Originally Posted by
DAWGS
If it were just less 50s, I would agree with what I just bolded in your comment. Seeing as how we are giving them 70 more 70+ RJs (direct mainline replacement jets), I have to disagree. 325 large RJs under the TA vs. the 255 hard cap we have now is actually more .....not less. Funny how so many guys keep repeating this falsehood.
But using the less is more argument for a moment, we could justify giving them 777s. Hey, it would only be a few airframes. Maybe we could get a few more coins in our pocket and surely we would not have to go through Sec. 6!
Wrong. Overall, there will be less total RJs. There will be more "larger" RJs, but what people are not understanding is that the loss of the 150 50 seaters will create routes for those 102 70 seaters. They will cover a lot of the same routes that the 50s that are being parked are flying now. 150 small RJs hit a lot of important city pairs, but some of them can't make money apparently. That is where the 70 seaters will come in most likely. Where do you think 88 717s will fly to? Places where current 76 seaters are flying? Yeah.... Maybe LGA slot swap RJ routes? Probably.
And your less is more argument is weak. Give 777s? Really? Give a plausible outcome. If you don't think a longer section 6 via the NMB isn't possible, then you need to make some phone calls.