How is that any different from simply leasing the planes anyway, from say, a leasing company? Why is that considered debt, but a long term, well written, binding CPA with an ACMI (even if its just an AMI and we do the C) not considered debt, when the exact same committments for the exact same financing, depreciation, etc are paid for 100% by Delta in all cases anyway?

I see no reasoning or value in permitting the company to put say, all narrowbodies, "off the books" when in fact they are still on the books anyway because we are committed to 100% of the exact same amount of debt, interest, etc anyway. Just because we enter into a long term binding committment and agree to pay SKY Air Group Holding, Inc. instead of GE Capital or whatever, we are still 100% on the hook for the debt. Those CPA's, which include 100% of the debt, are still "on the books".

As for the original 79 seater proposal that became a 76 seat proposal after a "compromise" yay for holding the line on those 3 seats, but it was still negative progress. Slightly less negative progress than the opposing side's opener can hardly be considered a victory.