What does that mean? I know about many of the US-CDG city pairs that grossly favor AF/KLM but the sum total over the Atlantic isn't going to change beyond what the JV production balance says. So while we might "take back" more flights to that airport, all that does is guarantee we will lose flights elsewhere.

What else could that mean? It always concerns me when someone high up dispenses a talking point that only makes sense when you don't really think about it. It makes you wonder what's in the other hand you can't see.

I doubt they made an order that size with the differential between 757 and 737-900 rates being even the slightest consideration. While we're at it, SWA makes whale pay for 130 seaters. And they have like 700 of them.

I was thinking the exact same thing.

As someone who also does work with the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, he's very aware that 4% per year is a good bit less than break even. The profession gets hammered after 9-11 and then the best we can hope for is less than full COLA and therefore get cheaper every year? Not buying it.

I think it has more to do with RASM and total market share than it has to do with who's flying what. He uses AMS as an example of what he wants Paris to be. Maybe a FNW type could elaborate.

i've heard passenger servicing is limited on the 739 for transatlantic flying. dont have specifics but I guess you could say if the 739 could do it better than 757s then CAL wouldve done it years ago with their ETOPs 739 that were long rumored to be transatlantic birds.

The minds around here are plenty screwed, we dont even notice anymore.

Um yep, and I bet they still may.

Of course he is playing to the audience, but this appears to be no BS info based on today's facts, and he has eluded to some of the events that will change the set of facts that will trigger hiring, movement et al.

We are three weeks in to an expedited Section 6 process, no need to really play games.

I took it to mean that AMS as a hub makes a TON of money. He spoke for a minute or two about other carriers making a healthy profit flying into CDG, and with our position and JV that shouldn't be the case. That's what my opinion of what taking back CDG meant.

He spoke several times about how profitable AMS is. He also mentioned how happy he is with DTW & MSP, and that Chicago is a real cat fight with so many carriers fighting for traffic.

Also, the fuel guy was very impressive. Very smart guy, has big ideas. Apparently before April of last year there was no one in charge of fuel. Lot's of people that dealt with it, but no one in charge of it.

One more thing. He talks a lot about parking RJs. But he's always talking about 50 seaters. The bigger ones never come up. He knows his audience.

He made a point that between US Air, AA, United and Continental they have been in section 6 contract negotiations for a combined 25 years. That's staggering to me. There's the time value of money, sure. There's holding out for a stellar contract that meets everyone's every wish, sure. There has to be some happy medium.

I believe what he was getting at was that they ended up getting nothing after all of these years and are going to take a paycut now.

(and 4 percent a year without some other incredible, stellar, amazing, out of this world contract improvements would be a no vote for me.)