Originally Posted by
intrepidcv11
*Sigh* I shouldn't bother BUT just can't help myself. Simple fact, management was going to park 50 seaters. They are high cost, unpopular with elites, and running out of airframe time. Another simple fact, management desperately wanted the CRJ 900 sized airframe since they are lower cost, popular with elites, and brand new. End result, management is getting the airframes they want that have an entire generation of shelf life to utilize.
Yet ALPA says we won the scope war because we forced management to park 50 seaters!?! GMAFB! Unfortunately the koolaid will wear off one day when we all collectively realize we are a bunch of idiots for buying off on yet another supposed 'scope choke'...
Your post says nothing about how you would evaluate success. The advent of 76 seat orders heralds a reduction in fleet size and ASMs. What is it that you are seeing as negative and how do you propose to measure success or failure? If UAL has 1 billion available seat miles and 40% are express and that falls to 1 billion available seat miles with 10% express is that failure?
You are espousing a line of thinking that is totally without merit and shows a complete lack of understanding of the latest scope clause.