This is the wording of the contract

“In the event the hiring or flow provisions of NWA LOA 2006-10 or LOA #9 cease to be available, either at the feeder carrier affiliate referenced in such LOAs or at another carrier, the number of permitted 76-seat aircraft in Section 1 B. 47. e. will be reduced by 35.”

Give us 35 jets and we’ll accept a flow down hahahah

No. Never negotiate a flow down in bad times.

i was being semi sarcastic. I’m against a flow down 1000% even in good times.

DAL will take seats out of a CRJ before reducing their number of 76-seat ERJs any day of the week.

So if 6 seats are removed from 35- 76 seat jets the LOA will be complied with?

Fleet tracking
 

Nope, not at all. The Compass flow-through LOA mandates they have to REMOVE 35 76-seat RJs from the DCI fleet if they don’t establish another flow-down agreement.

Here’s the relevant language from the CPZ LOA contained in our scope section:

“In the event the hiring or flow provisions of NWA LOA 2006-10 or LOA #9 cease to be available, either at the feeder carrier affiliate referenced in such LOAs or at another carrier, the number of permitted 76-seat aircraft in Section 1 B. 47. e. will be reduced by 35.”

Removing 6 seats from ALL 76-seat RJs applies if they furlough past anyone on the list as of 12/1/2016.

Two totally different scenarios so let’s not get them confused with one another.

They are at the limit of 70+76 seat jets, so 35 of the 76 seat jets have to be made 70 seats, and 35 of the 70 seaters, either get parked, or become 50 seaters.

Huh? Can you expand on what you think this means?

See my post above yours. The CPZ LOA is completely separate from the 6 seat removal due to furlough.

Mesabah is making the assertion that they will reduce the number of 76 seat RJs (in compliance with the LOA) by using the “parked 76 seaters” to replace old 70 seat jets.

I.e we will use the MRJ 900/E175 to replace old ratty MRJ700s/E170s since we can’t use them as 76 seaters. Which is separate from the “make all 76 seaters in to 70 seaters.