They would fly them for $200/hr. Absolutely.

But this is my point, be careful on championing that $200 rate... actually $188... as a win. It could bite us.

Because if they yank the LAX 717s and replace them with LAX 190, the rate on TA2015/01JAN16 goes from $224.68 to 188.64. If you bring the 190s around the system and then replace the MD88s in part with the 190 you go from 226 to 188 for the same flight.

Now some heads will pop around here at the notion of the 190 replacing the 88 because any 88 replacement is going to have to be equal in size they would say. But I looked on my icrew max and counted the turns I do out of ATL and saw out of 62 of them, 22 were new 717 flying, the rest were 88 destinations. Many of those 88 destinations were full just about every time. The 717 comes in about 26% smaller, what's to stop them from using something 34% smaller?

As long as they can supplement the system with the 717, 90, 319, 320, 321, 737, 738 and 739? And again, some complain about the rates but I'm not one of them. The rates I could bite off on. The other concessions were aimed at doing more with less, and that financially hurts and those pay rates were insufficient for the big 3 concessions.

I thought Harley-Davidson built that thing.......shoot, look at the handlebars.:D

Agree on all accounts.

Economics, I think. Up-gauging makes the most economic sense, which I guess is one reason that people thought it would be a good idea to gamble on the assumption the jets were coming anyway. Now we're trying to rationalize, and pretend we wouldn't have wanted the flying anyway.

I'll leave it to others to revisit the ratios, the 737's that were also cancelled, and what could have been, if they're interested. This isn't a section that was well-understood, including by me, and another reason the short timeline was a mistake.

We do know that they followed-through on the cancellation threat. I'd be curious to know whether they also followed-through on the threat to invest in more RJ's.

Ok,I'll bite. Who's going to fly them? The DCI carriers can't meet their commitments right now - that's why the OCT NB ALVs are higher than they are supposed to be. RJ carriers are having to offer bonuses and the last ASA CA I spoke to said they were hiring 20 a month but losing 100. That's unsustainable.

Pilots don't buy airplanes and tying a CRAPPY TA to aircraft orders of RJs no less, was just bad. Of course, what was far worse is our supposed bargaining agent sold it to us like a beachfront property in Arizona - they thought we were too stupid to know the difference.

Boeing's order book has not changed one iota. We still have 30 options for 737-900ERs that have not been cancelled. The regionals can't staff their airlines, and we're having to cover for it as is at mainline.

This is me not caring one iota, nor should you. I don't give up work rules/QOL for 767/757 replacements, and again... nor should you.

Next the UAW will tell Ford to start making the Pinto again. RA and the Board make these decisions. Carrot and the stock at play here.

October ATL717 had 92% of our trips be 4 or 5 day trips. I think November is about the same, I'll look later when I have my computer and am not watching Alabama's defense outscore their offense.

I understood that there were an additional 40 737's. I doubt we can verify the status of those, since RA has previously said he can get Boeing AC whenever he needs them. Unverifiable.

I'm not particularly fascinated by this discussion. Just pointing to the interesting shift from "the airplanes will come anyway" to "we didn't want them anyway". I just don't buy it.

I don't think this was a particularly effective carrot, as I said, although I'd be more interested in anything that adds to mainline flying, and improves the ratios. The ratios in the defunct TA can be discussed if/when we get another deal, but for now, it's useless.

My story/prediction has been the same all along.

No one has acted on the 190s, either... just as I predicted. TD promised me United would jump on them the moment we turned down the contract. ;)