If the company gets the 717s without this TA, then they can add more 76 seaters anyway, all the way up to 255. While you then say, "they would have to get rid of 70 seaters at the same time" (255 of 76 seaters or 70 seaters), then we would be left with 311 50 seaters that have leases through 2015. 311 50 seaters (down to 125 with TA), that don't make as much money for the corporation, but have leases that won't be broken (unless they trade up, a deal worked out with the RJ maker). So, people would rather have money losing 50 seaters, and lots of them. Why don't we put RJs that have a chance at making money (20 more seats for the 102 70 seaters that would replace 50s on their routes, especially if you get rid of 150 of them) on routes that will probably stay RJs routes. On the big RJ routes that do make money, let's throw a 717 on there and try to make more. Very simple.

2015 is only 2 and 1/2 years away. Why don't these 70 additional large "RJ's" come with a clause that says either they or 70 equivalent existing ones have to be sunsetted as soon as their leases are up, and/or DL seniority lists must be given the chance to fly them in seniority order over and above any other list. Management's choice as to how they want to structure it.

If this is really about emergency RJ's to help the company out of a short term jam, then why are these new large outcourced AC permanent?

Lets do everything we can to ensure the company makes more money. Heck, forget the raises... lets give concessions! Lets try to figure out how much we can give back... oh wait, they already did it with this TA.

Exactly! Here's an idea, let's get some pilots from Central and South America to fly our planes for us. Better yet, some Vietnamese or Burmese pilots. I bet they work pretty cheap! Does anybody know where Nike makes there shoes? We could get some pilots from there.

In fact, we should all work 5 extra days a month for free and take a 50% pay cut. Give back all vacation time, get rid of sick leave and give each passenger $5 dollars from our own pockets.

I, for one, am soooooo looking forward to the 7 short call days and feel so blessed that I can now fly ALV+15 to further stagnate my own career, so the company can better afford to buy better equipped aircraft with more capacity and longer range for another company, and then have to pay them to fly those passengers.

I only wish I could more effectively help them out source my job.

If you call a 53% in pay raises from 2008 to the end of this TA (if it passes), Better work rules, and significant NB mainline growth while significantly reducing DCI by 218 RJ's with no chance of growing beyond that concessions, I'd love to see your idea of a pay raise!

Right under your left nostril... right there... yeah.. you got it.. donut powder.

If we vote this down and after 3yrs it goes to the NMB and we get the exact same contract or worse, what will your rationale be then as to why we left over $100,000 per pilot on the table? Will you be satisfied then? The NMB will look at the fact that NO other major carrier has come even close to those types of gains and they will deny our petition. It's plain and simple.

Start your baseline from 2000 and tell me where we are.

That is the problem. It seems the NO voters are trying to make the case for getting C2K back in its entirety without realizing C2K was not sustainable! It was a poor management decision that resulted in part bankruptcy by the company, an almost hostile takeover, and a ****ed of pilot group. I too want C2K, but only if I can keep it! It is attainable but we have to build the company to a point that it can sustain it. That's better for all. Beyond that is also attainable and sustainable in due time.

I hate to break it to you fella but your line of thinking is exactly how we got into this RJ mess in the first place with help from the likes of Moak and others. Dumb! Dumb! Dumb!