Originally Posted by Bluto

I was referring to the combination of increasing the number of viable, long-term mainline replacement aircraft and increasing our efficiency which, together, appear to me a poor long-term solution for growth at the mainline.

Well, all I can say is we would be significantly lowering the the total amount of outsourced aircraft and lowering ASMs. Along with the block hour ratio, if there is any growth it should benefit mainline way more than DCI. Also, DCI will be capped at 450 aircraft. There is only so much flying they can do.

Reducing the overall block hours at DCI is great. Reducing the number of RJ's is spectacular. I expected that this would happen as the inefficient 50-seaters were retired while we held the line on large RJ scope. I don't consider their early retirement a windfall any more than I do the early outs. They were both going to happen eventually. Now, however, we've found a way to effectively 'pay' for management to do what they want to do by further weakening our long-term position.

I have to ask, do you think my scenario that, currently, with the delivery of the '90's and 737-900's the company could reach 801 aircraft, get up to 255 76ers and dump mainline aircraft? I think it's entirely feasible. As far as the 50 seaters go, I think a lot of guys saying they are gonna leave and soon but I'm not convinced they are, especially if the company puts a lot of money into heavy checks.....

As a former DCI guy who did a good amount of flying that used to be done by DAL 737's, I saw the result of that outsourcing firsthand. I never wanted the 76-seaters at my company and chose never to fly them for that reason. This is my first opportunity to vote no on outsourcing more large RJ's. I haven't decided definitively how I'll vote, but this kind of outsourcing matters to me both for the practicality of reduced future leverage and for the principle of the thing. Outsourcing your own job feels, somehow, unwise.

All I can say to this is I wish we had never allowed it but we did...