And this is a good point, but what some people don't seem to realize is that just because AA and CO for example won't give on anything larger than 50 seats, does not mean that "protection" translates into growth at mainline. AA has more pilots on the street than any other airline. CO is parking 737's and just furloughed. Now, don't look at my avatar and postion and assume that Im ignorant or am for CRJ-900's taking over all mainline flying. Because Im not.

The point Im making is that what we would all like is for less farming out of flying to "regional" airlines. Theoretically, if airlines stopped this practice, that flying could be done by say a 737 at mainline, which would create more and better paying jobs there instead of an influx of RJ's and whipsawing, etc. But this has not been shown to be true. The airlines won't do it. The economics don't support it. 50 seat jets for the most part are what most airlines want to rid themselves of. So Im not sure if keeping so many of them, even in the name if scope helps the bottom line. As far as putting 70-76 seaters at mainline...again...not gonna happen. We can all point the finger at ALPA for letting the cat out or all the wanna be airline pilots willing to fly em at regionals. Both points have meritt. Air Canada seems to have the right formula, and I've always asked why US airlines can't follow that lead. But I guess it all comes down to money.