Originally Posted by
forgot to bid
As to the bottom, and let me get my soap box, the reality is that yes while they're having trouble staffing DCI and we're growing... the growth is not written in stone. It's not required.
Exactly. Same for Seattle. We are
only enjoying the growth there because Delta's EVP of west Coast Pilot Hiring (Brad Tilden, who occasionally moonlights as the CEO of Alaskan Air Line) single handedly decided to force our hand. But he can reverse course in a milisecond and our growth there could stop or easily reverse. That's why its crucial to undo the failed Alaska code share abuse language, particularly the "SEA shall never ever ever get back together as a hub" carve out, among other gaping holes.
DCI/ATA/DAL could fix its issues, eliminate 1500 hour rule, etc, and fix their staffing woes and back they come with a fleet of 325 jumbo RJs that could very well increase in C2015 if you yahoos are right.
How quickly people forget. These are the boom times, let's conceed on scope because it helps the mainline grow!
I can't believe ANYone would fall for that again.
If they did want to get rid of the 88 fleet as rumored, they could park nearly 90% of those 117 jets and still be in compliance with 1.47. DAL wanted an out from required growth and we gave it to them.
That was a huge concession from C2012 that we gave them that is easy to not notice because they haven't chosen to wield it yet.
If the 88 B717s were truly to be growth over 2012 numbers then the min ratio should have been 1.7 for DCI at its current size and 1.8 at 450 DCI jets. If you want to get rid of a ML fleet, you better replace it 1:1 or park RJs.
exactly.
We need more things in Section 1 written in stone to match the intent of what is sold. A car dealer saying a car will last 250,000 miles but only offering a 35,000 mile warranty is very different then one who gives you 250,000 mile bumper to bumper.
My FTB speaks for me.