Originally Posted by
RJDio
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.
I was just giving a very rough draft example. Any different wording to our current language would make me extremely skeptical, but I would give it an honest review. The union would have a difficult job selling me. I’d want to see protections in place for every conceivable trick by the company.
I know they have another avenue to get more rj’s. It’s not just that they’re trying to get them for free, they don’t seem to even want 100 seat mainline jets. Again another rough example... If our current contract says for every 3 mainline A220’s, they get 1 E175 up to the current limits, and a new deal said that for every 5 A319neo, or Max7, they get 1 E175 up to the same limit. Would this not be better for us providing that in order to add any more 76 jets they’d also have to significantly reduce the total number of regional jets. No more unlimited 50 seaters. Yes it’s a change, but we’d be adding 5 higher paying aircraft per rj rather than 3 lower paying ones. Again, very rough draft possibility, but I am willing to explore a change and keep an open mind providing that it improves our protections and advancement.