Federal Scope Regulation

Firebird2XC

Well-Known Member
I had an idea earlier.

What if we regulated scope?

Say... so-called 'Regionals' can't fly larger than 70 or 90 seats, say?

All flying larger than that must be done by one certificate, etc?

Call it consumer protection via transparency, etc?

Thoughts?

(This may well be a large swing towards some sort of re-regulation, I was just wondering how this sounds when said out loud...)
 
I had an idea earlier.

What if we regulated scope?

Say... so-called 'Regionals' can't fly larger than 70 or 90 seats, say?

All flying larger than that must be done by one certificate, etc?

Call it consumer protection via transparency, etc?

Thoughts?

(This may well be a large swing towards some sort of re-regulation, I was just wondering how this sounds when said out loud...)

I agree with this 100%. Anything over 70, 80, 90 seats has to be on the mainlines operating certificate. Big planes only if you are selling your own seats. Good idea.
 
Sounds like a good way to undo what has happened in the past. Mainline guys shouldn't have let it get as bad as it is. Letting DL slide on the number of "mega-RJs" for a BS no furlough clause? C'mon. If DL really wanted those planes in their colors and you guys said no, they'd be mainilne planes which would also be a good way to not get furloughed.
 
I wonder what the ATA would respond to this?

"We are ardently opposed to the government telling us what planes we can and cannot fly.

We do know that such short-sighted legislation will cut back on the choices of the consumers in certain communities. That will lead to loss of productivity of our customers by not giving them flights on their schedule. <insert graphic illustrating this>

In an economy that's been categorized as the worst since the Great Depression, the last thing consumers need are more road blocks to business"

Anyway, why not address the real problem? And why is 70 seats a magical number?

It was being a prop made it a commuter
Then it was 50 seat jets
Now the magic line seems to be 80.

You're not going to be able to craft legislation that will be successful limiting a domestic business. There are many other avenues that would be far more effective.
 
I wonder what the ATA would respond to this?

"We are ardently opposed to the government telling us what planes we can and cannot fly.

We do know that such short-sighted legislation will cut back on the choices of the consumers in certain communities. That will lead to loss of productivity of our customers by not giving them flights on their schedule. <insert graphic illustrating this>

In an economy that's been categorized as the worst since the Great Depression, the last thing consumers need are more road blocks to business"

Anyway, why not address the real problem? And why is 70 seats a magical number?

It was being a prop made it a commuter
Then it was 50 seat jets
Now the magic line seems to be 80.

You're not going to be able to craft legislation that will be successful limiting a domestic business. There are many other avenues that would be far more effective.


Excellent idea guys.... seriously. The government should SET a limit on seats at a regional. That seems to be the least / most invasive possibility, at the same time.
 
Try companies like United, and Continental cannot sell tickets that have segments that will be flown by another certificate.

Simple
 
Why don't we just pass a law that every year, the federal government assesses the air transport situation and decides how many new pilots are needed. Everyone who wants to be a pilot is issued an aptitude test, and the top testers are taken until the slots are filled. Their training is structured and paid for by the government. They are guaranteed a job when they graduate, with 18 days off and 120k/yr, flying a B190 or a B744. This will completely eliminate surpluses, shortages, low pay and incompetent pilots.

Same thing for the airlines. EAS type situation for all. They're told where to go, when to go, what to fly, and what to charge, and are paid for 80% loads regardless of actual ridership. Actually, since the labor costs, seat costs, and scope rules will be the same for each airline, we'll just combine all the airlines into one. Barney Frank can run it. Call it AmFlot.

+1 on afterburners, too. ;)



Sorry, I just don't thing regulation is the way to go.
 
Try companies like United, and Continental cannot sell tickets that have segments that will be flown by another certificate.

Simple

I agree; I've been saying this for awhile. Simple, clean rule that is easily complied with. Why should the Government regulate how many seats are regional vs. mainline? Who are they to say?

Times will go back to what they used to be - you'd have carriers like Great Lakes and Colgan providing at risk flying to get the people from the small cities to the big ones and the mainline carriers flying everything else.
 
Try companies like United, and Continental cannot sell tickets that have segments that will be flown by another certificate.

Simple

Change the wording, though. This would kill all codeshare agreements. Then again, that might not be a bad thing.
 
I wonder what the ATA would respond to this?

"We are ardently opposed to the government telling us what planes we can and cannot fly.

Anyway, why not address the real problem? And why is 70 seats a magical number?


The problem is.. people view airline travel not as a business enterprise- they view it as a right. We've become a public commodity.

If the airlines can scream "we need governement (financial) intervention" every time they screw up, why can't we apply that concept on the other end of the situation? They so readily claim that airlines are a "vital part of the national infrastructure" then scream bloody murder when somebody suggests they might not be entirely scrupled about how they run things when tending to the "public interest".

After the 1920's stock market insanity, were market controls not created to stabilize things and prevent such instability in the future, in the public interest?

So what IS the real problem? I'm always open to new insight on my favorite subject. Please don't insist you have a better idea and leave me hanging.

As for 70 seats.. well, simple. We can't readily undo the past without creating huge upheaval, thousands losing jobs, etc, ad nauseum. For the most part, I suggested 70 seats because that's more or less where we are now. It would seem easiest at this point to draw the new line there, as it would cause the least overall upheaval.

Thoughts?
 
Petition?


Can we get rid of Cohen too... :dunno:


Given sufficient rope, Cohen may just well hang himself. As long as we keep the drive on for change and improvements, he'll prove himself less and less capable. It'll become more obvious to his cohorts, and they'll find him a nice job doing nothing important somewhere.

He's really not too big a deal as an individual, really. His clout comes from being the mouthpiece for the company party line. When we succeed in some serious repair work to the system, he'll become the scapegoat.

That'd be ideal.
 
Not sure if it would have the desired effect. If regionals can only fly 70 seats or less can mainline only fly 70+ seats? If that happened you just ensured the survival of regional airlines and eliminated the ability of mainlines to bring that flying back in house. I dont think that will help. The ultimate goal, in my opinion, should be to get that flying back to the mainline and eliminate code share agreements.

If that happens, regionals would be forced to compete against the majors instead of being a parasite attached to their underbelly.

I think what you really have to do is either fully regulate the industry or completely cut off government funding to airlines. State governments are throwing millions at start ups, who then pay pilots pathetic wages and charge the public $10 per seat, undercutting every respectable airline. Larger airlines then need to slash prices, causing them to go even deeper into the red then go looking to congress for a handout to keep them afloat. Airlines exit bankruptcy leaner, employee compensation slashed again, and the cycle begins again.

At least that is my take as someone just starting his journey into this profession.
 
If that happens, regionals would be forced to compete against the majors instead of being a parasite attached to their underbelly.
Hold on there just a minute. The majors sought out the RFP's in the first place. You cannot blame the commuters for being parasites - they were simply offering a service that the majors desired.

UAL pilots granted UAL Corp humongous scope relief in exchange for a large pay raise. Now they lost their pay raise (and then some) and have lost a good portion of their airline to contract carriers. That's what you'd call ironic.
 
Not sure if it would have the desired effect. If regionals can only fly 70 seats or less can mainline only fly 70+ seats? If that happened you just ensured the survival of regional airlines and eliminated the ability of mainlines to bring that flying back in house. I dont think that will help. The ultimate goal, in my opinion, should be to get that flying back to the mainline and eliminate code share agreements.

If that happens, regionals would be forced to compete against the majors instead of being a parasite attached to their underbelly.

I think what you really have to do is either fully regulate the industry or completely cut off government funding to airlines. State governments are throwing millions at start ups, who then pay pilots pathetic wages and charge the public $10 per seat, undercutting every respectable airline. Larger airlines then need to slash prices, causing them to go even deeper into the red then go looking to congress for a handout to keep them afloat. Airlines exit bankruptcy leaner, employee compensation slashed again, and the cycle begins again.

At least that is my take as someone just starting his journey into this profession.


Taking the flying "back to the mainline" will never happen. At the very least, it's highly unlikely. Unless we're going to a mass-regulatory effort with "one airline, one ticket" type rules that's fairly far-fetched.

As far as limiting the regionals, well, why not? If we're going to call them regionals, let's keep them regionals. If major airlines want to do regional level flying, i.e., fly small planes, I see no reason why not. Why airline managers would let pilots fly little planes at big plane wages is beyond me.

The whole point here is to stop regional growth. If you don't, there will eventually be no mainline jobs left to go back to. Erasing the regionals as they are is too extreme- that sort of legislation would die an early death. Simply accepting that things have split already and creating boundaries for that is more realistic.

Eventually, if regional growth (and thereby, attrition of flying at major airline costs) is limited, it will be forced to survive on its own economics. Either 70 seat and less seat flying will become a part of the business structure that works, or it'll go away over time and fade out.

In other words, if you take away the scope-busting, major-airline eroding abilities of the regional feeders, you force airline managers to face something. They won't kill off what remains of worker quality of life from the Regulation era quite so easily.

That's what regional growth is really all about. It's about completing the final step of the Deregulation cycle- killing the 'regulation' of labor Contracts and breaking wages and quality of life down to their lowest possible levels.

If we don't pull the fangs of regional growth, the lifespan of the 'big time' jobs at majors is limited.. and likely short.
 
Stopping regional growth should be the domain of the unions, not the Government. Really the only thing I can see the Government doing is saying if you advertise for flights on say UAL, you will only fly passengers on UAL. That is forcing transparency.
 
So I'm not only shooting stuff down, here's what I see as a feesible idea:

If an airline is a "wholly owned subsidiary", the parent carrier can not maintain separate pilot lists. You can only have one pilot list that will service all the subsidiaries.
 
Back
Top