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.
Exactly! Here's an idea, let's get some pilots from Central and South America to fly our planes for us. Better yet, some Vietnamese or Burmese pilots. I bet they work pretty cheap! Does anybody know where Nike makes there shoes? We could get some pilots from there.
In fact, we should all work 5 extra days a month for free and take a 50% pay cut. Give back all vacation time, get rid of sick leave and give each passenger $5 dollars from our own pockets.
I, for one, am soooooo looking forward to the 7 short call days and feel so blessed that I can now fly ALV+15 to further stagnate my own career, so the company can better afford to buy better equipped aircraft with more capacity and longer range for another company, and then have to pay them to fly those passengers.
I only wish I could more effectively help them out source my job.