Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 1197292)

alfa OR slowplay,

I have a few questions WRT Sec 1

Do the ratios already figure in planned aircraft retirements?

Based on historical block hr per day avgs per ac, what does the mainline line fleet count have to be based upon each ratio step with 35 more 76 seat jet and 70 more 76 seat jets?

If the company gets 76 seaters(let's say 35) and has to park 50's on that ratio what triggers will not be hit, and what will the safeguard and look backs look like?

Also WRT to JV's why is the language profit/loss arrangements which in the definition of named term include revenue sharing (v Australia), but does not cover possible other schemes?

Could you please show you your math?

Thanks for all your time.

Originally Posted by alfaromeo (Post 1197276)

And you accuse ALPA of manipulating the numbers! Does that fleet you have listed make one lick of sense to you? Do you really think we are going to have 300 180+ seat aircraft between the 737-900's and 757's. It looks to me like you manipulated that spreadsheet until you found the most capacity with the least number of airframes. You tried to get rid of the smallest aircraft we had so you could produce more capacity with fewer block hours.

Even under your completely untenable fleet forecast, you show that the minimum ratio produces more mainline jobs and more mainline block hours. Now using whatever fleet assumptions you want, put in 1% system growth per year and then 2% and then show me the numbers.

Finally, list out for me the fleet protections that we have with our mainline fleet today. Couldn't they get rid of all those airplanes you noted above and then replace them with Q400's and Super Efficient 50 seat jets?

Listing numbers on a spreadsheet and actually having some logic behind those numbers are two different things.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1197354)

I think the 753 and is 224 seats are included too.

Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 1197359)

But the 757 Narita fleet and the 757's that go to DKR, are those included? Are Dominican Republic flights considered domestic? Mexico City?

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1197358)

Don't be mad, be glad. Someone is also diving in and looking at this contract in depth and looking for gotchyas and tricks. Given the ones in the last contract there surely cannot be any consternation doing that for this TA before we pass it.

So you gave us the information for a math question to achieve your narrative that we'd have to hire. But forgive the cynicism if we look at it as no growth.

I wanted to see if or how we could take the 717s on and keep the ASMs, block hours the same, go to the DCI 450 number and still be in compliance with the 1.56 ratio.

Looks like we can. We could use the CRJ-900s to replace 319s and 88s. Figure the DC9s will already be gone by then replaced by 717s. Then I replaced more 88s, 763s and 752s with 739s. When that wasn't enough I exercised some 739 options. I didn't even increase the 90s though, I could've done that. But those are 88 and 320 replacements as well.

Looking for tricks. Unless you can verify that there are none in there and we shouldn't worry about any tricks?

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1197363)

Not sure we have 757's flying intra Africa right now.

As far as I can tell, Alfa stated thy included them because it was easier to run the data calculation.

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1197287)

And in the past you've accused me of spin...:rolleyes:

Oh, why are they apending money on cockpit upgrades to the 88's...just to get rid of them in your spreadsheet?

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1197089)

btw if anyone has numbers to help that worst case table, I'll take em!

:D

and i still standby the worse fear, what if dci 450 is the number network wants anyways?

such they could live with 255 large jets + 195 small jets but are hoping that in exchange for 717s they'd get anyways if we would be so kind as to give them an awesome giveaway of 325 large and 125 small?

are we being suckered?

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1197076)

Bar the RAH carve out is absolutely.... can't think of the word. I'm tired. It sucks. It's scary.

If the excessive CRJ-200 ordered ended up being something the company needed to be rescued from... what shall become of that RAH exemption?

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1196992)

Tsquare I appreciate your enthusiasm. And coffee this morning.

But I must say I have done by DYODD on Section 1.

And there is no way in you know where that I will vote yes.

It is a bad deal. And I know there are some pinky promises out there on this thing, but I won't give up things in writing for pinky promises.

So I am voting no as soon as they open this thing up for vote.

Originally Posted by grasshopper (Post 1197365)

growth could be a hundred dudes/chicas...does that sound good? all I want to have out there is that 88 717's doesn't necessarily mean 1000 newhires...cause it ain't in the contract. the number of people added due to this potential scope sale isn't probably going to be linear. the company makes out like a bandit by smoothing out the hiring flow. It's even better when they don't have to do as much of it in total.

Originally Posted by chuck416 (Post 1197325)

I cannot think of one occasion where management held an A/C order over the pilots heads IF a T/A is voted it, the pilots balked, and the management then followed thru with the threat. Can anyone else cite an example? The 50 seat a/c are loosing money every single departure. I think management wants this deal a lot worse than we do.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1197363)

Not sure we have 757's flying intra Africa right now.

As far as I can tell, Alfa stated thy included them because it was easier to run the data calculation.