Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp

The 50 seaters will be gone by 2022ish.

Anderson has stated that when he buys an airplane, he plans on it staying around for 30 years. The 900's are much more viable and "mainline quality" type aicraft.

So, while I agree that DCI is smaller, we are enabling DCI to maintain a higher mass for longer by this agreement. In essence, trading 190 short term planes for 70 long term aircraft.


______


Taking this a bit further:

My major beef with this portion is the amount of jumbo RJs allowed. When I was briefed on this concept, I could have swallowed 30 or even 40 gain in exchange for the 50 seaters- but only about 75 50-seaters allowed to remain. Let them have a little bit more viability while reducing their mass significantly vice marginally. Everything in this TA is taken to the limit of what I could tolerate, and then over the edge into ridiculousness:

70 more Large RJs? Wayy too many while allowing too many smaller gauge jets to remain.

RAH fixed, but carved out for RAH forever with no sunset.

The pay?? Considerably lower than survey guidance and well below my limit. I don't see how you who gave so much in bankruptcy are not downright insulted.

DC- 1%... The pension was taken in BK and we only get one more 1% in the first section 6 after it?



I'll stop here, because these just illustrate my point that this thing wreaks of seeing how little they could get away with and possibly still get a pass.

Originally Posted by slowplay

OK, so I get that logic and it's a fair point. The new large RJ's would keep DCI around 3-4 years longer if airframe longevity determines their viability. The 70 seaters on average have a 15-17 year contractual life with DCI, so I think 30 is a bit optimistic for that space.