Originally Posted by
Waves
Sorry FTB, but no matter how you slant this thing, it still looks to me like more flying for us and less flying for them. We go from 598 to 450 RJ’s and we go from 56%/46% mainline vs DCI domestic block hours to a minimum 61%/39%. Not sure why you think caps are negotiable after the contract is signed. Whether or not we still get the 717’s if the TA goes down in flames is anybody’s guess. I have a feeling that after a punitive measure of some sort we actually would, but I wouldn’t bet my first beer on it. If you want to risk Bill’s A seat in an attempt to squeeze the company a little harder, then you will have to deal with him when Air Umpty Squat buys the 717’s instead.
Waves, not slanting. Reading.
Here is a question, what happens to the amount of seat inventory (just a flat out seat count) DAL has now and once this refleeting is finished if we just add 717s as all growth, count the current DC9s out, 739s come in as 1:1 replacements with say all the 763s and remaining 752s, and we get the MD90s to 65 and DCI goes 450/325?
I get a good increase, almost 14% over 2012 numbers and I carried that out to 2018. So 2.3% increase YOY on average?
So let's say that's right (and let's hope it is if this thing passes) do you think DAL really will want to grow say 2% average YOY or continue with shrinking a little like 1% average YOY?
Because if you do a B717 1:1 replacement, you can get that inventory (this time in ASMs) to be -1% YOY on average.
What's more likely? Now again, we hope we grow, but say we don't. What do we get in this TA for increasing the 76 seaters? A ratio that allows the 717s to be replacement instead of forcing them to grow us like the PWA?
Doesn't seem like a good deal even if you're okay with moving the 255 cap to 325. And I don't think the caps are negotiable, at least for 3 years, then we can move 325 up again for all the same reasons we just moved it this time.
BTW, if Bill wants an A seat, and if he can't currently hold an A seat, he needs to send this back and demand that guarantee growth be put back into the contract.
Originally Posted by
Waves
P.S. Your side of the argument loses credibility when you base part of it on "If we turn down the TA we'll get the 717's anyway." Maybe yes, maybe no. If we take everything on face value, you are completely wrong. We will not be getting the 717's. If we were to use this assumption, then conceivably we could make all sorts of other assumptions and possibly false conclusions as well. Do you really think if the TA is tanked, that RA would just immediately say, “OK guys, you got me. I was bluffing and the 717’s are on the way anyway?” I find that thought process flawed. Just wanted to clarify that point.
If we never got the 717s, with the way this TA is written, fine by me. When I was first told of the 717s in 2010 I specifically told the Board wanted all the 90s and 717s. I'm not sure the Board said, we want 717s if we can get out of the 50 seaters which requires purchasing 76 seaters that are on discount probably double the cost of those 717s.