Maybe some of Jerry's posts do contain some additional and unneeded drama, but in my opinion he is on to something here.

This issue, unlike a few more 76 seat Jets within a smaller DCI footprint, is forward looking and could have huge negative implications for the Delta Pilot group in the future.

Who among the Forum prophets would have, or did predict, DAL flying 737s to Hawaii 10 or 20 years ago? I would guess zero.

So why is it so hard to visualize NB traffic across the Atlantic? Sure some city pairs are too far apart for reliable service with current equipment, but many markets are easily doable right now and who knows what options some new equipment will open up.

EASKs is a much more forward looking metric because each and every seat provides a revenue opportunity. Why would we we agree to counting a 350 equal to a 321? A 777 equal to a 737? Not only do they provide an opportunity for more revenue they are also the most sought after highly paid jobs.

It is our duty to assume the worst case scenario for PWA planning. We should be running the numbers for all kinds of scenarios, good and bad, that may transpire - not assume a rosy status quo situation.

If EASKs and BHs were interchangeable why would management want the change?

As that fish looking General said in Star Wars: "Its a trap!"

Scoop