Originally Posted by
forgot to bid
I'll give one. After securing 88 717s, maybe a few more, 70 more 76-seaters and bringing the fleet total for the 90s, there will be more than enough lift and "right sizing" of the fleet to cause the ROI on upgrading the 88 cockpits to be deemed to expensive.
They've been evaluating the ROI on that for almost 2 years and when you press for an answer it is "we're trying to evaluate if this is worthwhile." Well, to me the evaluation is based on this TA.
They'd rather have 175 additional jets that give them a 160 seat, 117 seat and 82 seat mix than to have 117 jets that seat 149 passengers and possibly require 120ish to B/E. So that would mean in 2020 the 88s are parked.
And unfortunately in that scenario, we'll replace 117 mainline jets with 105 mainline jets.
That's my guess. Feel free to give yours pro or con.
Your entire scenario is a huge leap.
But.. if you want to go with that, with no TA, we will need fewer pilots. Pump and dump is a real concern because... as you said.. the lift will NOT be needed because of the large (in number) RJ fleet. Furlough will entirely be possible.
With the TA, block hour ratios must be maintained. Even if the 88s are parked, the company must fly the remaining airplanes enough to maintain that ratio OR start parking RJs. That ensures jobs will be maintained. (Of course the 717s are paid less because they are smaller.... oh no I di'int) And if they furlough one... single... pilot.. they have to remove 6 seats from ALL the 76s. THAT is punitive, and THAT is some serious furlough protection...