![]() |
I hate woody allen
|
Originally Posted by FlameNSky
(Post 1973585)
Oh, that's right. I knew there was a 35% in there somewhere. I guess when AAG takes control of the defunct E175 that RAH cannot staff, it won't take us long to get the 40th E175.
I guess, I am not even a good envoy salesman. Lol, no you're just as good as the other sales folk on here. But there is no evidence you are getting those aircraft. There never has been, simply conjecture and mostly just lies to sway people to envoy. Tout the flow all you want, but you're not getting RAH aircraft anytime soon. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by TurbineTime
(Post 1973766)
Tout the flow all you want, but you're not getting RAH aircraft anytime soon.
As a historical point of how AMR/AAG has done business in the past. Research how Eagle got its first E145 jets in 1997. |
Originally Posted by FlameNSky
(Post 1973585)
Oh, that's right. I knew there was a 35% in there somewhere. I guess when AAG takes control of the defunct E175 that RAH cannot staff, it won't take us long to get the 40th E175.
I guess, I am not even a good envoy salesman. The only large RJs that AAG will own end in NN. |
Originally Posted by snippercr
(Post 1973802)
I've said it before, IF RAH had to stop some flying due to staffing, WHY would they stop the AAG 175 flying when they've said that is their goal (large RJ)? Wouldn't it make sense to park their not-175 flying?
The only large RJs that AAG will own end in NN. |
Originally Posted by chrisreedrules
(Post 1973437)
What does the Envoy flow percentage go to after the 824 have flowed? Also, how many of the 824 have currently flowed? Thank you for the info.
|
Originally Posted by snippercr
(Post 1973802)
I've said it before, IF RAH had to stop some flying due to staffing, WHY would they stop the AAG 175 flying when they've said that is their goal (large RJ)? Wouldn't it make sense to park their not-175 flying?
The only large RJs that AAG will own end in NN. |
Originally Posted by FlameNSky
(Post 1973585)
Oh, that's right. I knew there was a 35% in there somewhere. I guess when AAG takes control of the defunct E175 that RAH cannot staff, it won't take us long to get the 40th E175.
I guess, I am not even a good envoy salesman. |
Originally Posted by snippercr
(Post 1973802)
I've said it before, IF RAH had to stop some flying due to staffing, WHY would they stop the AAG 175 flying when they've said that is their goal (large RJ)? Wouldn't it make sense to park their not-175 flying?
The only large RJs that AAG will own end in NN. I am sure that Bedford, if given the choice, would dump all flying except AA. Its probably his most lucrative contract. I doubt that UA, DA and the US Federal Court system would allow that to happen though. The likelihood of RAH not fulfilling all their obligations is a guarantee. I think we can all agree on that. Those contracts contain financial penalties for failing to fulfill those obligations. Do you think that if Parker agreed to waive those penalties in exchange for taking ownership of some of those E175s that Bedford wouldn't take it? The only thing that I fully have confidence in Parker about is, he will pursue the cheapest route possible. If it saves him money to cut a deal with Bedford and put some of RAH's E175s at another carrier that can staff them, he WILL do it. |
Originally Posted by SqueeG
(Post 1973601)
In the case at hand, however, the argument that he is using flow as a means of recruitment and retention for the future makes a lot of sense. ).
Parker wanted to get rid of those expensive $120,000+, sixteen- year RJ and Dash Captains and replace them with $60,000, three-year Captains. And in the process, he'd be replacing $40,000 three-year F.O.s with $22,000 newhires. Recruitment was not his main goal and "retention" was the further thing from his mind. In fact, the recruitment and retention gains were an unintended benefit,...... "icing on the cake" if you will. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:15 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands