Ironbutt and Gillegan: thanks for your explanations. Both were helpful and interesting.
Seems as if Scope clauses are something typical American. Haven’t heard of something similar in Europe. Obviously these clauses are negotiated for each airline on a separate basis. Correct? Doesn’t this lead to distortions in competitiveness? Obviously airlines with rather liberal regulations would have better possibilities to expand and grow their business than those with tight limits, whose ability to provide satisfactory customer service might be in jeopardy. At the end of the day this could effect the overall economical performance of an cooperation.
Sure, the example of Texas Air/New York Air should be a warning what happens, if assets and business are transferred from one company to another. However the final success of this method depends on the possibility to find motivated pilots willing to work for less money. In a growing market with an increased demand they could certainly not attract employment applicants, who are willing to work for a low level wage. In the current economic environment everyone has the luxury of being more selective in choosing a job with good remuneration, benefits and career opportunities. Though this might change again … who knows.
Finally, I cannot see why mainline pilots should fear to lose their jobs to regional jet pilots. Decisions to drop a city and let it be operated by a regional carrier indicate IMHO that it was not cost efficient before. We are living in a profit orientated world and who could blame his employer to thrive for black figures rather than red ones. Even if it hurts the individual who is affected by such a change, it’s the customers’ demand which is originating these decision, not the bad will of a company.
Outlook: what do you think about the future of scope clauses?