Originally Posted by forgot to bid

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?