Originally Posted by
Wasatch Phantom
ACL,
I know it's speculation, but that's an absolute non-starter with me. We shouldn't have one 76 seat jet at DCI but thanks to Lee Moak's "proactive engagement strategy" we have up to 153 (IIRC) 76 seat jets and a hard cap of 255 70+ seat RJs.
Now you want to let the company have another 100 70+ seat RJ's so we can fix what ALPA's buffoon lawyers screwed up the first time and you want to trust those same idiots again???? NFW
I don't remember which forum member has as his tag line something like "Not one more pound, not one more seat, and not one more jet". That sums up my feelings very well.
Years ago Delta had a relatively small fleet of MD-11s which the company signed long term leases on. Maybe ten years later they decided it was cheaper to park the aircraft and pay the leases than continue to operate the airplanes at a loss, and they did exactly that.
If the contracts management entered into with various DCI carriers to operate 50 seat RJs (described as "self financing" by the infamous Fred Reid) are now money losers I'm not going to take it in the shorts to subsidize (once again) a poor decision on management's part.
First this is not what "I" want, this is to connect dots that are out there, and add a little to what Bar is saying. You get to vote on it if it comes our way. If not the MEC has turned it down.
Let them hear you loud and clear.
How would you feel that within say 10-15 years DCI is effectively gone? A GTF limitation would do that. Just my guess, but it was in the opener.
Again, these is so much stuff out there with rumors etc on this forum, the DALPA forum etc that all I am doing is piecing a bunch of this crap together. I have no knowledge, sorry, just playing out Bar's stuff a little further and adding a little color to prove that nothing is cut and dry. It never is.
There are going to be a lot of twists and turns going forward, that is just the way negotiations are. I will wait to see what the final deal is that the MEC approves before I decide anything.