Originally Posted by
Bill Lumberg
What's wrong with profits? Some people on here don't want our corporation to be profitable? I think certain routes have perfect sized planes on them. The 76 seat cat is out of the bag. It would be more than tough to recapture all of them, but we also know that the 50 seaters aren't doing well either, which means a profit drain. If the route is going to have an RJ on it, why not have one that makes ALL OF US money? Cedar Rapids to Detroit probably can't sustain a 717. A 50 seater might not be able to do the trick, but a 70 seat CR7 may. That is what I mean. Many on here think all of the 325 "large" RJs will take over every mainline destination. I think at least 102 of them will fill in for current 50 seat routes, to help them make MORE money. Any of the current 76 seater routes that are doing great may get a 717 on it, which will make us MORE MONEY. That helps you and me too. And the great thing is? 200 money losing 50 seaters will drift away.
Bill, DLpilot had a great question- do you support raising the limit on large RJs just to make more profits?
Also Bill, you do realize that DCI pilots could fly a MD-88 for a lot less than I do? Do you support having them fly bigger jets like an MD-88 so that the airline can be more profitable?
It won't matter. Some people just believe that "this is it." There won't be any more hulls of this type -or- any higher seat limits allowed -or- any higher weight limits allowed.
But,
There always is. We are about to give more ground, all the while people will really believe that we gained. Then, in 3 years, management will want to once again, move that line. "just this once, just a little bit because we've got a real problem." And ya know what, we'll probably do it again.
One of these days, our outsourced labor is going to be flying something within 10 or so seats of our smallest plane, then what? It ain't gonna be pretty when they announce what they're going to park.