Originally Posted by gloopy

IOW, more 76 seaters at DCI. Probably lots more, like 50-100 or even more. OK, while that's an automatic no vote from me and I don't buy into any of the sky is falling alternatives, let's run with that assumption that we *need* these additional 76 seaters and we need them at DCI. Again, I strongly disagree, but let's assume it is the case (cause it WILL be in the TA no matter what.)

At that point, the easiest and most foolproof way to test the validity of management's supposedly desperate RJ lease situation theory is to see the longevity of these additional (as well as existing) large RJ DC-9-10 replacement jets. What I mean by that is even if they truly need these extra jets at DCI and even if it is in our best interests over all (which it isn't) then the company should have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER with making all of the additional jets temporary and offer a complete phase out of all of DCI above 50 seats in a reasonable timeframe. As in, no more DCI agreements can be renewed for over 50 seaters ever, and all must be gone by 2020 with very significant reductions starting a few years prior to that. That coincides with a full and complete sunset.

But does anyone really think management will go for that? They want more DC-9 replacement jets at DCI and they want them now. But the key here is they want them permanently. That's how you know they are lying about their intentions. If it were truly a one time please help us out deal that will save epic tons of money, they should have no problem putting an aggressive but doable drop dead sunset clause on all DCI over 50 seats. But THEY WON'T.

Again, that is how you know they are lying. Its also how you know our own MEC falsely thinks they are savvy in partnering with management to sell out more mainline jobs in the long run, even if phase I of all this results in hiring fairly quickly.

The way this is being pushed by the MEC, and supposedly in the spirit of constructive engagement, and to "unleash the DNA of Delta" as the guy who sits behind C.E. Woolman's desk so eloquently puts it, we should face absolutely no resistance in a complete drop dead of all >50 seaters before the decade is out unless what this is really about is permanent narrowbody fleet replacement and a never ending dead weight to our bargaining leverage. There is no other logical reason they wouldn't agree to it that that.

If that is not in the upcoming scope sale in the TA for more large RJ's, the company is lying to us and the MEC is, for whatever reason, partnering with them to gut the smaller end of our narrowbody jobs even more over the long term.