Here is another thought that I have been pondering and I am curious to see what the group thinks: (That is a warning) :D

I have been thinking about a few things in regard to our DCI flying. These FFD or Cost Plus contracts are a big money loser for DAL. We have a limit of 255 on 70/76 seat jets. DAL wants to modify these contracts.

So;
Lets say DAL management came to D-ALPA with a proposal to allow a certain number of 76 seat jets. That number could be anything up to the 255 allowable number now. I will not pick a specific number, just up to that number. In return they will cap DCI at 300-400 total aircraft. It is a hard number and cuts DCI in half for allowing at a max 102 more 76 seat jets.

What are your thoughts on this. It is a victory to control scope as well as a concession to allow more 76 seat jets. What do you think of it? My gut is telling me that something like this may be the next paper across the table.

Sure enough, AS is starting SAN-Hawaii(OGG)
 

Alaska Airlines Announces New Hawaii and Mexico Flying; Horizon Air Adds San Jose-Los Angeles Service.

Alaska Airlines Announces New Hawaii and Mexico Flying; Horizon Air Adds San Jose-Los Angeles Service - Yahoo! Finance

I would say that there is some logic in this. I did see it.

That would kill the wholly owned carriers.

I know this belongs on the`AAI thread but I felt gross over there. If a furloughed Netjetter goes to AAI, do they make you give up your number?

I know I have had NJA guys ask me that about DAL.

I do not know if that would kill the WO or not. I just think that it may be a something similar to what we may see. It could also come with a commitment to keep X at the WO carriers. Doubtful though.

I guess further information is indicating they still want to do it 5 times a week, but sit on the other two frequencies till later.

I think this is what they've been advertising publicly anyway.

More than less ER in SEA is safe! =)

Here are my thoughts. If they want to change it, it is because its not working. If its not working then that is good for us. The system will implode on itself if we dont allow them to adjust it and make it successful.

I could maybe see this for the DC9, but that's it. Every other fleet should have no problem leaving the APU OFF if the aircraft is 20+ mins from departure in our current weather. It hasn't even got warm yet, except for some 70-80 degree days in the Midwest.

If DCI had 102 more 70 seat jets, that put them at 357 jets, right? Not sure DAL would want only 43 50 seat RJ's. I do see where you're going with this though and it makes for an interesting scenario.

The 76 seat Jet at DCI directly takes jobs from mainline imo. I could care less how many 34 seat props, 40 and 50 seat jets that Delta has. Those aircraft inherently have a hard time competing with mainline jobs. So while it would be nice to "Cap" DCI flying I am very much against giving up any additional scope to DCI especially the 70 seat and above flying. At some point that 70 seat jet line has to stop creeping higher.

My thoughts on this? I won't vote for ANYTHING that gives up even 1 more 70 seat jet to DCI. I've been junior at Delta long enough, not really looking to prolong the pain.