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.