Originally Posted by
gloopy
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.
Gloopy,
My point is not "what" we negotiated into the contract but that we "did" negotiate and it cost us some leverage in contract 2012. Many on here argued, very legitimately, that the 50 seat RJ's and outsourcing were/are dying a slow death and going to go away anyway so why waste leverage. I have changed my mind (and I think Ts has too) and agree with this side of the argument now. I think I'm in a book by Joseph Heller!

As for your second paragraph, I think that ship has sailed. They can't get the pilots to staff their experiment now and there is no way in H E double hockey sticks that Dalpa will give them relief from our current scope clause.
Denny