Eh....
Not sure if anything needs to be given up to reset turbofan scope to zero seats. To be honest, not sure if on an overall basis scope with Fee For Departure Carriers is going to be a huge deal in only a handful of years. Here I go...
First, let me be clear, it enrages me to see mainline flying being outsourced to a Fee For Departure Carrier. Don't worry, I won't be taking it out on pilots at FFDC Carriers, but I
FIRMLY believe that there should be no 'Operated by [Fee For Departure Carrier]. With that said, let us look at the economics we are facing. Fuel is at a decade low, but airlines are continually parking 50 seat aircraft. Yes, there are
some replacements for these 50 seat aircraft with larger air frames operated by Fee For Departure Carriers, but I will take parking 150 RJs and only replacing them with what, 36ish...the economy just isn't there for large fleets of 50 or even 76 seat air frames. The scope clauses are working on the domestic side right now.
Secondly, this doesn't mean we rest on our laurels with FFDC Scope, but let us shift focus on how to 'fix' that problem. An idea that really needs to be looked at more is brand liability. Make it a law, that if a FFDC Carrier has an accident, that the brand they are flying under has A LOT more in terms of liability. That could drive that expense so great that it won't be worth it, from a liability stand point, to have outsourced flying.
Thirdly, I think the real issue with scope deals with International Code Sharing and Scope. Now, I do think there is some extremely valuable pieces that are beneficial to the Pilots of American, Delta, and United with their Joint Ventures. If someone needs to travel from Nuremberg to Portland, Oregon, good chance they fly on an American, Delta, or United aircraft at some point. That has value. I know the STAR ALLIANCE and SKY TEAM Pilot groups are talking, working together to make sure we all don't overstep ourselves here.
However, let us look at places that have
NO RJs but have a different scope problem. Take a look at JetBlue. Not sure if
@PhilosopherPilot saw this during a roadshow, but take a look at where JetBlue flies to and then, where you can 'fly to' internationally with JetBlue and their international code share partners. Then take a look at Virgin America and the International Destinations 'they serve'. Yep, you won't get on a RJ there, but you can 'take them' to England!
@Cherokee_Cruiser, is this a concern? I hope
@sherpa tells the new folks running the show at Spirit Wings to secure more provisions in their scope agreement with international carriers. I am sure Ben B. would love to get an agreement with Norwegian.
@ATN_Pilot please talk about SWA's International Protections. Finally, Alaska (yes they have some outsourced flying) 'serves' a lot of international places as well.
See the picture I am trying to paint? Yes, FFDC Scope is extraordinarily important, but the economics aren't there anymore for 50 seat, or even large scale 76 seat fleets. There are other ways I think we need to look at there as well to secure more of that under the brand. However, I am actually more concerned about what is going on Internationally overall than domestically. Not sure if
@Richman has any more thoughts on this, but we can have some real serious issues over the next few years.