Originally Posted by gloopy

That's basically what I said. I said I did NOT think they would have furloughed just a few hundred. I agree that the "ROI" is 2 years give or take. Therefore had they furloughed, according to both of us, it would have been a lot more than just a few hundred AND it would have been with the intent on being for 2 years or so, give or take. Had they therefore done that, they would have almost definately been caught flat footed and would have been crisis scrambling to mass recall on the verge of hiring anyway. While they (planning) knew they were fat enough to furlough for a little while, they also knew the training bubble was going to be significant. In addition to that was the unknowns of the economy as well as the ever mysterious "retirement zone" which they are still trying to get a handle on.

So its not that I don't appreciate your biting sarcasm, I do, I'm just trying to find the disagreement between us. All I said was that the flow down with Compass IMHO was not a major factor in the decision to furlough or not to furlough because they would have gotten burned almost immediately (relatively speaking...most likely far below the 2 year ROI they would like to see). Not only that, but if the flow down wasn't there, neither would be a very significant number of 76 seaters either. Jets whose very existance would have exacerbated any potential furlough numbers in direct proportion to whatever furlough numbers they would have saved even IF the training bubble/economy/ROI elements weren't there.

Did staffing take the flow back into account and cost it out? I'm sure they did. But IMHO it wasn't the driving factor. Not even close.