Originally Posted by
forgot to bid
You're right, it absolutely would be an issue if the 50 seater was a threat, which it was post 9/11. It's not now. We had a cap on the airplanes that were the real threat and the 50 seaters were/are on their way out.
EB, 24OCT12
"...we’ll be mindful of our frequency by market and that’s a key driver, and the 717 deal, particularly, gives us much better gauge and the second thing is, I don’t think customers want to fly 800, 900 miles on a 50-seater. Part of what we’re doing here is putting a better product in the market, better fuel efficiency, fewer airplanes in the air and our customers tell us they much prefer flying on mainline airplanes rather than 34-, 44-, and 50-seat airplanes.
I just don't think the 50 seater was a threat even if it had better CASM. It takes up slots and gates, it's small and it's uncomfortable. It's just not bi-winning.
I'm not contesting that the 50 seater is a threat, but if the company signs a commitment to fly them we have zero guarantee that they will be out the door early. As a mentioned earlier, prior to Delta buying 9E they actually extended their 50 seat contract. We can attempt to call their bluff, but at what cost? Do we go years without a contract?
To be fair, the EB quote you provided is from 24OCT12 which is post ratification date. He was able to make that statement because our contract facilitated the actions, correct? How does that statement prove the 50 seaters were on their way out regardless?
Anyway, I too appreciate the cordial debate. We should probably just agree to disagree.
Unless you want to keep going, in order to prevent ourselves from saying something stupid to our wives.
