I'm in. I can do that (and do on a regular basis).

Agreed 100% Time for LM to return to the line and get some time at the hold short behind a trail of RJs.

The man is Kennedy based...I assure you, he gets his time in line. Plenty of RJ's up here still.

The 5th Freedom rights apply to any Japanese airport including HND. The only restriction are slots. It looks like the max T/O slots at HND that are going to be allowed to ANY US carrier is 4 per day. Not much of a deal for 1 billion dollars. If the JV goes thru it won't be DAL pilots flying out of HND:(

Just as a reminder, 5th Freedom "rights" aren't exactly rights. They are negotiated as part of an aviation treaty between two governments. That treaty is being renegotiated at this time. Hopefully it will result in an aviation enhancement, not Japanese protectionism.

Just a reminder that scope has been tightened since Moak has been your MEC chairman, and that the total number of RJ's flying under DCI/Airlink colors has decreased substantially. Delta is capped on the number of 70-76 seat aircraft without substantial mainline growth.

Not to mention that LM was not part of the MEC that allowed the EMB170/175's on the property when the airline was not in chapter 11 and not facing a 1113 motion.

Maybe it should read," Scope hasn't been loosened since Moak has been the MEC chair."
Also, the number of RJ's flying has decreased b/c the COMPANY made the decision due to poor economics...not b/c Moak, ALPA, or the pilots have demanded, negotiated, or just plan wanted the decrease.

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.)

You beat me to it. I'm always too long-winded.