Originally Posted by
Bill Lumberg
If the company gets the 717s without this TA, then they can add more 76 seaters anyway, all the way up to 255. While you then say, "they would have to get rid of 70 seaters at the same time" (255 of 76 seaters or 70 seaters), then we would be left with 311 50 seaters that have leases through 2015. 311 50 seaters (down to 125 with TA), that don't make as much money for the corporation, but have leases that won't be broken (unless they trade up, a deal worked out with the RJ maker). So, people would rather have money losing 50 seaters, and lots of them. Why don't we put RJs that have a chance at making money (20 more seats for the 102 70 seaters that would replace 50s on their routes, especially if you get rid of 150 of them) on routes that will probably stay RJs routes. On the big RJ routes that do make money, let's throw a 717 on there and try to make more. Very simple.
2015 is only 2 and 1/2 years away. Why don't these 70 additional large "RJ's" come with a clause that says either they or 70 equivalent existing ones have to be sunsetted as soon as their leases are up, and/or DL seniority lists must be given the chance to fly them in seniority order over and above any other list. Management's choice as to how they want to structure it.
If this is really about emergency RJ's to help the company out of a short term jam, then why are these new large outcourced AC permanent?