I assume you meant “no more RJs on the cheap”. Define what that means, please.

I’m 100% in support of bringing 175s in-house, for example. I think today we’re in a critical time that will define whether this will ever happen.

Why? Because the United MEC has already come out and said that reversing all the outsourcing in one contract negotiation round won’t be possible. That puts years possibly a decade until the next round and, in the mean time, United could order the A220 as a NSNB. If they do this, now adding the 175 to fleet means two small narrow bodies and a much more difficult economic problem to negotiate away by the pilots. More than likely, kiss goodbye the idea of taking scope back to 50-seaters and under.

Reversing pilot’s losses from the previous two decades all in one go is one thing. Partially reversing it in the current negotiation round is still a gain, and more realistic. But a partial gain implies also a partial concession. For example, perhaps the 175s can be brought in-house but only with a RJ-scale pay. In future negotiation rounds the remaining issues can be negotiated away.

The benefits of bringing the 175s in house/clawing back at scope are clear. So are the costs, assuming we don’t have the bargaining power to reverse it all at once. But are YOU willing to take negotiations to this level, where gives as well as takes do happen? If we don’t push negotiations to this level, we aren’t trying hard enough, IMO.