If we don't merge with HI very soon, we need to bury them on their insolent little JFK experiment with JB. Absolutely bury them.

Well, if recent history is an indicator, ALL of them.

1. True
2. True I guess.
3. Only because they fuel hedged appropriately. Otherwise they would be in debt like the rest of us.
4. Fairly easy for SWA's management to agree on Scope considering their entire business model is based on a relatively small single aircraft type.

I think there was a time when SWA's was the place to go. I wouldn't trade ten DAL years of seniority to switch at this point though.

Waves means viable solutions that you could sell to mgmt. I haven't seen one on here yet but maybe I missed yours.

Thanks Finis72, that's exactly what I meant.

And to me, the other part of the problem is we keep agreeing with that philosophy by giving them the original, not to mention more and/or larger rj's over the years. That is something we do have control over. Our votes on these TA's.

I'm not so sure about that one. The "mentality" or thought process or whatever you want to call it that resulted in those original rj's being given away seems to be alive and well still at times.

Definitely disagree here. Somewhere along the way, pilot's and alpa opened that 50 seat rj genie-in-the-bottle by voting yes. Not blaming you Waves, but we most certainly are to blame along the way for this. Smaller turbo-props should have been the end of the line for regionals. I again ask those 50 seat rj "yes voters:" what was the excuse?


The former furloughed pilots weren't the ones that opened the bottle. I would have been fine with a 50 seat rj at mainline before the furlough. Again Waves, not specifically talking to/accusing you but at least Carl has the cajones to admit that wrong-doing.

Some want to fix it, but imho, this TA does not do it. It furthers the problem, the philosophy you mentioned, by making the outsourcing more profitable with more large rj's. And no, it is not my only issue with the ta lest I be labled a "single issue voter."

A more pointed question is, how likely would SEA become a 737-900 base? Or would SEA be impacted at all by their addition?

Not likely, as long as we have the code share with AK. DAL hasnt tipped their hand as it regards -900 basing. My guess, and I fly the 73, is to take a look at the bases that have 75s and -800s and you'll have a pretty good idea. SEA is an international launch point that, currently, is fed by Alaska. IMHO, the -900 will be used largely for TRANSCONs and be based in NYC, LA, ATL, and probably
DTW.

Now why would I spell something out completely on here. :D