Originally Posted by
FriendlyPilot
So you’re deciding this based on a pandemic? Even with 0 RJs they’d have tried to furlough the pilots. What makes you think that no RJ’s means the company can’t furlough? They’d have still furloughed. Vote how you want, but flying a few more 76 seaters and getting rid of 200 50 seaters is a massive scope gain. Massive.
The 50 seaters have amongst the highest CASMs in the industry. It makes financial sense for them to go away. It doesn't make sense for us to pay for them to go away. We've already provided an avenue for UAL to use more 76 seaters. You want to pay for a gain that we already have language for?