No, I don't support raising the limits JUST TO MAKE MORE PROFITS. It's a good byproduct, if there is a good deal at the same time for SCOPE overall. This is a negotiation, not a demand session. We can demand for another 3 years if we want to, and nothing will change, at all. You may think that is great because there won't be 325 larger RJs, but instead there would be 255 of the largest RJs (if we got 717s or something else down the road), and still 300+ 50 seaters that aren't great for us, or our PROFITS.


I know DCI pilots probably would fly the MD88s for less. ALPA said NO to the company when they wanted up to 82 seats for DCI, until the last day of negotiating according to them at the roadshow. Was that true? I wasn't at the negotiating table, but I wouldn't put it past them to ask. They were going to ask for a lot, and they got some of what they wanted. But, we got a lot more in my opinion, and a pretty good deal overall. Not perfect, but early, short in duration, better scope with ratios and caps, and almost 20% for 3 years which is good.

Could the DPA do better? I don't think so. Do I want ALPA to continually feel challenged by another possible entity so they continue to make sure they try to get the best deal possible for us always? YES. I think this TA is acceptable, primarily because of our competition and their positions, and we don't really have an idea of exactly what is next for our company. If we did, that might be another story.