Originally Posted by
Xray678
Normally, I would be against any scope concession. Right now though I don't think it's as big a deal. The regionals are short pilots. Instead of three 50 seaters, it takes fewer pilots to fly two 76 seaters. Even with a change like this I don't see us losing flying at the mainline.
I am more concerned with scope on the top end.
I will add if we don't do something to help the regionals cover their flying, there will be pressure on the FAA to raise the retirement age again. I sure as hell don't want that.
I agree. The top end scope is scary.
As to the bottom, and let me get my soap box, the reality is that yes while they're having trouble staffing DCI and we're growing... the growth is not written in stone. It's not required.
DCI/ATA/DAL could fix its issues, eliminate 1500 hour rule, etc, and fix their staffing woes and back they come with a fleet of 325 jumbo RJs that could very well increase in C2015 if you yahoos are right.
Currently we're at a block hour ratio somewhere now around 1.65-1.66 with DCI, the contract has a min of 1.47 right now (1.56 only if they order their full allotment of CRJ900s). Acquiring 717s and already being above the min means the minimums were set too low to begin with. If they did want to get rid of the 88 fleet as rumored, they could park nearly 90% of those 117 jets and still be in compliance with 1.47. DAL wanted an out from required growth and we gave it to them.
If the 88 B717s were truly to be growth over 2012 numbers then the min ratio should have been 1.7 for DCI at its current size and 1.8 at 450 DCI jets. If you want to get rid of a ML fleet, you better replace it 1:1 or park RJs.
We need more things in Section 1 written in stone to match the intent of what is sold. A car dealer saying a car will last 250,000 miles but only offering a 35,000 mile warranty is very different then one who gives you 250,000 mile bumper to bumper.