Originally Posted by forgot to bid

Shiz... you and I do not have to go down the road of posting like a 50 year old on FPL with a helmet fire.

You and I despite being on the opposing sides of this TA are far better able to have an open and honest conversation about this TA and I welcome it. FWIW, the right way for someone to handle opposing data is to post their own. No commentary needed. Just the numbers and the assumptions they're based on. Slow actually does this pretty well... at times. It allows for a conversation and sharing of info and molding assumptions.


But remember we're the buyers, they're the sellers, running numbers off places like airlinefinancials.com or BTS/SEC data is the nearest thing we have to consumer reports.

That's what I am doing. I don't like the 325 number but beyond that I'm stress testing this TA and in this case trying to answer the questions on this thread as to whether this TA is cost neutral or not? That's where I added in the talk about the CR2 leases because if you factor in what they save there and our undeniable pay increases I think you could make a case that it is possible to make this cost neutral based on the most detrimental assumptions that this TA allows.

Is it cost neutral for us? Not in terms of pay, but staffing and outsourcing issues added in I don't think it is neutral, I think it's less. That's imho looking at the same numbers in the same TA and basing that off the trajectory the jumbo RJs are on given the lack of a hull count minimum for mainline aircraft.

wce.