Originally Posted by
Wingnutdal
Question for you guys. What if, stay with me on this, the company said "hey DALPA, we love the 76 seat jet so much we want to operate 200. In return for letting us have 200 76 seat jets that will be the total number of jets we can operate with more than 50 seats."
Or 225 or whatever. We would be reducing the number of 70-76 seat jets by 55? But allowing more 76 jets in the process. Catch 22.
That's why we won't see it. If the company wants out of 50 seater leases, the last thing they would do would be to agree to also have 102
additional 70 seater leases to have to dump just to get 50 76 seaters on a lower over all cap below today's 255. That is why the TA
will allow more than 255 RJ's over 50 seats.
You may see a lame attempt at a bait and switch with the number 255 or even slightly below being paraded around, but if that is the case it is because 70 seaters were taken out of the number, but still allowed at DCI, and 255 or whatever the new number winds up being just includes 76 seaters...or worse.
Like I have said, this is like the old joke about offering a hot girl 20 bucks to sleep with you and she says no and gets offended (what do you think I am!) but then offering her 1,000,000 dollars and she accepts, to which you say "good, now that we've established what you are, let's talk price".
If we establish that more scope is for sale, even for theoretical gains, we have established that its going to happen. Since the gains for the company for operating more aircraft off our list are marginal to the company in the grand scheme of things, and since the best we can EVER hope for is a relatively small percentage of those gains (they wouldn't share them all with us otherwise they wouldn't care about them to begin with) then the company wins every time we play that game.
So the next spin tactic will be blah blah blah, evil Emirates will rule the world and there's nothing anyone can do, woe as me,
unless you give up more 76 seaters...in which case you will have peace in our time.
That angle is so ****** funny its impossible to get upset when its used. Its just funny.
Finally, when the TA has more large RJ's, and it will, supposedly for a "one time lease relief deal" or whatever, look for the lack of iron clad sunset clauses for all the new and existing large RJ's. That is how you will be able to prove they are lying. When they (the company and the MEC) claim they "need" more large RJ's just for this one time thing, and those new large RJ's are permanent with only non binding promises of growth if we allow them, their real agenda will be so obvious a caveman could spot it.
No offense to cavemen/women.