Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
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.
alfa OR slowplay,
I have a few questions WRT Sec 1
Do the ratios already figure in planned aircraft retirements?
Based on historical block hr per day avgs per ac, what does the mainline line fleet count have to be based upon each ratio step with 35 more 76 seat jet and 70 more 76 seat jets?
If the company gets 76 seaters(let's say 35) and has to park 50's on that ratio what triggers will not be hit, and what will the safeguard and look backs look like?
Also WRT to JV's why is the language profit/loss arrangements which in the definition of named term include revenue sharing (v Australia), but does not cover possible other schemes?
Could you please show you your math?
Thanks for all your time.