Alan is MORE CORRECT here than sailing. And please note... there was a WAY, but it was a very very costly way. Now it's less costly to get to a higher number of 76 seats than it would have been before.

sailing hits this bogus point over and over, and no one on this forum is unaware of exactly how the tradeoff worked, and what we gave up in that trade. No matter how many times you try to make it sound like it was a good deal, you're not going to convince us...

FlyingSig, I think "223 was not as much of a loss as we could have had" is more accurate. 223 AND no increase in 76 seat jets, thus extending the viability of DCI/RJ model, would have been a "win". IMO, that increase in allowed 76 seaters without having to trade in 70 seaters to get them was the single worst part of the new contract. A great deal of the rest of it was quite decent... this one item caused my "no" vote.