Originally Posted by
shiznit
Well by your math that would be down 55 jets.
SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH...... SHHHHHHHHHHH.... SHHH... SHH.
I'm using Bill's math. You just talk about the 50 seaters going away, you ignore the jumbo RJ stuff.
Originally Posted by
Bill Lumberg
Plus 200 50 seaters that will be gone for GOOD, plus 88 717s, plus 30 more MD90s that will cover for the DC9s. 88 717s will be growth. Don't forget that! If the 50 seaters had to stay around longer, it is plausible that there would have been too much capacity in the system, and getting the 717s might have been problematic. 200 RJs leaving and adding 88 717s offsets 70 extra 76 seaters any day.
Originally Posted by
shiznit
In 2 years and 9 months, I would vote in favor of 70 more "up to 76 seat aircraft" if all the 50's and 70's were subtracted and then counted in the swap. All "76 seat or less" aircraft are whatever the company wanted to operate....
Total- 50's- 70's+??= New DCI cap
450 -125 - 102 +70= 293 DCI airframes.
Another 35% cut in DCI airframes,
1700 less DCI jobs,
and 26% less DCI seats
(minimum, if the company uses a 50/65/69/70 then it will be better)
and a MBH radtio adjustment to reflect an adjusted DCI number.
Drop ALK to 20% and JV up to 50% and you have a deal on Section 1 for me.
Piece by piece.... Let's start the sunset on DCI come 2017-19.
We can have it all..... We just can't have it all right now.
Sorry, my delayed response was due to excess screaming in the house.
A ratio is not a bad thing, especially on the growth side. But a ratio that allows DCI 450/325 without growing us is not a good thing, it's a hint or an out for the company.
Leaving the hull count of the PWA would have been imho tremendously better and then add a ratio and then cap them at the current fleet and add sunset clauses. And reduce maximum range allowances.
The key problem is we're allowing them to get rid of what they don't want in exchange for giving them more of what they want. The trend is concessionary where it matters most. Hoping 2015 will be better is playing with fire, if 6% YOY raises is enough for some to say "well, the pay sucks but the rest of the contract is okay, so I can live with it. After all, didn't you hear what ALPA said, this is a good deal." There is no guarantee this trend won't continue in 2015. But again, I'm not saying a rejected TA now will change scope, they want the bigger RJs and it sure looks like they're not going to give that up.
As to Alaska, reducing using them instead of our own jets is a good thing. But in 2015 if we're still using them and they're not going per a merger, I want 0. I'm leaving the Alaska thing alone just to see what the company does in a merger, especially if it's Hawaii. The only way I see growth is if we do Hawaii and replace Alaska. But we didn't put that in the contract so that's all hope and hope doesn't get you far if you're basically renting a car without getting the insurance and entering a demolition derby and hoping to come out without a scratch.