We've got 2 different answers here. Which one is correct?

No. The scope settlement grievance doesn't allow the company to look back at a mainline fleet high water mark and continue to receive additional 76-seat jets
.
The number of 76-seat jets authorized is determined by the mainline fleet at the time the 76-seat jet enters service.

Besides, even if we took delivery of 30 MD-90s in the next 18 months and didn't park any DC-9s or 88s, the company still isn't authorized additional 76-seat jets because our mainline fleet would still be below 768 airframes.

We would have to have significant mainline growth to add any additional 76-seat jets and even if we did, the number of 70-seat + 76-seat jets is hard capped at 255 regardless of the mainline fleet size.

I think one of the reasons the company may be filling up on 70-seat jets is because they recognize that it is unlikely they will be authorized any additional 76-seat jets.

I believe the difference may be with the delivery schedule versus total MD-90s. Right now we have 19 MD-90s and we are scheduled to receive 30 more over the next 18 months for a total of 49 MD-90s.

That being said, I might be wrong and it is possible they've got contracts and delivery schedules for 19 more. If they do, great and even if they do, I very much doubt that the mainline fleet will be at or above 768 aircraft by the time the last MD-90 arrives on the property.

However, I will say that I am not a cut off my nose to spite my face kind of guy. I hope we have a mainline fleet of 774 aircraft in the next 18 months, even if it means authorizing 20 additional 76-seat jets, I'll take the ~46 mainline growth aircraft.

Bingo. Plus these RAH S5 E170's are already a 2 configuration 70 seat jet configured at 6/64. The CRJ700's that are being converted from single to 2 class will have only 66 seats.

They are the same answer. We need to get to 767 mainline jets before they can add one 76 seat jet to DCI. That was part of 09-01 which set the limits at 153 76 seat jets until mainline hits 767 then they can go 3 for 1.

Correct. I am going off 49 total MD-90's not 49 more.

I think you're right. The 16 MD90's we already had would be included in the original baseline #.

Correct, they are. (Think it is 19 though)

I think you assumed by my words that the MD-90's would trigger more 76 deliveries. That is not the case unless we get above 767 (768th mainline airframe) Until we hit that mark they are capped at 153 76 seat jets.

Once we have a 768th jet they can take delivery of three more 76 seat jets for a total of 154 seat jets and a max of 255 70 and 76 seat jets. The hard limit is 255. Reroute states that we are 20 hulls away from that number so in effect we will need to have six mainline airframes added above the 767 limit for a total of 773. We are well away from that.

As he further mentions, DAL is taking delivery of 70 seaters, and not pushing for a relaxation of the 76 seat formula.

Exactly my point. It appears that the net effect of this is to increase RJ jobs and decrease mainline jobs.

I fully understand what is in the contract and that this is what we agreed to. I'm not so sure that a large percentage of our pilots fully realized what they were voting for. I can say that, personally, I never realized until now that this loophole existed where they can keep all the RJ's after parking mainline aircraft and not be over the limit. I guess I didn't pay that much attention to it because I already knew I was voting NO based on a lack of any significant progress towards restoration. But that's water under the bridge at this point.

What still concerns me is that we have an MEC Chairman who was our lead negotiator when this language was included in the JCBA, this same individual argued against a resolution who's main purpose was to shine a brighter light on scope, and as MEC Chairman so far he has demonstrated very little passion or even interest in scope.