No, the rise of the "regional" jet began with airline management's understanding that pilots like flying airplanes -- SJS.
They realized that the commuter pilots who had been largely ignored by ALPA would be delighted to fly "shiny jets" (for lack of a better term.)
I think I disagree with that statement, but agree with what I see as the proper reason you put forth below:
Scope clauses at the majors were not designed for replacement platforms so the flying was outsourced. (Granted the pilots at the majors were shortsighted and slow to respond)
Myopic at best, but again, it reaches back to the beginnings of commuter feed, and allowing markets abandoned by the carrier as their prop fleets were relegated to the past, then allowing other carriers flying the "new tech props" (Metros, Shorts, F27s) fly into the markets they left. That trend merely continued with the jet phenomenon.
Oddly enough, the trend can be seen in the commuter world today. At our former shop, as we got the ERJs and parked the props in their favor. We also left certain markets to be replaced by other commuters flying the like-sized (and indeed in certain instances - the same) equipment.
All of the sudden this DC9, Bac1-11, F28, F100 flying was being flown at a fraction of the cost. Simply by placing the word "regional" in front of an aircraft type managers and manufacturers were able to fool people into thinking that this airplane was something OTHER than a highly capable platform. It's not.
You could call the 777 a 777RJ and it doesn't change what it is.
100%, I hope that the pilot group as a collective sees this.
EVERY aircraft flown in the service of XYZ airlines should be flown by XYZ airline pilots. For what rate? That's for the negotiators to decide. In the meantime you and your mainline "brothers" will continue to squabble about whose flying is whose... while management laughs all the way to the bank.
That's a great thought. I came across another way to look at it. Traditionally, scope was an
exclusive clause, in effect causing the carriers to look at alternatives for providing lift in segments they needed via other means.
As the industry has shown, the idea has not been as successful for the pilot groups as we would have liked. I submit the idea of transitioning scope to an
inclusive clause would be far more effective.
Give the managers the latitude to create subsidiaries, rotate the fleet to meet demands (seriously, is not completely obvious that there will be a flood of new turboprops to replace the 19-30 seaters getting long in the tooth? Also, as the aforementioned DC9/BaC1-11/F28/F70 fleets got turned into beer cans due to age, and a sudden "market gap" for 50-100 seat airplanes was "discovered"....), and exercise other business practices to make the carrier successful. In return, we should expect that all of these business developments to make the carrier successful will have a hand in the important things of unions: Allow job stability, so as the need perhaps for smaller gauge equipment is presented, they are able to rotate the new shells into the business, be they 19 seats or 500 allowing presently employed pilots to remain employed. Provide career advancement, as the airline is able to expand into equipment they see, that will provide growth, thus upgrades and movement on the list.
/:soapbox:
