The concession to me was getting rid of the 767 mainline fleet number and the requirement that any 76-seat growth come at the expense of 70-seaters with the max still being 255 jumbo RJs. The proponents of C2012 said it was a gain because the company could pump then dump, but that cost alone would make it a nonstarter not to mention they'd still end up with 255 RJs max. C2012 allowed them to pump while dumping.

That's why I believe it was a concession.

To drop an analogy on this thought, say a Delta pilot and an RJ pilot walk into a bar together. The bartender pours them two free beers of nearly the same size. Maybe the Delta pilot's is larger by a ratio of say, 1.19, but who is counting?

Now before they drink a sip of it the Bartender looks at the Delta pilot and says, if you buy his dinner, I'll make sure you have twice as much beer as he does. Delta pilot says, hell yeah, deal. And bartender reaches over to the RJ pilots beer, pours half of it out, and then gives him his dinner and turns to the Delta pilot and says that'll be $10.

Delta pilot objects. You didn't give me more beer? Nope. But you've got twice as much as he does and that was the deal. That's what that ratio was set at. Take away from DCI, but mainline was not required to have growth. Of course it was sold as 88 airplane growth, but that's not what the ratio required. It was probably more like 20. Out of 580 jets.

Still, this ratio ain't nothing compared to the issues TA2015 presents.