Not really. They are monitored monthly. Hull count is too. Block hrs equate to pilot jobs. DCI has over half the block hrs. If that was significantly cut, and the flying was moved here our hull count would increase, but so would block hrs but not on a linear line with asm's. Looking at all of them together gives a better picture and not on a percentage basis but actual numbers.

I would hope that whatever duration it ends up being, the early opener language and especially accelerated mediation language is included. Otherwise we could be seriously hoodwinked with the "time value of money" (even if it doesn't come with a scope sale of more large RJ's, which it will, just watch) because a new agreement without the accelerated language we have now will automatically add at least 2 additional years to the next section 6 if the company chooses to drag it out.

If its a hard sell, I do not see that going over real well.

I agree and it's a concern of mine too.

I have not heard that first rumor. Anywhere. Ever. I like it, but I would bet money that is NOT what's coming to us. We WILL see an increase in large RJ's. Book it. (I will be estatic to eat crow if it doesn't happen, but it will and its so obvious that it will).

As for trip parking the planes in a production balance pump and dump, yeah, that's possible. But then not only would the company have all those 50 seat leases to eat, but 70 seaters as well because 255 is 255 is 255 is 255. Empty threat.

As to the upcoming "production balance" I really hope we don't fall for the myth of getting more large RJ's (which, once again, WILL be in the TA) with language that forces them to be parked if we shrink. That will never happen. If we fall below whatever trigger is set and management agrees to, it will be because of hard times and by hook, crook, scope language interpretation grievance or bargaining credit, those additional large RJ's WILL stay.

Guess it depends on what you're willing to accept. Are you willing to accept the company having 255 RJs with a finite high end of available resources (jobs) or would you rather the company shovel out a ridiculous amount of money for an underutilized piece of equipment? The more inefficient the company gets with these airplanes, the less money they have for yours and my pocket. Are DCI block hours up or down? I'm asking sincerely because I don't know. The answer may be indicative of the company's intent with the DCI fleet. Increased utilization leads me to believe the company would want more hulls. Less block hours and I bet the company could care less and would negotiate from that position.

I'd much rather the contracts be allowed to expire naturally and for all the flying to be absorbed here in an orderly fashion. Besides ALPA National whining on behalf of the RJ pilots, which I honestly believe they care only enough about to prevent a DFR lawsuit, what would be the harm in that? Then again only two thirds of the DCI fleet is represented by ALPA. I'm sure our union would gladly support throwing Republic and Skywest under the bus. Why would we have made the request for anything else to be negotiated? I'm pretty sure even Carl could pass a CL-65 type ride. And do you know how low those things are to the ground? ;)

Beep beep!!!

This doesn't pass the snif test. Does anyone really think management is going to give us peace in our time with a final solution to scope, removing all their leverage in that crucial area, just for a few more 76 seaters? If so, what is the real value of those 76 seaters? It must be extreme. If thats the case we can fly them, on a B scale if necessary, and fix it all at once for the same costs. If magical debt free leases are the issue, we can find or invent a regional that lets our pilots fly at top of the list. There is no need to outsource the pilot jobs.

By giving DCI more DC-9-10 replacement jets? Hmmm, how about larger? You know what would REALLY amp up the production balance? C Series, Mitsubishi or Sukhoi jets with common types well over 150 seats in some cases. Should we let THAT camel's nose under the tent?

As in if we shrink, these shiny new overpriced super premium extra large RJ's have to be parked? Really? So they are just going to eat those leases and we're going to make them? Or will we be pressured to give relief? Or will our scope language be so weaksauce from the start that they stay that way? Cause there is NO WAY they will be parked no matter what the language at DOS says. If that were the case, we wouldn't need the scope relief in the first place to help them with lease relief to begin with.

255 70-76ers can only fly so many block hours as it is.

Is it really though? We're projecting scaled down technology that scales better up that hasn't really even been seriously proposed yet. Even at 10-15% efficiency, an RJ still sucks gas. And what would the capex be on something like that anyway? GTF may be an important technology but I doubt we will see 255 GTF 70 and 76 seaters and if we do, they will also have to get out of the 255 leases to get there, then get into 255 more expensive GTF leases for the RJ's.

More large RJ's, that are only outsourced for the express purpose of leveraging inferior crew costs and QOL, is a huge scope loss. Yes, theoretically if we all got a billion dollars and an airtight section 1 that caused us to double in size we could call it a "win" but that's not going to happen for a very simple reason. The value of a few more 76 seaters is only so much. The pilot group will only get a portion of that value, just as we do anytime scope is sold in our bizzare partnetship with management to outsource our jobs. A fraction of the value of something that isn't that valueable in the grand scheme of things simply won't bring us a walk off grand slam like its being billed. It won't even move the runner over on a sac bunt because by its very nature, another scope sale will be more valueable to the company than it is to us. It always is. Always.

How about "tune in Tokyo" as a secret pre-handshake validation gesture?

The company clearly will ask for more larger RJ's.

They want to be the official airline of NY, and need the airframes A S A P. (IMHO that's the need for the accelerated section 6).

Sooo get ready for DALPA sales to push this turd along.

I hope that we do not give in on this. If we do, every visit to LGA will remind you that we did.

You're not missing anything. Everything that we have that is factual says the negotiation is going very badly for us. We need to get this done quick though according to our union or the opportunity will be lost. The facts are that everything that has been negotiated is cost-neutral or better to the company. The company has not agreed to one big money change as far as I know. You can either follow your gut or go against it and believe that everything is going great.

FWIW, I hope the union brings us something with substantial gains that I can vote yes on. I cannot vote yes on anything that allows more 76 seat regional jets. ACL is trying to spin it as something that could be good for us That makes no sense what-so-ever. I don't get it.