|
Here, the L&G thread as a bar, fitting it starts with a pilot describing it, talks about rejects, takes a jab at Detroit, a fight breaks out every night, most dont even notice and then by midnight bee gees and falling in love thanks to a Jesse post.
|
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1125566)
What acl doesn't seem to want to say is that there are NO minimum number of RJ's...only a maximum number allowed to operate. He's not very good at saying he made a mistake by referring to a "floor" for RJ contracts.
Carl |
hmmmm.......
|
Originally Posted by FedElta
(Post 1125605)
|
Originally Posted by CVG767A
(Post 1124822)
Keys Fishery in Marathon, FL. They had a dispute with Delta over a seafood shipment to Asia, and didn't like the way it was resolved.
I'll wear something with a Delta logo next time I go there, just to see what they do. Careful. You are senior to a lot of us here. :-) |
Actually the codeshare committee puts out a pretty good projection on what is happening with RJs, you'll find it on the DALPA site...
From the November 2011 codeshare committee PowerPoint presentation Slide 3: 13 AC removed from Mainline fleet since the Aug 2011 MEC meeting Slide 4: 8 MD90s added Slide 9: DCI fleet added 4 since Aug 2011 MEC report and 14 since the May 2011 report Slide 21: Peak DCI departures projected to exceed 60% of all Delta system departures in Dec 2013 before retreating again and reaching September 2011 levels by Sept 2016. Again this isnt conjecture on my part, but the data presented by SM and RD of the DALPA codeshare comittee available at dal.alpa.org. Cheers George |
Originally Posted by georgetg
(Post 1125619)
Peak DCI departures projected to exceed 60% of all Delta system departures in Dec 2013 before retreating again and reaching September 2011 levels by Sept 2016.
|
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1125585)
Carl, I am talking about the CPA's not the PWA provisions. In that regard you are correct. We have max number, but the CPA's have floors in which DAL can pull down to. As Bar puts it, these are a min level and the 88/DC-9 become the accumulator in the system. I answered his question. It was not a contract/PWA answer or question.
If the company wants to fool the morons on Wall Street into thinking long term debt is really magically debt free, good for them. But our list needs to be doing that flying. At the very, very least, RA should appologise for the terrible management of the past and agree right now to take outsourced RJ's down to the floor. 76 seaters need to go away on DOS of C2K12 by pulling seats if they have to. 51-70 seaters need an agressive phase out over the next couple years and 50 seaters limited to their currently falling numbers. Other than the nebulous issue of ATL gates with the soon to expire CPA WRT the SKYW purchase of ASA, we can go well below the CPA's if we want to with very little penalty relatively speaking. Maybe its not viabile to instantly park all outsourced RJ's, but the company can easilly afford to eat quite a few mothballed large RJ's and if they can't then we can fly them. |
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 1125682)
But even those floors can be reduced as much as we want. All most of them require if we do so from what I've seen is that we take over the leases. Leases we are paying for 100% anyway. Leases our credit is responsibile for either way. Debt that we are on the hook 100% for no matter how its shuffled.
If the company wants to fool the morons on Wall Street into thinking long term debt is really magically debt free, good for them. But our list needs to be doing that flying. At the very, very least, RA should appologise for the terrible management of the past and agree right now to take outsourced RJ's down to the floor. 76 seaters need to go away on DOS of C2K12 by pulling seats if they have to. 51-70 seaters need an agressive phase out over the next couple years and 50 seaters limited to their currently falling numbers. Other than the nebulous issue of ATL gates with the soon to expire CPA WRT the SKYW purchase of ASA, we can go well below the CPA's if we want to with very little penalty relatively speaking. Maybe its not viabile to instantly park all outsourced RJ's, but the company can easilly afford to eat quite a few mothballed large RJ's and if they can't then we can fly them. As for the contracts, what you state is conjecture. All of that is in the NDA portion of those agreements and therefore is not available for public consumption. That gets in to the trade secret potion of the deal and if you have seen it, I would be floor if you would be writing about it on here. That said, I would assume that there is more than just a penalty of taking over the lease payments. We probably have to cover the other fixed costs as well. As for the growth in the RJ number, I was present for one of these presentations. Yes, it is sickening that they are still taking delivery of RJ's, but they are quite close to the max cap of 255 70+ seat RJ's. When the compliance committee reports again, I would be curious to see the new delivery numbers. No great, but we agreed to it, and overwhelmingly. Until this group votes no for anything that is short of what you state, we will always see allowable RJ's. |
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 1125682)
But even those floors can be reduced as much as we want. All most of them require if we do so from what I've seen is that we take over the leases. Leases we are paying for 100% anyway. Leases our credit is responsibile for either way. Debt that we are on the hook 100% for no matter how its shuffled.
If the company wants to fool the morons on Wall Street into thinking long term debt is really magically debt free, good for them. But our list needs to be doing that flying. At the very, very least, RA should appologise for the terrible management of the past and agree right now to take outsourced RJ's down to the floor. 76 seaters need to go away on DOS of C2K12 by pulling seats if they have to. 51-70 seaters need an agressive phase out over the next couple years and 50 seaters limited to their currently falling numbers. Other than the nebulous issue of ATL gates with the soon to expire CPA WRT the SKYW purchase of ASA, we can go well below the CPA's if we want to with very little penalty relatively speaking. Maybe its not viabile to instantly park all outsourced RJ's, but the company can easilly afford to eat quite a few mothballed large RJ's and if they can't then we can fly them. Can I get an AMEN!!!! |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:52 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands