Originally Posted by
Bucking Bar
Section 1 D. 9. of the Delta PWA contains a ratio of Mainline domestic block hours to Delta Connection BH. When we merged, the ratio was about 0.9 ML / DCI. Today we fly almost twice that amount (1.7X) during our peak summer season.
The minimum compliance number for our ratio is triggered by 76 seat operations. Since the company has resumed placing these aircraft into operation the minimum compliance metric is expected to increase to 1.56.
The rejected agreement was expected to raise this minimum number to 1.81. Of course the company has to over-fly the minimum to remain compliant on the shoulder months.
Increasing the BH ratio from 1.56 to 1.81 protected about 400,000 block hours. A 717 flies about 3,300 block hours per year. If we assume the E195 to be used in a similar fashion as a 717, it equals about 121 aircraft's worth of block hours. Recall, the plan was for 50 E190's. So, the increasing ratio protected more than just what the E195 was expected to fly. The 757 and 737 fly more block hours than the 717. The result of all of this is that the increasing BH ratio drove about a 2 to 1 increase. Therefore, the new narrow-body fleet type protected itself and one more aircraft too.
The BH ratio drove a 2 to 1 increase? How? If it was 1.1 back in 2012, if I remember what Alpha said, and is now 1.7+, and the ratio only required it to be 1.35, how did the min ratio drive a 2 to 1 increase?
I mean a ratio difference of 1.56 to 1.81 is 0.25, right? And that's 400K block hours / 121 ML aircraft protected. But that means 1.7X - 1.35 min ratio (as of right now) = .35, more than 400K block hours and more than 121 aircraft unprotected, so how is that driving anything?
It's more like taking credit for the sun coming up in the morning or water being wet. I mean if ALPA was all knowing in 2012 about future fleet plans and they knew in 2015 we'd be at a 1.7 ratio right now, why wasn't the ratio min set at 1.7?