Question On Scope Clause And Large Props

[ringmaruf]

Just curious if there's anything in the ALPA contract about scope for US Airways Express operating large turboprops (like a 72-seat Dash 8 Q400, MTOW 64,500lbs).

Just wondering if US would need to get a side letter from ALPA should US want to operate props with more than 50 seats. (Not that I think it would be terribly difficult to get.)

 

[BoeingBoy]

Without looking, I think everything over 50 seats is tied to the "small jets" definitions so it would probably take a change in the language. Having said that (and as you say) it shouldn't be hard to make the Q400 eligible. Just keep the allowed numbers the same and include turboprops.

Jim

 

[TBONEJ4J]

Prior to all the events of the past 4 or so years, when the Q400 was being certified Bombardier had offered to have a model type certificated for 70 Seats in order that Piedmont or Allegheny could fly it in the US Air system.

Large Turboprops up to 70 Seats were not restricted by any scope provision.

Other than 70 Seats Max the only other restriction was no Jets. Then Mesa was awarded 35 Jets and the rest is History. To date, there is still no restriction on the use of the Q400 - other than running it with 70 Seats, or so I understand.

This clever use of scope by the US Airways Pilot group has succeeded in protecting numerous flying jobs at Mesa and other contract carriers while decimating Piedmont, Allegheny and US Airways. :blink:

 

[BoeingBoy]

TBONEJ4J,

I'll defer to your memory. As I recall, all the scope changes since Wolf's time have dealt with RJ's, so presumably the old language on turboprops still stands.

Jim

 

[FM2436]

Just curious if there's anything in the ALPA contract about scope for US Airways Express operating large turboprops (like a 72-seat Dash 8 Q400, MTOW 64,500lbs).

Just wondering if US would need to get a side letter from ALPA should US want to operate props with more than 50 seats. (Not that I think it would be terribly difficult to get.)

[post="230220"][/post]​

I understand that right now Piedmont is looking for 12+ additional 300's. I've also heard that the 400 requires a totally new operating certificate (if that's the correct wording). Apparently, Piedmont could not operate the 400 under its present 100, 200, and 300 operations and maintenance programs.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I've looked up the old scope language, and TBONEJ4J is basically right. The limit is "a maximum certificated seating capacity in excess of 69 seats".

I haven't gone thru the side letters modifying scope since 1998, but don't remember anything that alters that provision except for "small jets".

Jim

 

[TBONEJ4J]

I've looked up the old scope language, and TBONEJ4J is basically right. The limit is "a maximum certificated seating capacity in excess of 69 seats".

I haven't gone thru the side letters modifying scope since 1998, but don't remember anything that alters that provision except for "small jets".

Jim

[post="230345"][/post]​

Thanks Jim. 69 is the number. Bombardier was going to certify a 69 Seat version if there was an Order by US Airways. Also the EFIS was to present instruments in the traditional manner so it would be a common type with the 100/300.

A Bargain Basement offer that was rejected by talented, talented management whose talent must be retained by regular large bonuses. Or dispatched with massive payoffs and/or pensions. :down:

 

[WSurf]

Turbulent times may produce new turboprop opportunities Dateline: Thursday December 09, 2004

The ongoing financial struggles of mainline carriers could yield new opportunities for turboprop aircraft, according to Saab Aircraft Leasing President and CEO Michael Magnusson.

"When business was good, you could afford to fly an RJ on short stage lengths," he said. But turboprops may find a new lease on life as mainline carriers trying to rein in their costs take another look at the fuel-efficient aircraft for some of their Regional flying.


"There are no longer unacceptable scenarios," Magnusson said. He noted that ExpressJet, a Regional partner of Continental Airlines, recently issued an RFP for 10-15 turboprops. The carrier, which shed its turboprop aircraft a few years ago, currently operates a fleet of ERJ-145s.

Magnusson noted that RJs are "great" on routes of between 300 and 500 mi. but that turboprops continue to be the best choice for routes of less than 200 mi. "There is no debate--there is still room for turboprops, but the size of the room is debatable." Orders for RJs in the 50-seat range have diminished, financing for new aircraft is difficult to obtain and there are fewer viable turboprop markets in which to place RJs, he noted. At the same time, the focus is on larger RJs in the 70/110-seat range, "which is good for us. It takes them farther away from us."--Sandra Arnoult


Maybe Group should have not even worried about the CRJ200's since they missed that window by about 10 years! I saw a article that stated that most 50 seat RJ's will be in the desert in 10 years(i guess the seat cost is higher then ever). They should have gotten all Q400's instead of the 50 seat RJ's, and then when it was time for RJ's only 700/900s series along with EMB170/190's. I think then you would have seen a better revenue base. Just an opinion, and u know what there like🙂
But I forgot, hmmm Group will step over a dollar to pick up a quarter.