Originally Posted by acl65pilot

They will when their lease are up, but I do not suspect they would do that now. If they would you will have 255 76 seaters not 102 70's and 223 76 seaters, or 325 70+ seat aircraft.

If they swapped out 70's for 76 seaters and we assume the 70's all operate at 64 seats its 1224 more seats, and that assumes no 50 seat jets get parked, which will not be the case. I also do not think that Bombardier will do a swap of 70s for 76 seat jets. Not with removing the entire early termination penalty. Not even close. If that was the case or even was possible, I suspect we would have seen that sort of thing to 255 in the TA; We don't and that is proof in the pudding. They want to keep the 70's on their current leases because the market is gone. The market for the 50's is gone, all that is left is the 76 seat market and they prefer to keep the production line open versus lease swapouts.

What the current TA does is allows the company to park 50's that are not quite up for their lease terms, swap them for some of the 50's that are newer and reduce their debt obligation. It lowers DCI's seat count sooner but at the expense of airplanes that are viable for 10-15 more years.

As you have constantly stated, every time we hit a new scope limit, its moved. That is the point of my last post. We are moving/modifying it now and have previously for some level of protections. The last time was for furlough protections. This time it is for a production balance that will force parking more 50 seaters(part of my concern is that these CPA's will not be adjusted and if the ratios force a pulldown, the existing language will not allow it to occur-beyond the company's control) Next time it will be the 70's and more 50's. I ask you, is this plan acceptable to one that wants unity? Do the next few steps ensure that for this group and pilots as a whole?, or are you going to fail safe mode because it appears it may do something that we want, but you cannot put your finger on what is missing?

I really want to know? My biggest concern is with the non-compliance language and how it is not specifically written for this part of the PWA but is a term that has been used for other items and has not been modified.

DCI does get reduced overall. DCI gets more larger sustainable lift. DCI may need something like this again in the next round. If it looks the same is it something that you and the pilot group should support even if it extends the life of DCI and does not necessarily sunset the outsourcing?