Originally Posted by
Itsajob
The verbiage could potentially change, but not the desired end result. They could potentially lift the different type NB requirement and allow a few more big rj’s, but put a very severely reduced limit on the total number of rj’s allowed in the system. Something to the effect of reducing the regional fleet by 5 or more jets for every 76 seater added up to a limit. If they added the 70 or so jets that buying an additional NB type would free up, they would have to reduce the total regional fleet by 350+ aircraft. This would also have to be tied to additional mainline aircraft and have a severe reduction in the number of allowable rj’s if our fleet shrinks for any reason. Just guessing and thinking outside of the box. At the end of the day any change in scope is up to us. If it changes, it is because we vote for it.
While I agree with your sentiment, it is this logic that got us to where we are at. I’m sure the guys who agreed to just a few 50 seat rj’s back in the early 90’s saw no harm. Agreeing to park a bunch of 50 seaters for more 76 seaters is fulfilling their Machiavellian strategy.
Remember we’re up first in this round. We will set the pattern bargaining trend in the industry. If we capitulate the boiling frog will continue to boil. If we hold the line and let the choke work, recapturing should follow.
P.S. as others have pointed out. The company currently has an avenue to add more jumbo rj’s. They’re just waiting to see if they can get it for a free lunch.