and there you have it...why there is no good solution to the expansion of regional flying.

I do not believe that we will bring the RJs on board. My point was that management is stalling on the 100-120 seat replacements because they are holding out on the hopes we concede that flying to the regionals. History has shown that we keep moving the line, why would they not expect we will continue. Our ALPA leadership has stated that having done so in the past is good for mainline.

At contact time, management will show that they are losing money, threaten furloughs and give a big chunk of cash to the majority(top half) of our pilots. That majority will vote their pocket books and wallah, 100-120 seat flying is at the regionals.

I hope I am wrong but mark my words.

That is exactly what will happen and the majority of pilots will take the cash.

Just to play devil's advocate here for a sec, but locking in the 100-120 seat aircraft under subcontracted regional companies locks up a substantial amount of the domestic network. I know the "New Delta" is looking to sign contract agreements with regional affiliates that proposes they, not only Delta Mainline, lose money on routes that become unprofitable.

The nice thing about regional companies is that the flying they receive has historically been guaranteed. If that guarantee is no longer part of the deal, maybe regional companies will start to take a backseat stance as opposed to the constant growth/expansion plan.

Expanding contractually obligated regional feeders complicates things, and I believe the current management in place believes this. That being said negotiations are negotiations, and I hope people realize what scope relaxation has done and will continue to do.

Still disagree, the majority of our pilots fly 9's,88/90's.319/320's and 73's and I doubt short of several million that they would sell out. However for 2 million in cash i would sell you all out.Short of that with everything to lose personally and nothing to gain I would strike tomorrow over that issue,period !

From an engineering standpoint, the plastic plane is not a viable 100 seat product. The type of development on the 787 limits the plane to about 45,000 cycles max, this is reduced if the plane is damaged by ground workers. While 45,000 cycles on a long haul aircraft is acceptable, it is very limiting for a jet that does more than 3 legs in a day. That's why the 787-300 is a flop for the short haul market.

The 100 seat aircraft market will be decided by the capabilities of the engine. It's interesting that RA would say an engine that is still in development with no service history is unreliable, yet every manufacturer is considering putting it on their bread and butter aircraft(737, A320, C-series, MRJ, etc)......

I just see it as negotiation in public. We are but a tool to use. It is the future and he probably knows it, but is looking for sweetheart deals to sign on. Good business!

He didn't say the engine is unreliable. He said just doesnt trust the engine without a proven reliability record after what he's seen with the Pratt 2000.

I can't say I really saw any posturing one way or the other for the 100 seater to be flown by mainline or the regional. That would have been suicide to suggest that subject....

I think I see this more clearly now, keep the 9s and 88s, shun new, so its not about the new engines reliability compared to each other its about the new engines compared to the JT8, the only engine they trust. :D

Maybe I'm joking, maybe I'm not.

---

Rumor mill, the MD90s leases are done? Just overheard that in the crewroom, may not be true or it might be about the ones we already got.

Hello stall tactic, I'm management and I love you.