Originally Posted by
Sink r8
I think you could concede the point that the 76 seater is likely on the table, from TO's letter, but fairness would require him to concede the purpose would be to craft an overall much better Section 1, with a much better allocation of flying overall.
If you acknowledge one you have to acknowledge the other.
Late into this discussion, but I think this is spot on. Our current scope stinks! No protection on the bottom end (50's but also turboprops) and very little on the top end (only AF JV protected) If DCI block hours go down and airframes reduce in number (but 76 seaters increase) and Mainline block hours and airframes increase (717/A319) and this is protected by IRONCLAD language, isn't this a good thing? Remember, current scope I believe allows 255 large RJ's (mix of 70 and 76) but the 76 jets can increase significantly by adding 30 or so ML jets. And how about a JV with Emirites/Etihad et al, that we have no control over. I think we need to remember we need a comprehensive Section 1 and not just emphasize RJ's.