JABDIP;
I agree with most of what you state. It is true that larger jets pull the group up, but bottom seats also insulate the group as well. Scope is not a top or bottom issue. It is an issue that involves all flying, and imo no one seat is more important than the other. Pay defines importance, but a job is a job and importance is relative to your relative position on the list.
I like more wide bodies, but in this day and age of Code Shares, JV's etc, the ability to grow those is quite limited. The only place where we do not have one of these agreements seems to be the same place were we are seeing the most growth. Coincidence? I do not think so.

I agree that the RJ fleet size needs to be tied to the size of mainline. Not at the time of delivery, but each and every day.

Maybe you missed it, but I beleive that may guys do not want to buy it back, and in reality, that gauge sector is probably doomed as the economy returns and airspace once again become a premium. As far as I am concerned, selling seats at the bottom end to prop up the top end was a failed policy. It was a band aid for the association and the company. It has cause more harm than good for all parties.

The truth that many do not like to see is that the cost is too high to buy 510 seats back. There are bigger priorities for the pilot group for the next contract cycle. Would I love the added seats here?, yes, but I understand that things like pay and retirement need to be fully restored for that to even become a possibility. The ugly truth if you will.

In regard to large jet scope, agreements like the AF JV define what is our flying, and that should be the goal going forward with medium and small jet scope. Define what a Delta pilot does; All Delta flying except....... It is a change in wording but the effect is important.

The biggest pitfall we could repeat is to focus on large jet jobs and fail to look behind us. That has lead to a ton of stagnation.