Originally Posted by
forgot to bid
Here's what I mean, short story, just look at Net Additional Airplanes, Lost Jobs and Pay Difference. Option B is 717s as pure growth and Option C says not so fast, 717s/CRJ-900s replace MD88s.
I hid a bunch of the other options for clarity. FWIW, the 739s are in there as a 1:1 replacement with the 100 oldest 320s, 763s and 757s and so it takes into account the hits with ASMs there and parking the CRJ-200s.
You are changing numbers to fit your theory. Your option c shows a reduction of over 400000 block hours in the delta domestic system. That is nearly a 15-20% reduction from current levels. I will concede that there will likely be a decrease in total block hours that accompanies an up gauging process like this, but I doubt it will be of that magnitude. Even with this ridiculously biased assumption, however, you show mainline jobs as stagnant under the TA. Now consider what the mainline jobs picture would look like if delta had a 15-20% reduction in domestic block hours WITHOUT the protections included in the current TA. I don't think even the most optimistic of us would believe it would lead to no reduction in mainline jobs. The company can add or subtract total block hours with or without this TA, the difference is that with theTA we are guaranteed a larger share of whatever flying Delta does.
I'm sure you made a great grade in Excel 101, but you probably need to retake statistical analysis.