Originally Posted by
acl65pilot
Maybe unless DAL wants to get 76 seat aircraft for 70's and turn them in five years earlier like we are supporting in this TA. We may lower the cap, but not at without an expense of more large RJ's.
Those 76 seat jets may be coming off of their first leases, but there is nothing in the current PWA TA to prevent then being renewed or replaced. DAL has been really good as of late doing shorter duration deals.
You are saying that overall section 1 is better, and most would agree. Many are stating not enough and not with the protections and laser specific language needed for their vote to turn yes.
I have talked to many yes, and no voters and more that are on the fence, they all agree that the language needs to be better. The yes, voter feels its worth the gamble, the no does not, and the maybe really does not like the language but is concerned about voting no even though that is what he/she really wants to do.
Shorter duration deals makes it easier to negotiate for a sunset.
We will NEVER get everything we want in one fell swoop, even the vaunted C2K gave stuff up (uhh 3.B.6!).
I tell you right now that if we take this TA and in 2015 the company wants to replace the rest of the 50's with 76's I'd consider it, provided the swap is still 2-2.8 for 1. That would put the cap at 371 total off list jets (another 21% reduction), and also cut the available seats by 10%.
If they also swapped the 70's at a 1 for 1.5 ratio it would take the numbers to a permanent 34% airframe reduction and 17% seats available reduction.
The next step would be to tighten the MBH ratios to accurately reflect what the ratios actually were over the 2010-2015 period.
Lastly, you prohibit any next generation powerplant to be operated off-list (i.e. GTF), and DCI dies on the vine.
We CAN have it all, we just can't have it all RIGHT NOW.