Because a large number of 50 seaters will be parked anyway, with no large RJ replacement allowed under our current PWA.

 

I am going to guess. I think he means if this TA has what is rumored to be in it, it will allow alot of DCI 50 seats to be parked quickly as opposed to having to wait out their agreements which could many years from now. At 2 for 1 it reduces the total DCI amount quickly although giving up a few 76 seaters would be needed. Most likely I am wrong

 

deleted.................................

 

As Robin would say to Batman "Holy Stupidity Batman!"

I hope this is a bad rumor because it is monumentally improvident.

No, No, and F*&K No! Surely we are not that Stupid - and this is coming from someone who thinks we can improve Scope and allow a few more 70/76 seaters while tightening the rest of section1.

From another post:
The current mainline fleet: 714.

RJ fleet: 603

RJ fleet by type:
CRJ-200: 324
CRJ-900: 101
CRJ-700: 82
E-175: 52
E-145: 24
E-170: 20

I am not even sure which ones are 50 seaters - I am pretty sure the 200's and the 145s - which total 348.

348/2 = 174 more large RJs at the stupendously ridiculous ratio of 2:1.


So the 50 seaters are dying a natural death and we are going to give up to 174 more large RJs to speed up the process????

We are making big $$$$. The company wants a quick deal. We are done with concessionary contracts.

This would be concessionary!!!

Can you say Hello DPA?

Scoop

 

The flaw in this thinking is that 50 seaters don't replace mainline flying. Heck, they can hardly take 50 people most of the time.

76 seaters do replace mainline flying, and since most of those aircraft are actually 80-90 seaters, they actually can carry 76 people.

50 seaters are going away, even if we do nothing. What exactly do we gain if we "let" them park 50 seaters in exchange for more "actual replacement jets"?

That is, other than another huge scope concession.

Nu

 

No more 76 seaters. If I vote yes on this possible TA, not only would I be voting myself out of a job( being junior), but I also give the guys taking my job a raise with their shiney new 76 seater. I am pretty sure the ALPA contract survey didn't say the majority of DAL maineline pilots wanted more 76 seaters unless we can fly them. DPA seems to get this, why not ALPA?

 

Scoop,

Not to disagree with your point at all, but my guess is the number is about 100 new Large RJs based on RA comments that he wants to see the 50 RJ fleet reduced down to about 150 aircraft.

This is unacceptable anyway you look at it.

vpr

 

It's amazing to me how little discussion this is provoking.

When is the last point at which we can separate ourselves without being on the hook for any type of assessment?

 

It may be too late.

 

I can't believe some of you guys are even considering the thought of allowing more 76 seaters. They are already parking the 50 seaters NOW. We do not have to give them squat and they will still park them. Look at Comair! Guys, do not fall for these traps. Management was already going to park them. Hold the freaking line! No more 76 seaters period or automatic NO vote from me.