I'd be surprised given the massive presence of 320/321 in AUS and the relatively limited number of 220 departures. Does RDU have a meaningful 220 presence? I guess it depends how the AUS growth plays out. The 319/320/321 combination seems to provide the greatest span of seats and range for a single airplane base.

You need to read sailing's posts about base openings. Then read them again, and again. More flights does not equate to a potential for a new base, it must have a commensurate lowering of credit attached. If Network and Flt Ops can formulate that - Bob's your uncle and AUS opens. However, I maintain it won't happen in the next 10 years if not longer.

Speaking to that long post you had a few pages ago....We have more cargo running into TPA than AUS. We have more cargo running into MCO than AUS. We have more cargo running into MIA than AUS. Supply stores at all of them as well. Means nothing regarding a precursor to a pilot base opening. Neither does hiring more above/below wing personnel. Opening an FA base there, means nothing. All of what you posted prior means nothing when it comes to Delta deciding to open a new pilot base. What does matter is whether the company can reduce credit by doing so. And can network decide on the fleet type(s). Historically that takes a decade or more. We've always been this way.

Only thing I’ll say counter to your [good] argument against indicators of an AUS pilot base is that the company is totally different today than a decade ago. Lots of the people who created the culture and decision sense you’re talking about left with Covid and have been replaced by less experienced ambitious risk takers from outside Fayette and Fulton counties.

What’s our image? Who do we market to today? How’s AMEX effecting profits? Why does Tom Brady get paid by Delta Air Lines? How does Ed’s risk acceptance (and his own image) compare to previous CEOs? Etc, etc…

The answers to all the questions above are totally different today than they would have 10, 20, or 30 years ago.

So while none of this means an AUS base is immanent, “past performance is not indicative of future results.”

Plus, from a route map perspective, AUS makes a lot more sense as a pilot base ensuring operational integrity than any of the cargo/leisure markets we serve in FL. 99.9% of most cargo doesn’t care if it’s a day late or can catch a ride on another company’s airplane. Delta customers pay extra to fly us and be on time. And the customers in Austin have the money to BUY those seats in the front of the jet.

This makes me want the SS/GS counter to be the same (at minimum). Better yet, we should get rid of them. They are merely a control tool the company utilizes (occasionally, and at their sole discretion) to protect the operation. They don't benefit the whole of the group in the same way GS do.

Yes, but opening a base isn't a "risk." It's a cost saving measure, primarily by reducing credit and hotel room expenses but also must be offset by the cost of renting lounge space and the additional risk/overhead of appropriately staffing a category (read: reserves). They also need ensure it will be open long enough to overcome any initial "start up" costs if they have to close it.

So what is the company going to give us for that?

And my point by calling it a “risk” is all the money we’ve wasted on TB12, uniforms, etc. My guess is those business decisions were not made by “Good ole Cletus” who’s been here since 1983 and took the buyout in 2020. The business mentality isn’t what it used to be and statistics can be shaped to justify any business decision or expense savings. This just isn’t the airline that you’re referring to anymore. Not saying good or bad, not saying this does or doesn’t mean new bases. Just saying I wouldn’t be surprised if AUS is announced as a pilot base and it not make sense compared to previous decisions.

RDU is also undergoing a massive expansion/building plan. Parking has increased about 150%, and yes, that’s a new, replacement runway they are working on. So I’d say the airport is definitely trying to entice someone in there. Losing the American hub had to have hurt.

Coincidentally, I’ve heard “first hand” from an RDU airport manager that two “fingers” are going to be built off Terminal 2. Something like 30 +/- new gates.

Then they’ll start on Terminal 1.

Also, Unify was advertising openings for two KLM employees at RDU. Don’t know if the posting is still up. Separate listings were also posted for Air France, so it doesn’t seem to be a mix up in that sense.

Just to clarify, the uniform debacle is the culmination of about a decade of attempting to control branding image by both marketing and GOP. There's no inherent marketing value to opening a pilot base. In fact, from a metrics standpoint, it's actually slightly detrimental to on time performance than staffing out of a hub.