I'm not sure what you mean by this, because, as I read it, the MTA already gives us the worst scope in the big three.

* DL/UA are both limited to 450 regional aircraft; AA is limited to 75% of the narrowbody fleet, or about 600 aircraft.

*DL/UA are both limited to 223 76 RJs; AA is limited to, ultimately, 40% of the narrowbody fleet, or about 320 aircraft.

*DL/UA are both limited to 102 70 seat aircraft. AA is limited to 75% of the narrowbody fleet, less the number of 71-76 seat aircraft, but with a slightly lower limit of 65 seats. While the lower limit might make this look like AA is the "winner" in this category, consider that the higher limit we have on 76 seat aircraft means that we allow about the same number of 66-76 seat aircraft (~320) than DL/UA allow 50-76 seat aircraft (325). When you then include the fact that up to ~280 aircraft can be configured with 65 seats, we allow far more (~600 vs. 325) aircraft to be configured with over 50 seats.

*Finally, let's not forget that, while we all like to pretend that we have comply with the industry standard limit of 76 seats, the fact is that we allow the grandfathered operation of a staggering 76 aircraft that exceed that limit.

The fact is, we are already operating under a worse scope section than either DL or UA. That makes the company's ask all the more egregious, and any delusion that arbitration will leave the company with the tightest scope only weakens the case for bringing our scope more inline with DL/UA, whose scope restrictions would actually be a significant win for us.