If you edit, please say what and why. By the time I hit reply, your message has changed and there is no record of your edit. Regarding your previous post, my point is you are telling half the story. It is the 1 liner our association is putting out. Less overall is not more, plain and simple (re 777 analogy). We are getting something they don't want (50s), for something they want (70+) = concession. That something is mainline flying, not feed! These airplanes are much more capable than 50 seat jets. You don't know what flying it will do, but I'm confident it is much more likely to eventually replace our routes than feed them. And this whole early TA fiasco was hurried just to make this concession.

The argument you have been making is we can't do it profitably. How do you know? Continental has done it profitably for years with little RJ outsourcing, SWA etc..even as we lead the outsourcing. If this TA passes, we will soon be at a tipping point on mainline domestic flying. We will have wasted a golden opportunity. We are giving MGT a pass with this TA. They are not having to pay for their outsourcing ways because many of us are willing to give them 70 more large RJs. The only way to change their behavior is to allow them to reap what they sow. If they want to outsource our jobs and minimize our leverage, the result of these bad decisions go with the territory.

Scope is relative to what everyone else is doing. If we don't hold the line (an unreasonable line already), other groups lose leverage. What if the next group gives more and on and on it goes....325 large RJs are on the table in this TA. That is almost half our entire mainline fleet, made-up of aircraft capable of replacing our flying. When does it stop? UCAL management is giddy about this agreement! This is in the A4A playbook.

Either you believe our jobs are for sale in exchange for money (insulting money at that), or you don't. I just wish guys making this argument would own up to what is really going on here and not rationalize the outsourcing.