Originally Posted by
sailingfun
If the company asked for 25 additional 76 seat RJ's but tied it to a 4 to 1 ratio of additional 100 seat aircraft at the mainline and a net overall reduction of 50 airframes at DCI would that be a concession? We gain 100 mainline airframes and reduce the number of seats at DCI but the company gets additional 76 seat airframes. The Devil is always in the details. One mans concession could be another mans gold!
Yes that would still be a concession.
First of all, if the company has the market need for 100 additional airplanes, they will get those airplanes regardless of us allowing more "large RJ's" or not. Not to mention that by growing the 90 seaters at DCI even more, we would be weakening our future foundation of our newest smallest fleet.
Secondly is how on earth would we write the concession to guarantee that these new 100 "hundred seaters" (how classic is that rumor anyway) wouldn't be partial to full replacement airframes eventually anyway? Park a dozen of the oldest original 320's and several dozen MD's and cover the lift with the new lower paying jets and keep the extra concessionary 90 seater RJs. Now that's winning.
Also, the 50 fewer DCI airframes would likely be most or all 50 seaters that are on the way out regardless and that they can't staff anyway.
Pilot concessions don't buy aircraft. If we'd fall for that, then they should have locked it down by floating this proposal a year or so ago and rolling the widebody order into it as well. Would we have fallen for that too? Scope concessions don't buy aircraft.