Originally Posted by LeineLodge

Slow,

While I respect your insights and opinions, you've GOT TO stop using this line as a defense of Moak's and the MEC's scope stance. I agree they have done an outstanding job with the merger, SLI, etc, but the ONLY reason we have seen a "substantial" decrease in RJ flying is the economics of the 50 seater. If it were economically feasible and/or advantageous to the company for some other reason (stick it to labor during section 6 maybe) then every single one of those parked RJ's could come back.

We need to take our very next opportunity to cinch up the RJ limits while they are down. It wouldn't cost the company anything (other than future flexibility) to agree to cap RJ's at their current number - don't have that number readily available - as opposed to the number our scope allows.

Oh yeah, and once and for all maybe they could communicate their stance on scope, so we could all sleep a little better at night. I'm still not convinced that a deal won't be reached to allow CPZ or RAH 190/195's for a "short time" to bridge the gap to our "100 seaters." I would love to hear something official regarding our stance along the lines of NOT ONE MORE SEAT, NOT ONE MORE POUND, NOR ONE MORE AIRFRAME OVER THE CURRENT LIMITS. This may be our stance (and absolutely should be), but we'd never know since it hasn't been communicated. With your insight to the workings/stances of the MEC, can you make me/us feel better about this?

It's not real comfortable with the threat coming from both sides (NB and WB's.)