Whatever the stats are. That's why I voted NO. It WILL make me sick seeing an "Express" name on an aircraft that large.
It's over now and I press on.

So how do you know that most voted no at cal?

Contractually, this has already been determined to be a 76 seat airplane (rated 85,000 lbs but 88 seats max capacity) that triggers scope choke. It's good news not bad. It is an indication that the ALPA plan is working and they are planning on replacing 50 seaters with 76 seaters to the extent allowed. If you don't believe me call your ALPA rep who worked on this topic.


http://i927.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps85205cdb.jpg

I'm just surprised it took so long to order. Its been 5months. I figured they would have wanted them in place by jan 1. Now comes the rfp for express.. who's gonna get the axe for the removed 50 seat hulls the release talks about

Now that is funny! :D

XJT has ERJ's that were scheduled to leave.

*Sigh* I shouldn't bother BUT just can't help myself. Simple fact, management was going to park 50 seaters. They are high cost, unpopular with elites, and running out of airframe time. Another simple fact, management desperately wanted the CRJ 900 sized airframe since they are lower cost, popular with elites, and brand new. End result, management is getting the airframes they want that have an entire generation of shelf life to utilize.

Yet ALPA says we won the scope war because we forced management to park 50 seaters!?! GMAFB! Unfortunately the koolaid will wear off one day when we all collectively realize we are a bunch of idiots for buying off on yet another supposed 'scope choke'...

Your post says nothing about how you would evaluate success. The advent of 76 seat orders heralds a reduction in fleet size and ASMs. What is it that you are seeing as negative and how do you propose to measure success or failure? If UAL has 1 billion available seat miles and 40% are express and that falls to 1 billion available seat miles with 10% express is that failure?

You are espousing a line of thinking that is totally without merit and shows a complete lack of understanding of the latest scope clause.

How do you know this? Can you give me proof in any shape or form?

So in total I asked 4 questions. I hope you will spare me glib answers and give me a response that has factual content and cogent data similar to the contractual language and seat diagram which I posted above.

Sunvox they don't get it. They aren't used to seeing anything larger than a 50 seat jet because when all you have are 737s you really don't need to feed them with anything bigger. So now they are in the "big boy league" and they see a bigger airplane feeding a global widebody airline, and they get all excited.

Of course they don't mention that their old contract allowed unlimited Q400 airplanes which can be configured up to 80 seats. At least we got that one removed....