Originally Posted by 1234
I was being sarcastic, guess it didn't come across that way even though I used a
. Just stating that the original poster made it seem like this 717 deal is a lot better for the company than ALPA thought. Original poster implied that it will save the company $750 million next year alone. I believe the article is not written well because I have to believe, as stated by shiznit, that the savings must be from the entire refleeting project. There is no way that just 16 airplanes (717's) next year are going to save us that kind of money. My thoughts anyway.
Not necessarily directed at you but just a thought anyway - for comparison's sake. Had the company added the 717 fleet outside of Section 6 we would have negotiated a new pay rate for it. Maybe it would have gotten M88 pay. So say the company parks the 50s, adds the 717s, we negotiate a new rate, and get nothing, but they still save their huge chunk of change. Not saying its fair if this analyst is correct, but in alternate universes this could have turned just plain bleak for us.
Remember too that not every penny of profit that Delta makes immediately is willed to you. There's 79,999 others that think they generated the revenue who want fractions of your penny.