and

As for the first part, yes it is too much to ask, because there's no deal on the table that does this, and allows the company to trade in the 50's for something else, AND gets us out of our contracts with the DCI carriers. The extra 76-seaters are the bargaining chip. Other than wishful thinking, I haven't heard one plan that gets the 50's traded in, and accomplishes what this TA does.

As for the second, you're getting an improvement to Scope, and for the first time, the trading is occuring within Section 1, resulting in a net improvement. I can't read Section without concluding that more leverage was applied there, probably even at the detriment of Section 3. So it can be easily argued this is the first time we've leaked leverage into Section 1. The difference in what you're asking is that you want a "pinch-me-I'm-dreaming" Scope outcome. That would be so expensive we'd probably have NO Section 3 improvements.

Don't kid yourself: this thing won't go down because the Scope is poor, it'll go down because the Scope is too good, and we failed to shift leverage out of Section 1, into Section 3, as we always do. Most of the "no's", based on my experience will not be over 76-seaters, but over the payrates.