect such details and union relationships.

Be gentle.

Scope is Section One in US ALPA contracts, it defines the scope of work to be performed under the contract—what is done, by whom and any exceptions. Originally, it was simple, all flying under the airline’s colors will be done by pilots on the seniority list. It precludes any use of non-seniority pilots, out-sourcing of flying done for Delta, in your example, to non-Delta entities. In the day, this was an absolute, if the plane produced revenue for Delta, a Delta crew flew it. When commuter planes came about, in the ‘70s/early ‘80s, side letters were put in the scope section allowing small, in those days 19 passenger or smaller, allowing an exception. An example, is the kerfuffle over Airbus factory pilots delivering new A350 to the US. I think it’s under grievance as a contract violation, the deliveries are contractually required to be flown by Delta pilots on the list. Net Jets US contract for example requires all flying with passengers to be flown by seniority list pilots eliminating some management pilots and outsiders like myself during sales demonstrations.

With the rise of RJs and bankruptcy, “scope relief” became the way management and ALPA could create a second tier pay schemes, flying planes in Delta colors. The relief restricted the number of RJs, the passenger count, gross weight, types of service allowed. At DL, it’s 325 76-seaters weighing no more than 86,000# plus a combination of 50 and 70 seaters in ratio to the 76-seaters.

In Europe, it seems contracts or labor law doesn’t have scope clauses, which is why there are alter-ego carriers like Joon, German Wings that are subsidiaries of their parent companies. We do have some wholly owned regionals like Delta’s Endeavor, but they are strictly limited by the mainline contract. The case of JetStar/Qantas could never happen under current contracts here. If the union can’t define the scope of work, it’s pointless.

GF

Excellent, thak you GF - appreciated.

I presume the agreements are different per airline?

And given your definition, I presume that means the CS aircraft would be flown by mainline for Delta?

Under the Railroad Labor Act (RLA), they are different in detail, but not character. All US carrier contracts are similar in outline and vary in detail. In regulation, they was strong pattern bargaining, but bankruptcies and mergers have caused many diversions and variations. Usually, negotiations between each carrier and its union bargaining unit resulted in different trade-offs. ALPA is an umbrella organization for pilot unions, but each carrier negotiates it’s specific contract under the RLA.

Google the history of Delta and Comair (the US one, not the South African one) for a real detail of how this evolved.

Yes, they will be mainline planes. The regionals, either independent or owned by the mainline, have separate contracts.

GF