Originally Posted by
Rudder
FTB,
You just hit the nail, once these aircraft are here, they are here to stay, remember that their number will NOT be reduced. That one sentence led me to vote NO on our previous agreements, and I think that statement will come back to haunt us with this agreement.
Originally Posted by
tsquare
Highlighted in red. Read the TA. You obviously have not.
T,
- If we increase the NB fleet then they can increase the number of 76 seaters on a 1.25 ratio per Section 1.B.46.F,
- If they increase the number of 76 seaters then they have to reduce the number of 50 seaters per page 1-6 lines 24-37. Eventually they'd be down to 125 50 seaters when they hit 223 76-seaters.
- If the number of 50-seaters exceeds the number permitted, then 50-seaters or 76-seaters need to be parked until the number is in compliance per page 1-6 lines 41-46.
- Then per Section 1.D.9, we will have the MBH : DBH ratio. It only requires compliance with the required ratio for the number of 76-seaters. It says nothing with airplanes being returned or parked and I doubt a lessor would allow that anyways because DAL failed to keep a ratio compliance, it would be DAL's problem to fix the ratio.
Through it all, 1.B.46.G states:
"once the number of 76-seat aircraft permitted under Section 1 B. 40. f. is engaged in category A or C operations, such number of aircraft need not be reduced, so long as the then-current limit on the total number of 50-seat aircraft specified in Section 1 B. 40. f. (I believe that's supposed to be 1.B.46.F) Exception one is satisfied (the number of 50 seaters reduced per 76 seaters introducted).
So IF.. BIG IF... I'm reading that right then I see the grow to shrink problem. We could add jets from 2013 and on but we don't necessarily have to grow, we could keep our current 1.9M block hours.
If they go to 223 76-seaters and cut to 125 50-seaters, then they drop their block hours to 1.2 million and be in compliance with the
best case in our favor ratio of 1.56. They'd drop their total block hours flown but hey, capacity discipline reigns.
In either case, if unlike the CRJ-200, those new 70 CRJ-900s have mainline CASMs and are added to the consolidated fleet therein allowing the 717 to be a replacement instead of growth jet then that's easily 700-800 pilots lost.
Not saying we'll furlough at all, but what I am saying fixating on the 717 as growth would be incorrect, it looks like it could easily be as much a net pilot neutral aircraft increase as the 737-900s will be.