Originally Posted by
johnso29
For instance, is it true that management asked for 80/82 seats in the CRJ900's? Isn't that a cheap move? Don't they want/need the 2 class configuration for the revenue of our HVC's, and would the 82 seats allow for that? Basically, they threw it out there to force our hand knowing they'd never use that configuration anyway. Yes?.
No. The CRJ-905's can come delivered with 3 class slimline seating at 82 seats, as can the EMB-175. Many of our current CRJ-900's can only be equipped with 80 seats, but that configuration was also going to be used. We used both of them in our cost analysis of trying to get large RJ flying to mainline.
Originally Posted by
johnso29
Accepting 33 more 76 seaters due to managements "interpretation" of the allowable 76 seat jet formula, followed by the DPJs grievance gives most of us junior guys little confidence in our Sec 1 language or our Unions desire to enforce it. I think this is where much of the uneasiness originates. This is why many are coming up with all these hypothetical scenarios. We lack confidence in anything but iron clad Sec 1 language.
Point of information, you're repeating more bad data that was provided by junglebus and accepting it as fact. Management had sufficiently grown mainline to allow 127 76 seat aircraft under ALPA's interpretation, and that's the interpretation that management has to use going forward. The difference of 26 is why a grievance was filed, and the risk of an arbitrated award brought both parties to a settelment.