Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 1197485)

Nu,

I don't see anything in that language about aircraft leasing.

Originally Posted by bigbusdriver (Post 1197577)

I'm not sure that's right either. I sat through about half of the scope discussion in SLC yesterday. They said RA does not need us to make this deal, he would like us to make this deal. The 717s ONLY come if the deal is signed because he's moving DCI lift to mainline and he can't do it without us. The last of the MD-90 will replace the DC-9. The B-737-900 order (100) will trigger the current 76 seat clause no matter what. The 717 is on top of that. The 50 is replaced by the 76 which is replace by the 717. That is the only way the deal gets done and the only way to move the capacity from DCI to mainline without disrupting service. If RA can not get rind of the 50 at the speed he wants then no 717 no matter what. They said that he would not get the 717 if we did not sign the deal because the long term maintenance plan for the 50 means that if they do the heavy check coming up that they must stay in the fleet 5-6 years. He will either spend the money on the 717 or on the maintenance but not both. Someone else had to have passed through SLC when these guys were talking to see if I have that right. They also said that the only force majure event we had was 9/11 and only applied to the furlough and that the pilots voted on every subsequant change to block hours in LOA 46 and later. The language in section 1 is as strong as the pilot's will. I don't remember block hour ratios going then but I know they didn't go during 9-11. They made a strong case for this language being very difficult to void unless the pilots vote it away. Everything they said made sense and I'm in full agreement that this moves DCI time to DL and is seat positive to DL voodoo forum math be damned.

Originally Posted by LeineLodge (Post 1197525)

What's your plan for JV protection? Not being a smarta## at all. I really want to know.

I ask to illustrate the "total picture" way of looking at this. OVERALL DCI block hours will significantly shift to mainline PLUS we pick up JV protection and a few other "must haves".

I don't like swallowing a turd any more than the next guy, but I'm trying to see the whole picture. It might be the least worst. Voting No does not guarantee a better result.

Originally Posted by vprMatrix (Post 1197594)

Interesting that RA says the 737-900s are growth aircraft a quick search regarding the 900s show that they are all slated to be replacement aircraft and would not trigger the 3 to 1 conversion language. Of course there is the problem of needing to park the CRJ-700s and E-170s in order to to do this which would appear at face value to be a poor financial move.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1197587)

Here's some vodoo forum math... once the 739s start coming the current pwa language is triggered wrt to 76 seaters. When its over, how many 51-76 seaters would we have?

And how many 51-76 seaters could we have under this TA again if its 51-76 seat language is triggered?

Originally Posted by Check Essential (Post 1197593)

"sale and/or assignment" would definitely include a sub-lease.

From Black's Law Dictinary:

assignment

noun. the act of transferring an interest in property or some right (such as contract benefits) to another.

I think this 717 transaction falls under the AirTran contract language.
We better demand a definitive answer from management on this question of pilots coming with the airplanes. The fact that they have been silent on that subject is very troubling.
Think about it - they would save a bunch of money on training if they brought the pilots over.

Originally Posted by vprMatrix (Post 1197594)

Interesting that RA says the 737-900s are growth aircraft a quick search regarding the 900s show that they are all slated to be replacement aircraft and would not trigger the 3 to 1 conversion language. Of course there is the problem of needing to park the CRJ-700s and E-170s in order to to do this which would appear at face value to be a poor financial move.

Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 1197605)

So why are even the AT pilots claiming they DON'T come with the airplanes? :confused:

Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 1197605)

So why are even the AT pilots claiming they DON'T come with the airplanes? :confused: