Here is the situation the company was in:

1) they had too many of these that they did not want...



2) they had jets they wanted but couldn't have because of us...



3) and they had these unwanted jets drop in their lap by a major competitor who never wanted them and were so desperate to get rid of them that they'd pay us to take them...



Ya'll all agree on those fundamentals?

Now you could believe that in order to afford the 717 we had to get rid of CRJ-200s but in order to do that we had to convince Bombardier to take them back and the only way to do that was to take CRJ-900s in exchange. That's fine. I hope you're right.

Or,

Like me, you sadly believe the company decided (smartly) to arouse us with 717s (all pure growth) in order to get us to swallow something we don't like (allowing more jumbo RJs). Toss in the idea of shrinking DCI to raise arousal, but, it seems that was happening without the TA anyways.

It's, um... unfortunately... a lot like this... How Female Arousal Overrides Their Disgust During Sex: Study

And we did it.

So all we have now is the hope that the new jumbo RJs that we ceded to the company come in exchange for mainline airframe growth even though that's no longer required. And sure those of us who said no to the TA could shut up and move on and forget about what happened with scope, but, some of us feel that we need to continue to raise awareness that the precedence and safeguards we set are insufficient if not unfavorable to us and we should not agree to anything like it again.