[QUOTE=BoilerUP;919979]I don't think that's directly what folks are saying.

I think they're saying trends tend to indicate that the Q fleet will grow, while the 50-seat jet fleet shrinks (at least that's what the tea leaves are saying).

The Q has what,74 seats to the CRJ-200's 50 seats, right? And there is plenty of precedent for increased pay for flying a larger aircraft with more passenger seats, correct?

So...wouldn't it follow that if higher-paying, smaller (in terms of seating) aircraft go away and are replaced with lower-paying, larger aircraft that the larger aircraft should have pay AT LEAST on par with the smaller aircraft, lest the pilot group loose income as the fleet is restructured?[/QUOTE]

ding ding ding, we have a winner

Of course management wants to keep cost on the 70 t-prop as low as possible. After everything is signed and done then wait for the announcement that the 200 will be parked as the costs are too high on that airframe to remain competetive. What is left will be the 900's with little hope for growth and the low paying 70 seat t-prop where the growth will be.

Just look at AirWilly from 2001, largest pay increases went to the BAE-146. During restructuring they were parked and the owners probably laughed all the way to the bank as they had locked in lower 50 seat rates.

There is no way a 70 seat aircraft should pay less than a 50 seat aircraft.