![]() |
|
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1257422)
I chose my words carefully.
It limited the possible number of 76-seat aircraft to 223, up from the max of 155 allowed under the old PWA unless we grew massively, but down from 255 which would've been allowed had we (again) grown massively and 70 seaters had been parked along the way. The rest of what you said is nonsense. |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1257489)
Ok, lets change the direction of the discussion.
Here is the question proposed; What Items do you want improved or changed in our current PWA? We may have more than just the FT/DT LOA to improve our PWA across multiple sections, and now is the time to start forward looking on what items we want to pinpoint and then discuss. night override vacation 4 hrs (or higher) a day |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1257489)
Ok, lets change the direction of the discussion.
Here is the question proposed; What Items do you want improved or changed in our current PWA? We may have more than just the FT/DT LOA to improve our PWA across multiple sections, and now is the time to start forward looking on what items we want to pinpoint and then discuss.
Cheers George |
Originally Posted by 76drvr
(Post 1257508)
Wrong again, the company could have grown the DCI 76-seat fleet to 255 under the old PWA, not anymore, now the max number is 223. That's a reduction in the number of the largest super jumbo RJs. Added bonus is that the number of 70-seat aircraft that DCI could have flown was also reduced from unlimited down to 102 and if Delta executes on its now public business plan, the overall DCI fleet dramatically reduced with system block hour percentages moved to mainline from DCI.:)
Nahhh.. you don't. Keep at it! |
Originally Posted by 76drvr
(Post 1257496)
The quid was not 102 70-seat jets. The quid was 70 70-seat jets and the quo was a reduction in the max number of 76-seat jets that could be authorized, a reduction in 70-seat aircraft from unlimited to 102, a reduction in the number of 50-seat aircraft from unlimited to eventually 125, a new "100-seat" category for the mainline, a mainline to DCI block hour ratio which drives an ever higher percentage of system block hours to the mainline, better domestic code-share language, better international code share language and global joint venture protections.
At the end of it all, we have far better scope, with hard caps on a much smaller regional fleet and mainline growth. Oh yeah, and a bigger pay check. |
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 1257393)
Thanks for all the info. As for the above, what does "beach" mean?
As for the 767-300, are you saying he said they could all be gone in 3 years? :eek: How many AC are we talking about? APC shows 16 −300's and 58 300ER's. Are the engines so different on the non ER that all 16 could have to be parked, or is it all 74 total? Either way that seems hard to believe from a "they don't support the engine" angle. I mean really? Planning said the 767s would only fly from then west coast to Hawaii and onto Japan. I believe Guam and Saipan would also see these a/c from NRT. |
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1257504)
223 < 153??
I'm guessing your degree isn't in math. :rolleyes: Hmm, what's the max number of 76-seat RJs the company could be authorized under the old PWA. Let me see. 255 What's the max number of 76-seat aircraft the company could be authorized under the new PWA. Let me see. 223 I'm guessing you didn't do well with reading comprehension. |
Originally Posted by 76drvr
(Post 1257516)
\
Hmm, what's the max number of 76-seat RJs the company could be authorized under the old PWA. Let me see. 255 What's the max number of 76-seat aircraft the company could be authorized under the new PWA. Let me see. 223 I'm guessing you didn't do well with reading comprehension. The PWA now provides a segway to growing them without increasing the mainline fleet count above 767 AND without parking 1:1 70 seaters to get there. But, yeah... you're right. 223 is less than 153, right? |
Originally Posted by 76drvr
(Post 1257516)
\
Hmm, what's the max number of 76-seat RJs the company could be authorized under the old PWA. Let me see. 255 What's the max number of 76-seat aircraft the company could be authorized under the new PWA. Let me see. 223 I'm guessing you didn't do well with reading comprehension. The 70 seaters are a big deal because... their big too. http://i938.photobucket.com/albums/a...d/temp9-11.png This comes back around to the danger of going with the MBH : DCI ratio alone. Under the old contract to get to 223 76-seaters you'd have to grow mainline. Now you just meet a ratio, and if that ratio is too low, well then you don't have to grow mainline very much at all (if any) compared to the old contract's fleet size requirement. You can't go it alone... with a ratio. Especially since the ramifications of changing a ratio is far more murky than changing a fleet size requirement. |
Question:
Everyone i've spoken to seems to be really happy with their Serengeti sunglasses so I went to the Stopover store in MSP down by the lounge and they had the display of sunglasses. So I tried them on and all their frames seem to be quite small (i've got a big head). Anyone know if the store down in ATL by the lounge on A concourse has a Serengeti display with large frames? If now...any suggestions on a good place to go look at them in the NYC area? Thanx. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:21 AM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands