View Single Post
Old 05-31-2012 | 07:04 AM
  #19  
Bill Lumberg
Banned
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,007
Likes: 0
From: Space Shuttle PIC
Default

Originally Posted by vprMatrix
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.
.

70 extra 76 seaters are giving us $420 million per year? After parking 150 50 seaters? Really? And how is mainline getting 717s outsourcing? We would be flying those. Parking 150 50 seaters mean 80 less total RJs after adding 70 76 seaters. Less overall is better.