Originally Posted by
Planetrain
I see your point and your concern. It sounds like you’re worried the XLR will be the new “international RJ” sacrificing payload for frequencies, and the new global scope doesn’t guarantee we would fly our share of international RJs where in the old scope language there was at least some protection with EASKs.
My opinion is the 321NEO or XLR will likely fly some of the shortest transatlantic flights. I am a skeptic that a partner airline will achieve a saturation level where it decimates our global flying, particularly of the trade offs they would need to make to achieve the deep Europe range. The MD11 barely made Japan, the 73N doesn’t do Hawaii well, the C-Series only barely can do LCY to NY.
Even if I’m wrong, does the new scope protection protect us better or worse against all the threats we face over the next 10 years vs current book? And if we kept current book, would the remedy for continued infractions with an XLR pay enough to offset the potential WB penalties paid under the new scope agreement? I can let the XLR threat “soak” a contract cycle and revisit. The wide body penalties in the agreement in front of us I want yesterday.
great term International RJ. I would have been willing to let the supersonic jet “soak” until next time since it’s just a phantom plane now. The XLR is coming the LR is here and this TA hasn’t addressed them. I would argue that it’s easier to negotiate for them now when they aren’t huge threat than later when they have a foot hold.