Originally Posted by
acl65pilot
The fact is that everyone shouted; "PAY PAY PAY" and they have stated scope was a distant second. Well we got Section 1 tied up throughout the spectrum and it cost 70 more large RJ's with the parking of 130 50 seaters(In this regard we need to realize RA has stated they have wanted em going, but the number were not decreasing. That whole actions louder than words thing) This will shrink DCI by 35-50% of their block hrs, and probably marginally on ASM's. Frankly, its a lot of RJ's and would have preferred none, but expected less from the rumors.
True ... and because of the wording of the survey it was all the opening needed to "constructively engage" a scope carve out to be relevant at the bargaining table.
Kind of like a day with a deferred APU and the cabin at 100 degrees. If you ask passengers what they want they will say "cool down the cabin." If you asked, "would you like us to remove half the wing bolts to fix the APU ?" then the answer would be "NO!"
Substantively, C12 TA is driven by scope concerns. It removes any pretense of DCI being anything other than an alter ego for Delta Air Lines. But, it is balanced better than anything yet written. Frankly, I am very glad our MEC kept the line at 76 seats. That was not easy work.
There are some real gains here. We may not have a big headline number, but our steady progress has put us at the top of our legacy peer group by a sizable margin. I also think there is a good possibility that traditional Section 6 would not get us nearly as good a deal. There are a lot of variables in Section 6 and thus far UCAL, US Air, and American are not holding up their end of the house.