I also agree with your, uh, disagreement. It would be an epic loss worthy of a blunders in aviation special on the History channel. But it *could* still technically be interpreted that way because "total number of DCI jets per mainline jets were reduced" therefore an improvement in the production balance...if you define improvement as number of planes or even block hours or even number of pilot jobs. Either way, that's an "improvement".

If that's not what we had in mind, how come our opener didn't say we aim to reduce large RJ's at DCI? Every other section had an "increase this" or "significantly increase that" bullet point except scope. Although our opener did mention 76 seaters...only as they apply to one of the penalties for furloughing. But nowhere did it say we want to reduce the number of outsourced large RJ's.