Originally Posted by
notEnuf
Why 76 then? Is the line arbitrary? MTOW and seats are just a metric. Do you have a line that should not be crossed? Lets all get 50% raises and left them have the CS-100. NO jobs lost yet right?
The sell small scope mentality has ruled this union far too long. The long term goal needs to be to protect and recapture brand flying. You diminish the power of the union to affect the brand with every carve out.
Why 76 then?
I too would like to not have 76 seat jets at DCI - but we can not undo what has already been done.
Is the line arbitrary?
It may have been arbitrary in the past but it is now and has been in our last few PWA's.
MTOW - I am fully convinced that 1 more lb. of MTOW or 1 more seat than 76 would not pass the MEC or MEMRAT. It is as close to a single issue "NO" vote that I have.
The 76 seat line has been established and has held - that is good. I was furloughed when we kept raising the limit. Keeping it at 76 seats for now is good.
As someone has said - If we want to get to zero RJs we have to go through less RJs. If we are reducing the size of DCI as far as % of mainline flights and total DCI seats it is good for us.
Do I think 50 seats are dinosaurs and would go away anyway - yes but it might take many years so I would rather do it the way we did it in C-2012.
Scope is to protect DAL Pilot jobs. If we allow more 76 seaters but reduce the number of 50 seaters by much more we are moving more DCI Pilots to mainline - again a good thing.
We should not let the quest for a perfect deal delay a good deal.
Finally - I was a No vote on the lat TA and will vote No again if the deal is lacking but a reduction in DCI while allowing more 76 seats jets may be acceptable to me depending on the details.
Scoop