Originally Posted by
forgot to bid
I agree.
According to alpha's number there is 3.6M block hours and we have 53.9%.
IF THIS IS RIGHT... we could add airplanes but have a net reduction of mainline while reducing DCI to the 450 number, still have the same ASMs, near block hours for mainline, etc and be in compliance with the 1.56 ratio.
The left column is now, the right column is after we take 717s and exercise 739 options and the like
to get the ASMs up. Sure I made the fleet numbers up on the right, but I just wanted to show we could buy new mainline jets and replace old ones
with the help of the 76 seaters and keep that 1.9M block hours and with the reduction in 50-seaters you could still hit the 1.56 ratio:
And you accuse ALPA of manipulating the numbers! Does that fleet you have listed make one lick of sense to you? Do you really think we are going to have 300 180+ seat aircraft between the 737-900's and 757's. It looks to me like you manipulated that spreadsheet until you found the most capacity with the least number of airframes. You tried to get rid of the smallest aircraft we had so you could produce more capacity with fewer block hours.
Even under your completely untenable fleet forecast, you show that the minimum ratio produces more mainline jobs and more mainline block hours. Now using whatever fleet assumptions you want, put in 1% system growth per year and then 2% and then show me the numbers.
Finally, list out for me the fleet protections that we have with our mainline fleet today. Couldn't they get rid of all those airplanes you noted above and then replace them with Q400's and Super Efficient 50 seat jets?
Listing numbers on a spreadsheet and actually having some logic behind those numbers are two different things.