Originally Posted by
forgot to bid
Bill,
I think the logical way to look at this TA is we’re providing relief for the company that the PWA would not have allowed.
Per the PWA, no more than 153 76-seaters until the mainline fleet grows from today's 715 airframes to the mergers 767 airframes and then continue to grow to trigger the 3:1 ratio that required 70 seaters to be removed.
Per the TA, we allow more 76-seaters without requiring mainline to grow and we do not require the 70 seaters to be parked at any point. In exchange for doing that DCI in the year following the TA’s amendable date shrinks from around 500 airplanes to a cap of 450 airplanes. All of that is contingent on acquiring more 717s, which the company evidently has wanted to do anyways.
So if the company’s plan is not to grow mainline, to get rid of unwanted 50 seaters ahead of schedule, to acquire more 76 seaters and to acquire 717s as replacement aircraft, then, the TA allows them to do all of the above whereas the PWA had more restrictive limits.
I am looking for improvements in many areas, and this TA does that. There's a short duration with a good pay raise for only 3 years. Scope is debatable, but I want those 218 50 seaters gone, sooner. That is key. Total numbers are most important to me. I think the larger RJs will just fill in for the larger amount leaving. Then throw in a favorable ratio, and it works. The international scope is also an improvement. I don't see the 717s coming if the 50s stay longer. Too much capacity (717s+ all of the 50s staying) That makes sense.
Throw in the fact that no other legacy is helping our cause at all, and things are ripe for other interesting "plays" in this industry now, I think this TA is a good deal for us right now. That's why I went from a NO on any deal a month ago to a YES today.