That time frame has been bouncing around. However, I for one have no desire to hold them to that...the final product is what matters.

That said, the company has its decision makers (dept heads and vp's) deeply involved and has given super-priority to getting this contract done too. That is a good sign for a wrap-up.

I'm expected to get crucified over this, but here goes anyway.

Being junior, I am well aware of the significance and importance of holding scope at no more than 76 seats, so with that being said, haven't we technically already scoped out 90 seat aircraft?

I mean the DCI aircraft themselves have been reconfigured for 76 seats, but still have a capacity for 90 seats. I'm just looking at this objectively here, and before I get accused of selling short term contract gains for scope relaxation here is my question;

Would increasing the seat capacity to allow 90 seats, BUT reducing the overall limit from 255 airframes down to lets say 180 (or something like that) be such a bad deal?

255 airframes X 76 seats = 19,380 seats
180 airframes X 90 seats = 16,200 seats
So reducing the hull limit aggressively while allowing 90 seaters would decrease frequency and overall DCI seats by 3,180 seats.

Trust me I would love to see that flying being brought to mainline, but if that doesn't happen isn't reducing the amount of seats/airframes being subcontracted out just as beneficial?

It pings me to say that, but I figure less airframes is probably as important as the amount of seats each aircraft can hold.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, not saying the company would go for something like.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, just curious as to what some of the more senior/experienced guys think.

I'm sure I'm not senior to you, but I think they wouldn't go for it because 'they' like having first class in these a/c.

I'm not sure if they would still have that option.

I just bring the 90 seater thing up because I figure that's the rumor that's been getting kicked around.

DH,

I will vote no on anything that increases scope beyond 76 seats. Think long term with your senario. If we allow any amount of 90 seaters on the property the company will jump on it and the camels nose will be under the tent. Long term the company will seek to increase that amount and then, all of a sudden, the 100 seat flying is gone........ We do NOT want that to happen.

Denny

I'm not seeking to allow ANY type of ratio up gauge allowance. The total airframe limit would be a strict limit with absolutely zero allowance above that limit.

But, you do bring up another question I had in mind, can the amount of airframes be increased above the max agreed limit without going to the group for ratification? Basically could the reps sign an MOU that would allow additional airframes without the group's vote?

The problem with your theory is a limit on the number of airframes has never held up. When we got the 76 seaters it was sold as only 30 airframes, 15 the first year and 15 the second.

Whatever size airframe you are thinking about, accept that one day DCI will have as many as they want. Then decide if you can still live with it.

Regarding Delta's fuel consumption......according to R.A. Delta is the largest non-governmental consumer of fuel in the world. More than some entire countries such as Denmark and Spain.

Even as the largest purchaser in the world, we get no breaks on the price. Hence the plan to establish some control over what we pay for fuel. Shrink the crack spread by purchasing our own refinery.

Speaking from a point of ignorance on my behalf, how did we get from 30 airframes to the current 255 airframe limit?

I'm guessing it has something to do with the ratio between mainline and regional airframes only moving up and not down.

To answer your question, yes you have already scoped out 88 seat aircraft (not 90) but considder this:

The CR9 and E175 currently run 12 1st and 64 coach.
In an all coach config they can handle 88 (not sure if "economy comfort" would still be possible)

Now jump down 1 size to the CR7/E170. Those aircraft could be configured with 70-78 seats in an all coach config, and technically that would have been possible 2 years ago before the additional 175s came online with Shuttle America and Compass. However the management/marketing/man behind the curtain have all decided that having first class in the CR7/E170 is more important than getting the most seats possible out of those airframes.

More people, but probably less revenue. USAirways gave up 90 seat scope and for the better part of the last decade had their CR9s and E175s floating around with 88 seats in coach. They have recently reconfigured all of their CR9s and E175s to 8/72 (imo to compete with DAL).

That said, I would be surprised if mgmt even went for it. Now if you went to them and said 90 seats on a E190, they would of course be all over it. But 88 seats on a CR9 results in 88 ticked off people standing in a jetbridge in the middle of Summer (and Winter) about 35 minutes after they landed waiting for "regional elite" (oxymoron?) to bring their bags up the stairs. Really not a classy product, and I hope you would not want to put your customers through that in exchange for the measly 5% raise they may offer you in exchange.