Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver

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,

Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver

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.

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp

Originally Posted by johnso29

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

Originally Posted by Reroute

Just to be clear, the mainline fleet number has 19 MD-90s in it. We have contracts for and deliveries of 30 more over the next 18 months. How many we ultimately get might be more than that.

Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver

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.

Originally Posted by Reroute

I saw him at a recent LEC meeting, he talked extensively about scope and the scope challenges we'll face in the future. I got the impression he has a great deal of passion and interest in scope, as does the MEC in general.

Originally Posted by Razorback flyer

Maybe someone can help me fill in the blanks here, and clarify the situation. (They gave us these exact numbers at the last CVG LEC meeting, but I didn't write them down - and they've changed. Maybe they'll do a brief again at the next one on Friday.)

Current Mainline fleet count: ?

Mainline fleet count to add additional "71+"(i.e. 76) seat jets: 767
(can be added at 3 to 1 ratio w/mainline AC # 768)

Current DCI "71+" seat jet cap: 153
Current DCI "71+" seat jet count: 153

Current DCI "51+" (i.e. 70) seat jet cap*: 255
(*includes 153 "71+" seat jets)
Current DCI "51+" seat jet count: ?

Originally Posted by Splash

There was a similar announcement about mainline replacements on DeltaNet around the same time.