Originally Posted by Trip7

More 76 seaters allows Management to get rid of the 50 seaters faster since they are under contract and there would be something to swap with. I'm sure if they could get rid of them all today and replace with A220 they would.

Originally Posted by dc10guy

Please tell me this guy is not in our mec or running for anything.

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp

C2012 passed 63/37. It set the trajectory for the transactionalism that brought us the failed TA.

Originally Posted by n9810f

I believe many of the OO CR2's are under contract - the rest would be at risk to places like Vernal, Ut and such.

Originally Posted by Viking busdvr

Does anyone know where to find the sick leave usage info on iCrew? I’m on the QHCP list, and want to figure out when I come off it.....??

Originally Posted by OOfff

Pay>time card

Originally Posted by Baradium

They really really want them gone. I believe both companies are well below their allowable number of 50 seaters by scope.



The 50 seaters are planes the company doesn't want. We aren't even at the number of 50 seat airframes allowed. Using airframes the company is already parking to allow them to get airframes they want anyway is foolish on our part, and yes, it is a scope give. 76 seaters in the first place was a give and every additional one is a give too. If it wasn't a give, why would the company want it?



Airframes aren't replaced based on a fleet seat count.




It was not scope recapture. It was giving the company something they wanted in exchange for us "getting" something the company already wanted I the first place.

By your logic, E195s at DCI would be acceptable if total seat count went down. We don't operate them as a mainline airplane after all.

Originally Posted by JamesBond

Any negotiating capital spent on reducing 50 seaters is a complete waste of money. Period. I have said that for years and it is still true.