Comparing the success of pax carriers improving scope with our attempts is a simple show of ignorance. I hope we can improve our scope language. But saying we can or should because DL, AA or UA improved theirs is just dumb. Apples and orangutans or whatever else could be as far apart as possible. Two completely different business models with far different methods of determining what scope language will control.

There's not a single DL, AA or UA (or any airline customer for that matter) that buys a ticket while telling the airline - "Ya know, I don't really care if I get to my destination tomorrow or the day after. In fact, it's okay if I don't get there until next week. I also don't care if I get there on an airplane. You can truck me there or maybe put me in the belly of another airline. Just get me there for a reasonable price sometime in the next week or so."

So please stop with ANY scope comparisons with our pax peers. One of the main reasons the legacy carriers made improvements in scope is because it meshed with the long term corporate goals of their companies. We need to try to protect our flying where we can. Hopefully we can find common ground with management because it benefits both sides. But, we're not going to be successful if we start trying to insist that FedEx buys aircraft they don't need or fly half-full aircraft on non-profitable routes because we "deserve" to be moving that freight no matter what.