Blueridger,
No one knows for sure, but I can tell you this: as far as the UA stuff goes don't believe surplus1's comments. If we were going to force UAX to park their SJ's, we would have started the process already. ALPA has been free to do so since Mar 1, but has not because they plan to settle it in the upcoming "economic recovery package,"(read concessions) negotiations. In other words, UA's MEC is looking to negotiate on this, not enforce the law of the contract. While your growth might not end up being as fast as pre 9/11(whose is?), I don't think you'll see a reduction in your UAX flying in the near term(2003) future. If anybody takes a hit, it will likely be Air Wisconsin or Skywest. If it comes down to limiting the total number of UAX SJ's, ACA has the most to spread around the system. They have the flexibility to cover IAD, ORD, and DEN(with a little work) in the UA system. Skywest and AW would have to ramp up considerably to do so. With Ansett II going out of business, UA will have to take the A320 deliveries that were previously deffered and heading to Australia. That would put the mainline narrowbody fleet between 30-40 a/c short of what the contract requires, so a new SJ will probably come out based on that with an agreed upon timetable to bring the fleet back up to 451 narrowbodies. Surplus was right about one thing though, it's unlikely that any of us at UA will get our jobs back anytime soon-irregardless of whether or not ALPA decides to negotiate our scope away.