Originally Posted by
johnso29
Or we could go from 717 mainline jets plus 88 B717s for 805 jets. That would be 38 jets above the 767 base. 38 X 3=114 which would easily allow 255 76 seaters and 0 70 seaters.
Now 255 76 seaters is less then 325 76 seaters. But, the ratio is now in place. It wasn't before. And while you've calculated that we "could" maintain the 1.56 BHR without growing, that doesn't stop the fact that we could be shrunk below that ratio of block hours after they pump and dumped us. The 1.56 BHR is protection we didn't have before. Would it really be more expensive to just park the DC9s and 30+ 55XX series 757s. Or the 320s?
So I guess whether the BHR protection is worth 70 more jumbo RJs is where the difference lies. I voted NO becuase I couldn't stomach signing off on 70 more large RJs. But I think this contract is pointing us in the right direction.
The thing about a pump and dump, to get to 255/0 76/70-seaters under the old PWA from where we are now would've required going from 720 jets to 806 while parking 102 70-seaters and then dumping mainline back down.It seems an awfully laborious, capacity growing and expensive way to have 255 76-seaters instead of 153/102 as they have now. I'd hate to be on those investor calls.
The easier way would be to use the 717s you already were going to acquire as leverage to drop the 806 requirement and throw in a ratio set at status quo at mainline : DCI@450 jets.