Scope Clause: The Regional Airlines' Capacity Cap Explained 

Sounds Embraer is benefiting from this with the first generation E175’s. Though if they did up the MTOW and keep passengers under 100, I reckon we might see a new A220 variant, unless they leave that all to the E2’s.

Checked out the Air Canada scope clause in the 2020 contact. It is more complex because it also has specification for block hosue flown on mainline vs regional, and covers aspects of capacity purchase agreements as well as code sharing. CPA = Capacity Purchase Agreement (aka regionals). SPA, MPA : Small (23) and medium Propellor Aircraft (80 seats) SJA: Small Jet Aircraft defined as having max 55 seats. The exemption to 76 allows the CRJ900 and Embraer 175 as well as the Dash-8-400 to 78 pax. (though MPA at 80 no lonegr exemption since the definition is max 80). 1.10.02.01 CPA carriers are limited to operating the Aircraft Categories specified below and subject to the terms and conditions specified below: 1.10.02.01.01 1.10.02.01.02 CPA carriers may operate any SPA, MPA or SJA equipment. On an exceptional basis, and notwithstanding the Small Jets Settlement Agreement of Mr. Martin Teplitsky of July 12, 2004, and A1.10.02.01.01, CPA carriers may operate MJA configured at a maximum of 76 seats and/or MPA configured at a maximum of 80 seats inclusive of all classes

I wish the scope clause MTOW was negotiated higher. Would be great to have more efficient planes flying. The passenger limit shouldn't change much if at all

Why can’t aa just operate the E175-E2 as mainline?

The efficiency of the new Embraers should be enough to offset the increased labor costs. Also pilot/FA costs are a fraction of ticket prices.

As a Turk, I am obviously impressed by your system. There are dozens of airlines operating in my country, Turkey, and most of them fly with Airbus A320 and Boeing 737. I think they made a few trips with the Embraer ERJ series, but they also rented it, it didn't have much life in Turkish airspace. We have never tried Bombardier. We had flown the Avro RJ, but it was replaced by the A320 and B737 after 10 years of service. So Turkey is not very pro-small aircraft.

The ERJ-140 was designed at American Airlines' request to get under their scope clause.

As someone who was at a regional fleet. It was a LONGER wait to get to the parent company than it was from an outside carrier

back when regional airlines were separately owned and only operated on small routes to connect to mainline carrier it wasn't a problem. The advent of regional jet where mainline could replace 1 mainline flight with 2 regionals to increase frequecy, it became a problem because the regiuonal carruers were now operatijg what used to be mainline routes. And once the mainline carrier owns the regional, it becomes much easier fo rmainline to play the the games of replacing expensive mainline operatios with chepear reguionals. So mainline unions fought back to protect their jobs. Am curious why this was not an issue in europe and what scope clauses still exist (if any) in Australia.

Two things, first, the regional airlines could easily compete with the main lines, since the main line airlines have not shown interest in smaller fields in years, nor do they have the aircraft for it anyways. Second, (just as I was typing this, is was mentioned), couldn’t the mainline carriers just operate the smaller aircraft themselves? Look at Porter and Air Canada, their Embraers are operated in house. When the E2 came out, they went out and bought them. The C-Series sold like hot cakes. And I absolutely cannot stand the CR9. Far too cramped for the size.

Would be nice to see the 220 at American Airlines and United been on the Delta and Air Canada 220 and they are a nice plane with the 2 by 3 seating going on Porters 220 to Vegas next month looking forward to it and that's a 5 hour flight from Toronto

I think they are outmoded concept to give a break to the airlines and screw over labor especially when labor is only small fraction of the overall cost of a flight. Fuel and airport surcharges are probably a larger overall part of your ticket.

long story short: Its a solution for the problem that never needed to be created but they have done it anyway

Scope clauses should be scrapped

The scope clause makes sure that new and efficient plane types won't be utilized. But that old gas guzzlers are kept flying. The typical nonsense when asocio political interests are more important than rewarding people who keep a company up.

Wow, the U.S. is so over regulated. The 'scope clause' would be illegal in most western countries because it is both a restraint of trade and cartel behaviour.

Beautiful Discover friend Amazing share

Unions

A smaller A220 Variant to fit inside the Scope Clause might be a crucial move for Airbus.

We like to make things complicated innit haha

Airtravel is now a commodity. The SCOPE clause is being used to artificially keep ticket prices inflated. With little to no competition from any sources there is no impatience for the unions to eliminate a rule that benefited only the unions.

The scope clause may also be the reason why the US has some of the worst inflight services in the world, but it works both ways. Airline pilots for mainline carriers are well paid, while regional aircraft pilots are paid very little. Some of them barely make more than a McDonald's shift manager. Regional operations allowed for lower airfares in some markets, which has lowered profit margins, but airlines have made up for it by giving passengers very little during flights and charging more fees for everything. In capitalist societies, greed always wins.

What a horribly anti-competitive practice! Forcing passengers to pay more.