Scope Clause

[bearcat88]

This is a general question which, while undoubtedly opening me up to a certain amount of ridicule, will probably educate more than myself with the answers. Coming from a military background and now involved in the airline production business I have heard a lot about the scope clause and the restrictions it has placed upon pilots and airline companies. To the uninitiated (myself) some of these restrictions seem counterproductive to business survival within the current economic climate. Could someone please post a nutshell summary of the clause so that I might better understand and be able to discuss from a position of knowledge if not exposure. Thanks
88

[galaxy flyer]

The Scope Clause is Numero Uno in a contract. It defines the "scope" or the parameters of the contract. The scope usually states who will do the flying (all members of the bargaining unit), what restrictions will be imposed on the company for code-sharing, commuter affiliations, and other restrictions. At E.A.Stern (Eastern Airlines) the scope said all flying under the Eastern name and under the corporation called Eastern would be flown by members of the Eastern pilots. That way the company could not set under an "alter ego" with non-union pilots. If Eastern set up Eastern II and it was owned by any entity owned by Eastern shareholders, the flying would have to done by Eastern seniority list pilots. Without a scope clause, the company can sub-contract out flying to another flight operation.

The idea of a a scope clause is under attack in the present economy, what with code-sharing, regional jets and "low-cost" subsidiary lines.

[bearcat88]

Thanks GF. A pretty good answer but I still wonder what the fuss is all about vis-a-vis regional jet size etc. I realize that bigger planes get bigger paychecks but there does seem to be more to it than that. If a route downsizes what is the harm in putting a smaller jet on it in order to keep up some sort of customer flow?

Again, pardon my lack of knowledge but this seems to be a big issue out there.
88

[Intruder]

In many/most cases, at least in the US, those RJ jobs are given to different airline groups, outside the scope of the contract, at lower wages and benefits.

One prominent example is Delta and Comair. Delta pilots are being furloughed, but Comair ("Delta Connection") is hiring significantly. The "fuss" is that Delta pilots are losing their jobs, contrary to the "no furlough" terms of their contract. The contractually proper thing for Delta to do would be to incorporate those RJs into Delta mainline and transfer their pilots from the larger jets to the smaller jets.

[bearcat88]

As I understand then ... Delta, which owns (?) Comair, should follow your logic of "The contractually proper thing for Delta to do would be to incorporate those RJs into Delta mainline and transfer their pilots from the larger jets to the smaller jets." I tend to agree if 1. Comair and Delta are all the same family now, 2. The "smaller airplane smaller paycheck" policy remains and 3. If the big jet guys can transfer to smaller jets, then the small jet guys should be able to compete for the big jet seats. In the end I suppose flying for less money on a smaller jet (but still good benefits) beats not flying and/or no money.
On the wider screen though it seems that there is a tendency in the industry to put a great deal of blame on "intransigent unions" and "route grabbing RJs". From the sidelines it looks like the small jets are bringing customers to the big guys and are doing it profitably. Is it a heavy bureaucratic/administrative structure that prevents the large airlines from moving those same customers on the long routes?
Seems like a tangent to the original topic but I wouldn't mind following it.