As 82S stated.. easy to swap out orders.
Again.. the company HAS a reason to order a NSNB aircraft. Question becomes, do they go with an older model with old technology, or do they go with a state of the art aircraft.
It's not about today or tomorrow.. it's about looking downrange.
Does the company have plans that include an option that allows them to downgauge aircraft in times of trouble?
If things get bad in 2018-2020.. could the company park 73's and A3xx's and replace them with CS100/300's? Less seats, better economics?

Also.. if we are NOT planning a CS100 order, then why not have a pay rate for $205 an hour for that aircraft? If we are never going to order it (just like the A380), why not at least get a better rate?

GB-
You are probably right about the cost factor being low on the list of reasoning to purchase. BUT, the company knows that the leverage swings to the union/pilot group if they order an aircraft WITHOUT a set payrate.
I'll also make this point.
If the CS100 were to pay $205 an hour (12th yr Capt), that would be $20 more than what is listed now.
Figure 20 aircraft.. 200 Capts. times $20 an hour, times 1000 hours per pilot=
$4 million a year. Times 3 years (2017, 2018 and 2019).. $12 million.
Not a huge amount but that is 12 million that goes into the companys coffer and to managements bonus.
There's also the issue of the blended rate changing too.

Again, we play checkers while the company plays Chess.
Someday, we will have to give up something else in order to get the CS100 payrate higher. The company knows that.

Always
Motch