I believe this has already been pointed out, but realistically what we are "trading" with regards to small jet scope in this TA is 50 seaters for 70 seaters. The company can already acquire more 76 seat JETS (not to mention unlimited 76 seat turboprops) than this TA allows. I completely agree with the notion that it will not be cost productive to convert the 70s to 76s in the short run, but make no mistake, it will happen eventually (say 6-9 years?) To me the benefits of reducing the allowable 76 seat count, capping the TOTAL outsourced count, and tying in currently nonexistent restrictions on the REAL future threats of geared turbofans and turboprops outweigh the negatives of allowing the company to up gauge their 50 seaters to 70 seaters at a 2 for 1 ratio. This combined with the mbh/dbh ratio (which apparently works quite well as a natural limiter in the case of United's 70 seaters) are pretty well thought out limits considering what we have now.

The issue I do have w the small jet scope is the enforcement of the ratios. There don't appear to be provisions for concrete penalties for failure to comply, other than a grievance ruled on by an arbitrator. If the ratios could be assured, I personally wouldnt give a damn if we allowed unlimited 76 seat jets. If the company wanted to buy 1000 of them and average 3 or so hours a day in them, they still would have to use Delta mainline pilots in far greater proportion than they are now.

All of the current RJ drivers pleading for DAL pilots to stop the outsourcing, be careful what you wish for. If this TA passes close to 1500 of your jobs will cease to exist. Some number of them will move to mainline, but i doubt it will be all.