Originally Posted by
slowplay
Already answered...it's slower and involves spending money on an asset they'd prefer to get rid of.
They chose instead to spend some money on us to allow the deal. It was a math problem to them. Going with us, while more expensive, was faster and had less risk. In their view they paid a premium for that increase in speed and reduction in risk. But the second path still exists and is adequate from their point of view.
You really believe that management wanted this done quickly due to 50 seat rj maintenance. No they wanted something for a dying airplane. Hence more 76 seaters. Name one other time in negotiating history when management wanted a contract done faster. If management saw this as less risky then why would they take on that risk again by not rapidly negotiating a second TA.