Originally Posted by
gloopy
You could be right about that. However its possible that the savings quoted comes from imminent savings as a result of getting the 717's. Savings such as getting out of long term high water mark real estate bubble 50 seater leases, cancellation of engine replacements and heavy checks, etc. Even savings from the juniority virus (SJS) that every RFP gives management as they watch the piranhas tear themselves up for every pound of ground round they lob into the red frothy waters of the regional industry.
Even if the 750m number is correct, it could be savings next year that we would have spent over several years. Depends on when and how they account for it I guess.
I'm with gloop, how much savings can 3-16 airplanes in 0-6 months of revenue flying create?
The writer of that article is connecting incongruous pieces of information and calling it analysis, it is trash and shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone who knows anything about this industry.
I disagree with Jerry that if we were outside Sect 6 that we would end up with a 717 rate different than what we have now. (But I do agree about the 79,999 others comment!)
We have a DC9 rate that is already in the contract, and the speed, weight, distance is almost identical to the current DC9. The "we could get the 88 rate" argument is flawed because the current 3.B.6 language doesn't allow DL pilots to refuse to fly the airplane if there is no negotiated rate.
Thanks to C2K, now we have to fly it and negotiate a rate (we did in this PWA) and if that fails it goes to arbitration..... Not sure what anyone else thinks, but I bet it would be a tough sell to an arbitrator that a DC9-30 airframe with newer engines and cockpit that seats 110 pax is the equivalent of a 160 seat MD-90. The 25 seat variance between the 319/320 and 32 seat variance between the -700 and -800 would both be tossed out because of the common cockpit/category that those have.