But 61% of $10 is $6.10. 61% of $100M is $61M. So it's only a % of the consolidated block hour pie.

Currently we fly 3.6M consolidated block hours and we have a 54% share of it or 1.94M MBH. If we could jump from 54% to 61%, we'd have 2.20M MBH, a win worth about 75ish airplanes or what you get when you add 88 B717s and park 17 DC9s.

Great!

However, there is no requirement to maintain a certain number of block hours like 3.6M. Just a requirement that at a given point (DCI 450/325) we get 61% of whatever flying there is to be had per the 1.56 ratio.
So the language makes it possible to shrink DCI without transferring any of the block hours to us and they meet the ratio requirement and ASMs get to keep their current trajectory and drop about 1% YOY.

 

Now Waves, to be fair.

What the ratio does do is say if we grow after we hit 1.56, then DCI can only grow their MBH as much as 450 jets would allow and in keeping with the 1.56 ratio. If we grow enough then we rise off the 61% floor and go higher.

The roadshow promotes the business plan that has growth and a resulting 64% share. That's great, a win for us. But two problems, first we don't hit the 1.56 ratio before TA 2015, where tweaking of the ratios and caps could easily commence since scope is negotiable. Second, growth is not required per the TA. We can all hope the business plan in the roadshow happens, but it doesn't have to.

As to 777s, until we see more than 16 ordered, all I see is a 744 replacement and a gnashing of teeth in the marketing department. Our literal poster child would be gone. But seriously, if they offered 16 773s for 100 CR9s, the end result will be no additional hiring except at DCI. Pull that in TA 2015 and it's TA 2012 all over again.

 

Agreed.

A No result will find out sooner. A Yes vote to the TA will take years to determine if it was right or wrong. Either way, it will be water over the dam.

 

????????? Really, you need to ask ALPA people some questions or read the NN's. You are making this way too hard on yourself.

 

You bet a NO result will find out sooner.

 

Yes, they will see if it was the wrong choice sooner than a yes vote will.

 

Or maybe you're taking the easy road and not asking any hard questions. Just a thought.

This is why "sales" tactics rub me the wrong way. If the NC gave us some of the cons in the agreement, their position would be more believable. Treating us like children only makes some of us sceptical of the entire message.

 

What did AMY do?

I don't need to ask AMY any hard questions. I see good answers with this TA. It's good pay for a 3 year contract, fewer RJs total, a ratio that favors mainline, work rule improvements, and 717s. A NO vote brings tons of questions, thanks to a hunch that we MIGHT be able to get more, MAYBE. No thanks.

 

You bet, a NO vote will show us quickly it was a wrong choice. You still have time to change your vote ACL, and I bet you will. THINK ABOUT IT. 200 RJs leaving leaves a gap, and that gap will be filled by larger RJs, and then 717s will top those 76 seaters, and we will own mid range regional routes again. Where do you think 88 717s will go? IMAGINE it.

 

What's wrong with it Bill?