Originally Posted by AxlF16

Our current 'scope choke' simply limits the number of 70/76 seaters unless the company buys the a220/e190/e195. It stemmed from UALs argument to the mediator that they should have 325 airplanes to match Delta. ALPA argued that Delta had just brought on a fleet of B717s and that they should match that in order to get the additional 70 RJs. Here's some math... 88 Delta B717s ÷ additional 70 UAL RJs = 1.25. See if you find that number in Sec1.

The ultimate goal was to compel UAL to buy a fleet of mainline 100 seat airplanes to fill a gap they desperately wanted to fill. Then it turned out that Kirby has a different idea of aircraft size needed at UAL. His first move was to cancel the 737-700 order and buy larger planes. The United Next order is convincing evidence that he's NOT Jeff Smisek or Brian Znotins. We ordered the largest of thr available narrowbodies.

So what do we do with scope choke if UAL doesn’t want to buy 100 seat aircraft? Remember, we already had/have scope language preventing those aircraft from flying at express. Scope choke was an attempt to bring them to mainline and end the ongoing pressure/threat from UAL to erode our scope language. The reality is that Scott Kirby's fleet vision and strategy is 180⁰ from Jeff Smisek.

It's reasonable to explore releasing scope choke in exchange for other contractual gains WHILE LEAVING CURRENT SIZE/OPERATIONAL LIMITATIONS IN PLACE. Let them come to 325 parity with Delta but tighten up how they use them (range, markets, economic downturn, etc...). Depending on how the protections are written and what we gain this might not be seen as a concession. It's a fine line to walk for sure!

I'm actually expecting to spend most of my time pondering this sectionsection no/yes decision.