Originally Posted by TOGA LK

T, there won't be much of a next time after we have 325 EMB-170/175, CRJ-700 and MORE 90-seat CRJ-900 with long term lease agreements. I know quite a few pilots at other airlines and no one is proud of the fact we are trading tired 50-seaters for what will be the worst scope in the industry. Mark my word, should this TA pass it will embolden management teams all over to shift the line in the sand and the fallout will be THOUSANDS of 90-seat jets paying a quarter of what a fNWA pilot made under a BK contract flying a DC-9-30. As far as getting them next time, our only chance is now. The only thing this TA and the Moakster will represent for our profession is broke D-scale pilots operating mainline equipment at $80/hr left seat and $24/hr right seat.

Lastly, a certain type of economic event rears its head about every 7 years, I wouldn't bank on favorable conditions in three years. I am connecting the dots, just differently than you. As far as the TA as a whole, too many caveats for management, they will exploit them.

Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg

People keep referring to the CR9 and E175 as a "90 seat" aircraft. That may be true at Mesa or other regionals, but not at Delta. We could transfer the 757s back to the Song configuration, (one class) but we don't. Southwest will fly the 737-800s with one class, with a lot more seats than DL 737-800s. There are seat limits for RJs that have not increased since BK. Get over the "90 seat" issue please.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

If we move 255 to 325... what's 76 to 82?

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

If we move 255 to 325... what's 76 to 82?

Originally Posted by tsquare

Again with the RJs... still blind to the facts I see... that's a shame.

Originally Posted by tsquare

I know I am gonna regret this so cue the "we'll get 'em next time crowd".

But...

Our timing will be much much better in 2.5 years. with this extension for the reasons I have stated above, and HOPEFULLY, UniCal will do SOMETHING... and the AMR trainwreck will be solved. (however that goes down) We do not operate in a vacuum, and we are not alone.... yet.

Fire away

Originally Posted by tsquare

You care about what the rest of the industry thinks about us??? Really? When those same carriers have scope clauses that are so porous that ours looks downright draconian? You have GOT to be kidding me. I'll betcha that when American is done, they will have 500 of them and it won't be the smallest RJ on the lot. But I couldn't care less if AMR gets 90 seaters or even if they allow 737s on their regional carriers... for exactly the same reason that ya'll are so enamored with SWA's 'awesome' scope plan... Why is it that you think SWA has some magic pill to stop the proliferation and we do not? We have RJs... why doesn't SWA? If AMR has 90 seaters... why do we HAVE to get them? The logic leap makes no sense..

Dude.. I implore you... read the TA. See it for what it really is, and not some ridiculous 76 seat giveaway that has everybody so focused on the wrong target. Ya'll are totally missing the big picture.

And lastly, if you are so paranoid about management's ability to exploit loopholes, then your hand wringing must get in the way of your flying skills. I hope that isn't the case, but sometimes I wonder.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

And if they're not happy, they'll unionize!

Originally Posted by tsquare

I can't worry about what MIGHT be... I do know that it would have to be negotiated, and I highly doubt it would pass...