Originally Posted by
SawF16
Are you really trying to imply that if the TA passes the company will take on a multi-billion dollar acquisition/lease of 88 new SNB aircraft and then immediately park them, all so that they can keep 70 70 seat RJ's when they expand the 76 seat fleet?
That really does not make sense. If we are spending this much time parsing what the meaning of "establish a fleet" is, we are looking at the wrong parts of the contract for loopholes. I am sure there are some out there, but there are severe economic penalties to the company for this type of move. Seems to be self correcting, particularly with a ratio in place.
I don't think that is what he was saying at all nor do I see how you could read that into it. The point was that the TA language allows the addition of 70 LRJs as long as we take delivery of 88 717s or 319s. The TA does not say that these new aircraft must be growth airplanes. In fact the could be 1 for 1 replacement aircraft for the M88 fleet and Delta could still take delivery of all 70 LRJs.
It is a misconception that the 717 s are all growth aircraft for mainline. There will be some aircraft parked as they are delivered. Both ALPA and Delta have thrown out different varying numbers but I think the best case is maybe 400 new hires as a result of 88 new aircraft. That's good but it should be closer to 900 pilots if these were growth aircraft.
The point is there is no protection or even promise that mainline will grow at all with this TA. Others have shown the math that even the 1.56 ratio allows DCI to shrink to the ratio level while mainline stays the same. If you are voting for this contract for mainline growth or the opportunity to upgrade quickly you're voting for the wrong reason.