Originally Posted by FlyZ

Sailing, it's very encouraging to hear you say you would not vote for an increase in large RJs.

Hypothesis: Judging from the pacing of these rumors, I think something else could be at play. Think about what has happened on this board (microcosm of what is happening in the big world): The first trial balloon we saw was more 76 seaters in exchange for more mainline jets, hiring, etc. This was met (at least here) with furious opposition. That rumor died down a little, and then we started hearing about 90-seaters being in play. This was even more upsetting. Was this an attempt by mgt to manage our expectations? In other words, when we see an eventual TA with increased 76-seaters, we will be relieved because "at least it doesn't have 90-seaters!" Conjecture on my part, but...

IMHO, we need to see through these ploys and remember some key facts:

- Mgt's words ("We don't like the RJ product") violently disagree with their actions (maxing out large RJs to the contractual limit, filling LGA with them after the slot swap, focusing their advertising on large RJs with First Class, and flying them between cities like New York and Chicago.) If we let them replace everything A-320/M90 and smaller with DCI & Alaska tomorrow, I have no doubt they would do it.

- When mgt is confronted about RJs, the continual reply is that they are being parked as quickly as possible. This may be true of 50-seaters, but it is dishonest to lump them together with the big ones. Some 50-seaters are being parked...the big ones are continuing to take our flying.

- We can fly large RJs at mainline for very close to the same cost of DCI! I'm not sure how the marginal cost savings (if there is any) is worth the sub-par service our passengers receive on DCI. For whatever reason, mgt seems hell-bent on placing as many of them on DCI as we let them (even to the detriment of the Delta image). Our kids would also eat as many Snickers as we let them, even though they are bad for their health. In both cases, let's not let them!