Originally Posted by
Free Bird
Slowplay
Your facts will always prove that each contract is better than the last. So how is it that compared to 20 years ago flying that was once mainline is now outsourced? If every agreement is good for us, why is the trend towards DCI flying jets that directly compete with mainline increasing?
As the 19 seat turboprops didn't threaten mainline jobs, I don't think the 50 seat RJ will either. The 90 (76) seat RJ can do just about every mission that the 88 can.
I appreciate your input Slow, as you provide some great points. I want the TA scope section with the cap of 255 for the 70/76 seat RJ's. Anything other than that is a concession to me. If the next TA tries to get rid of all of the 50 seat RJ's in exchange for 450 70/76 seaters is that going to be a win as well? What if they tie that to a widebody aircraft order? Maybe one they needed anyway?
So, you want to keep planes that don't make money? Capping the 70/76 seaters means having to keep MORE of the 50 seaters, and those obviously don't make enough money in this environment. If Delta parks 150 50 seaters, will they just stop flying to all of those cities? No, the 102 70 seaters will take over and try to make money on those original 50 seater routes. The 76 seaters will fill in where the 70 seaters leave, and the 717s (88 of them BTW, a lot) will cover routes that we now see 76 seaters. It's the only way to improve the profits and lower the CASM during high oil. Tie the 717s up to the additional 76 seaters, and that means mainline growth, or NO additional 76 seaters. Then throw in a ratio that helps us and not DCI, and that is a win.
The only way to make a widebody order is to actually MAKE MONEY, and tons of 50 seaters flying around isn't helping. Those leases will not be cut unless they can trade up to larger. Parking 150 50 seaters can only help us.