Originally Posted by
Denny Crane
Consider the discussion about small jet scope in contract 2012. On the one hand, it's now contractual about getting rid of 100's of 50 seat RJ's for some some more 70+ seaters. On the other hand, the 50 seaters were going away anyway. Okay, you convinced me, they were/are going away anyway. Now why would I want to spend negotiating capital to make it contractual? Isn't that what we did in C2012 and many guys were upset about the deal?
What made some upset about C2012 RJ scope was the addition of a lot of the largest 90 seater "RJ's" (configured to 76 seats with a management desired first class). The 50's clearly were going away. I would not be in favor of any kind of additional "scope deal" that gave the company more large RJ's for any reason, especially if they want to use the larger hulls to fly more outsourced pax with a critical pilot supply shortage at the outsourced level. I could even see them trying to float some scheme where DCI gets larger [~100 seat?] "RJ's" in exchange for fewer 70's or even 76er's which are really 90's. No thanks. That would be a concession and a future downturn poison pill that would come back to bite us hard later even if the net DCI seats were reduced. The 76 seat and weight limits should be involitile. If anything, those numbers need to be revised downward.
I'm sure they will try even larger RJ's for some kind of carrot to bail them out of their pathetic DCI MBA experiment. I hope we don't fall for it. But I want larger RJ's reduced and the limits reigned in to some degree, if not entirely.