Originally Posted by
FIIGMO
I think that was the whole reason that DALAPA said no to increased seats on RJ's. We wanted scope capture and we did get it. Not as much as I wanted but we changed it for the positive. I am not sure i follow you here, but we feel bad about taking those jobs back and being proactive about being sure DCI alpa carries get a look at first for hire?
Vip I am just sure I did not follow your line of thought.
Fiig
I'll try to explain it better (this is not one of my strong suits
)
What I read was that Delta wanted 82 seat aircraft at DCI and in exchange they would give us all the revenue that produced. I find it very hard to believe that RA would just give us all that extra money. Why add the seats if it doesn't help Delta's bottom line? And, How would we know that we were getting all the extra revenue? This would be impossible to figure. For the record I'm very glad we said NO. The point is Delta was admitting they supplement our income via outsourcing, meaning there is a lot or revenue available from these aircraft maybe enough to bring these aircraft up to mainline.
Secondly, we are funding the contract, according to CVGs notes from TO, at a cost of 420 million and that it is cost-neutral due to the added revenue from the new CRJ-900s and 717s. I'm not sure what the brake out of the % for each aircraft is but based on the DOT numbers most of the revenue will be coming on the backs of the new CRJ-900s.
Again, the company and ALPA are basically admitting that our pay raise is being funded by larger aircraft being outsourced. It's great we are possibly accelerating parking of 50 seats but we should not be increasing the larger RJs just to make that happen a few years faster.