|
|
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1354505)
Please Sailing,
Give us all a contractually enforceable scenario that would meet your definition of UGLY. I just want to be on the same page as you. Otherwise I am left with the belief that this was all about big RJ acquisition and more international outsourcing...For which we received a princely "raise" ((COLA) and work rules which allow decreased staffing. BTW, you said you were a no voter and I will take you at your word. |
My absolute theory > [username]'s theory.
Moot. I mean Moo. |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1354494)
Of course the prior contract allowed a greater number of CR9's then the current contract and with aircraft deliveries coming it would have been very simple to pump and dump to reach those numbers. Yes they would have had to reduce the CR7's some to accomplish that but they could have had more of the 9's everyone states are such great aircraft.
Keep one thing in mind. The people involved in the contract working for us modeled every possible option the company had with regard to long term fleet plans. They had airline experts to assist in that not keyboard cowboys. The company had many different options. The current plan was simply one choice among many. Several of the other plans would have been ugly for us but legal under the existing contract. 325 jumbo outsourced RJs the company loves > 255 jumbo outsourced RJs the company loves. Not to mention on the old PWA, how many mainline jets did we need to have on property before they could have 255 76 seaters and 0 70 seaters? Lastly, add 88 717s to the fleet (assume 100% of 739s are replacement jets as we were told), what then is the BH with DCI@450? |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1354519)
Then they missed something: 325 jumbo outsourced RJs the company loves > 255 jumbo outsourced RJs the company loves. Not to mention on the old PWA, how many mainline jets did we need to have on property before they could have 255 76 seaters and 0 70 seaters? Lastly, add 88 717s to the fleet (assume 100% of 739s are replacement jets as we were told), what then is the BH with DCI@450? |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1354433)
There were/are other ways....
You must realize J, I did this post on a droid. It was not easy. :D
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1354448)
Then Pinnacle got all Comair'd. There are ways around those contracts...always.
The point is that the 50 seater was self mitigating and we allowed a pile of additional highly viable heavy RJs to replace them. There is no guarantee otherwise as this is speculation since the contract passed. I would have happily taken a few more months of negotiations to at least get it somewhat more right. What was the big rush? DL supposedly wanted to "make moves." We assumed they would benefit us and open up opportunity for further negotiations and increases. Well, they bought 49% of a foreign airline with a bunch of widebodies to JV with. So much for that.
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1354494)
Of course the prior contract allowed a greater number of CR9's then the current contract and with aircraft deliveries coming it would have been very simple to pump and dump to reach those numbers. Yes they would have had to reduce the CR7's some to accomplish that but they could have had more of the 9's everyone states are such great aircraft.
Keep one thing in mind. The people involved in the contract working for us modeled every possible option the company had with regard to long term fleet plans. They had airline experts to assist in that not keyboard cowboys. The company had many different options. The current plan was simply one choice among many. Several of the other plans would have been ugly for us but legal under the existing contract.
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1354496)
Sailing...come on.. they would have had to have parked 1:1 CR7s to get more 900s. ... and have grown mainline by a pile of airframes (not just domestic mainline). Nothing would have gotten ugly other than longer negotiations. You know better than what you wrote.
Wait....this is what I'm hearing from some. The 50 seaters were toast, garbage, beer cans. No one wanted them. However, Bombardier was willing to trade them out 2:1 for CRJ900s. Right? And Boeing/Airbus may be willing to trade them out for B737/A320s?(per the article FTB posted) Now the CRJ700 jumbo RJ is a fuel effiecient, money making machine. It's valuable, and in demand around the world. But there is NO way Bombardier would trade 1:1 CRJ700s for CRJ900s? The 1:1 pump and dump scenario is impossible? I don't see how that makes any sense. If Bombardier is willing to take worthless beer cans 2:1 for shiny new CRJ900s, why is it unfeasible to do a 1:1 exchange CRJ700s for CRJ900s? I mean, the B717s were coming regardless of contract approval, right? And the 737-900ERs were already coming, right? So that's 188 airframes to add to 722 airframes? Hello pump and dump. :D |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1354519)
Not to mention on the old PWA, how many mainline jets did we need to have on property before they could have 255 76 seaters and 0 70 seaters? Lastly, add 88 717s to the fleet (assume 100% of 739s are replacement jets as we were told), what then is the BH with DCI@450? |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1354494)
Keep one thing in mind. The people involved in the contract working for us modeled every possible option the company had with regard to long term fleet plans. They had airline experts to assist in that not keyboard cowboys.
Pretty regularly on this forum we hear from Bucking Bar and GeorgeTG. These two in particular (of several forum members) provide quite a bit of well thought out insight derived from their comprehensive research. You so-called "airline experts" are from the same clown act that provides our legal services and consistently misses loopholes in our contracts. Loopholes that we subsequently have to spend some of our precious little negotiating capital to close. |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1354534)
I calculate around 75 jets. So the B717s alone would allow a pump and dump. Remember, the B717s were coming regardless of contract approval, right? :D
That's still 255 70-76 seaters vs what we allow today which is 325 70-76 seaters. Then yes, the company could dump mainline jets. Horribly expensive sounding procedure though, which is probably why the above language was stricken from the contract and we went with the ratio that allows pumping while dumping instead of the old pump then dump. So if they don't want to go 780-790ish jets at mainline and prefer something less a net gain of 30 or so jets (as mentioned before) then they can do so while growing from 255 jumbos to 325 jumbo RJs and 153 76-seaters to 223. But let's say we go to 790 jets, what is the ratio of 790 jets to DCI@450? ALPA surely has a number, no? |
Originally Posted by SailorJerry
(Post 1354526)
You should apply to become an airline analyst for ALPA then. Your prowess with Excel pivot tables makes you a shoe in for the job. Show us how it's done, so 62% of us can disagree with you, again.
|
Originally Posted by Wasatch Phantom
(Post 1354538)
That's just pure unadulterated ALPA-serving BS!
You so-called "airline experts" are from the same clown act that provides our legal services and consistently misses loopholes in our contracts. Loopholes that we subsequently have to spend some of our precious little negotiating capital to close. The title of this seminar was "Separate Operating Certificates. Who knew?" (BTW, the gentleman 2nd from the right is our specialist in Joint Venture production balances) http://www.belch.com/img/cf/cf1.jpg |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:45 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands