Originally Posted by Hank Kingsley (Post 1900151)

Several area code seniority pilots are voicing "hell no" on this forum. I'm one.

Originally Posted by contrails (Post 1900230)

With this phrase, it seals the deal of this user being Tsquare.

Originally Posted by WidgetDriver (Post 1900187)

E195 cockpit is nicer than the MadDog. Just saying.

Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez (Post 1900239)

One thing that WAS interesting is the virtual base thingy. Especially in MCO. With the recent announcement of MCO-GRU and SEA-MCO, it does make one wonder what's up with that.

Originally Posted by Justdoinmyjob (Post 1900192)

The current caps on RJs are 223 76 seaters, 102 70 seaters and 125 50 seaters for a total fleet of 450 RJs. there are currently 198 76 seaters, 102 70 seaters and 125 50 seaters. They can still add those 25 76ers tomorrow if they want under C12.

The new total RJs under C15 is 425 RJs, which is 223 76ers, 102 70s and 100 50s. They still only are allowed the 25 76ers but must park 25 50s.

Not sure why everyone is focusing on this non issue. There are much bigger issues wrong with this TA.

Originally Posted by JungleBus (Post 1900247)

Oh wait a sec...I apparently misunderstood. I thought the TA raised the 76 seat cap by 25...you're saying it keeps the cap the same but places greater restrictions on going above the current 198? If so that's a win.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1900208)

I've got six left, but I've got no intention of going to 65. I truly think it's bad for your health.

Originally Posted by Airbusdude14 (Post 1900226)

That's exactly what I say they will slowly bring in smaller planes at low rates slowly phase out the Mad Dog. As it is they have tech issues on some of them doing upgrades for future ATC and NAV issues. Will have to retire them. Many pilots will be stuck filying the smaller planes at the very low rates. Can't anyone see the trend. We need our own scope to protect use on how many smaller jets we get before the Co. Needs to adjust the rates.