Why have scope clauses not been modified for the E175-E2 yet?
Posted by nuyorkercjp@reddit | flying | View on Reddit | 14 comments
Seems like this is long overdue. A newer, more efficient version of a tried-and-true airframe cannot enter service because it has too high of an MTOW, even though it still would seat no more than 76 people.
Reasonable_Blood6959@reddit
The boo boo is on Embraer for not making a 175-E2 that complies with the current clause.
There’s no reason that anyone who benefits from the current scope being in place would be willing to compromise, and rightly so.
Complex-Brief69@reddit
195-E2 was the right solution. 175-E2 would require new type training for regionals who would never pay for that in the first place. Embraer knew what they were doing. US market isn’t there for the 175-E2
Complex-Brief69@reddit
Nope. And never will be. Scope gets more restrictive. Never the other way around. Mainline wants their flying.
Guysmiley777@reddit
Because the unions aren't going to give up ground on scope clauses to make you happy.
HappiestAnt122@reddit
The better question is why Embrear even let the E2 get that heavy. The engines necessitated it somewhat, but they also elected to stretch it. I sometimes wonder had they not stretched it if they’d be close enough to the weight to pull a CRJ-550 type maneuver and artificially limited the fuel capacity to meet the scope clauses (how many E175 missions really need transcontinental range anyway?). Perhaps this would have never been possible, but the E2 alienating the market 70% of E175s operate in, while having modest upgrades and actually a shorter range than the original seems like a massive miss on their part.
saxmanB737@reddit
Nothing is stopping the airlines from buying them.
x4457@reddit
Why would they? The mainline pilot group wants the airline to fly more mainline airplanes.
If the airline wants to fly E2s, then mainline pilots can fly them.
ReadyplayerParzival1@reddit
Same thing with the a220. They are almost the same plane, similar engines, roughly the same seating capacity. These planes only make sense for non us markets where there is no scope clause
x4457@reddit
They're not even remotely the same.
0621Hertz@reddit
Then why do 3 US Airlines fly them?
MrLemonDrop@reddit
Cause not one more seat or one more pound, that’s why
Agent62@reddit
Dude you're going to get flamed for this post.
Rightfully so.
The scope clause is there for this specific reason. Relaxing scope to account for a plane not on property that would be on property would be moronic.
Legacies can easily fly this plane if they want. At their company. No restrictions on that!
KCPilot17@reddit
That's the entire point of the scope clause.
rFlyingTower@reddit
This is a copy of the original post body for posterity:
Seems like this is long overdue. A newer, more efficient version of a tried-and-true airframe cannot enter service because it has too high of an MTOW, even though it still would seat no more than 76 people.
Please downvote this comment until it collapses.
Questions about this comment? Please see this wiki post before contacting the mods.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. If you have any questions, please contact the mods of this subreddit.