Originally Posted by
slowplay
So just how are you going to get management to publish competitively sensitive data (CPA costs)?
Btw, the analysis was done. The MEC was briefed. With the actual numbers, not speculation and assumption. It didn't work out as you wish it did. Ask the current and former code-share guys if you want another source.
Management disagrees with your assumptions, and they have the data to back it up. Since C2012 the cost differences have grown more stark, as our costs are up 20% and DCI costs are down substantially (PCL bankruptcy reset, contract renegotiations). DCI is down about 150 jets, mainline is up a bunch. And that's with fuel dropping 40%, which makes the RJ's more competitive.
Oh, and before you trot out your 3 year old spreadsheets (how do those look now anyway
) UAL is just beginning their RJ reductions this year. Other than upgauging, AMR hasn't really gotten started in a meaningful way except for transferring Envoy assets. So for something that was "going to happen anyway" it took our competitors 3 years to begin. We're already back in negotiations for a new deal. FDX, SWA, and UPS "wound the clock." UAL won't negotiate for another year and still lags us by a year. APA traded the guts of their contract (scope, sick leave, disability, work rules) for pay, but is now stuck until 2020 (new amendable date).
And you're flying in a shiny "new" jet, and DCI has about 30% fewer pilots.
The shiny new used jet I fly was coming anyway but we were told that in order to get the inevitable 717 we had to give DCI more profitable jets to prevent their inevitable withering on the vine. How much of that reduction in their costs is related to having larger more fuel efficient and better casm RJs? Why in the world did we allow that and why should we ever allow that again because, as you argue, it's killing are argument for ending outsourcing.
Btw If fuel prices are down then they're also cheaper now to run here as well even with our higher rates, no? Also, our rates might be up but we are also more productive, no? Ed said so.
So maybe we should crunch those numbers again? When were those numbers crunched? And how much value was assigned to having it under one big roof for QC and performance reasons?
Now maybe is just me but sometimes I just get the feeling some people really like having those... what was the term used... flaps? ****ing little airplanes or something? Anyways, having those jets here. Some people just to be adamentally against it or scope recapture. Makes no sense to me.
Speaking of my spreadsheets, it only calculated the MBH : DBH ratio and capacity changes.
Right now I show 1.66 is the ratio, out of curiosity, what do you show with the real numbers?