Originally Posted by
gloopy
Maybe. But that would depend on what "production balance" even means, how its interpreted and what the language ends up being. For example, for every 20 fifty seaters that are parked, the company can outsource 19 CRJ900/905's and/or EMB170/175's. Technically, that could be defined as an improvement in the production balance, right?
Fewer large RJ's is fewer large RJ's though. How many fewer? That depends and gives a lot of flexibility, but at least its fewer. But we absolutely refuse to "go there" and the real question is why?
The particulars will absolutely be picked apart when the TA comes out. I think we should all watch what the other hand is doing.
Originally Posted by
tsquare
There is a lot of truth in what you say. I don't hold scope necessarily as the litmus test of pass/fail on this contract however. And before everyone gets their panties in a twist, I am not in favor of giving any on scope.. but I am not necessarily opposed to certain conditions for it as I have said before. For example (and this is only a what if): Would you be opposed to allowing the 76 seaters to go to 80 seats if all the 50 seaters were to be removed from the inventory immediately upon signing, a reduction of those 80 seaters from 255 to 200 and a signed purchase of a 100 seat airframe that would go to mainline? I don't know if I would say no to something like that. I could come up with more too, but I think you might get my drift. I guess what I am saying is that I am not a one issue no voter, and I doubt that there truly are many out there that are... I could be wrong though.
I have no idea what you mean by telescope.
Again.. fire away.
Okay, 200 80 seat airplanes in exchange for 0 50 seaters immediately and subtracting 55 jets that seat 51+.
Would I consider it? Absolutely.
I'd vote it in if the seats remained at 76, and the Alaska codeshare ended on signing and the AF/KLM JV language cleaned up.
So this is the list right now:
CRJ200/ERJ-145.................. 364 (of which CRJ-200 accounts for 340)
767/757...............................244
CRJ900/E175........................153
MD88/MD90..........................146
A320....................................126
CRJ700/E170........................101
73N.......................................83
A330.....................................32
765.......................................21
777.......................................18
THE DC9................................17
744.......................................15
Delta....................................702-ish
DCI......................................618
Alaska....................................86 (oh wait)
Total (Excluding Alaska)......1,320
I'd need to see:
CRJ200/ERJ-145.................. 0 (of which CRJ-200 accounts for 340) down from 364 and capped at 0.
767/757...............................244
CRJ900/E175........................200 up from 153
MD88/MD90..........................146
A320....................................126
CRJ700/E170........................0 down from 171 and capped at 0.
73N.......................................83
A330.....................................32
765.......................................21
777.......................................18
THE DC9................................17
744.......................................15
Delta....................................702-ish
DCI......................................200 down from 618
Alaska....................................0 (oh yeah baby!) down from 86
Total (Excluding Alaska)......902
And then I'd want a sunset on DCI contracts or at least on outsourcing the pilot seats.
If you gave me that in the latest LOA, I'd vote it in.
BTW, I am fully aware of "the 50 seaters are dying" but until someone says we want to get rid of
all 50 seaters, which they've said the opposite, then I want those things FINALLY scoped. Who is to say Bombardier and Embraer are not begging for a GTF to revive their core niche? And are we not buying a oil refinery to offset fuel costs for ourselves and the regionals we buy the fuel for so they can muddy up their true CASMs?