Guys,

Here are the total seats allowed currently and under the TA:

Current
76 x 153 = 11,628
70 x 102 = 7,140
50 x 343 = 17,150
Totals 35,918 Seats and 598 RJs


TA 2012
76 x 223 = 16,948
70 x 102 = 7,140
50 x 125 = 6,250
Total 30,338 Seats and 450 RJs

So the total number of RJs and the Total number of RJ seats will be going down - by itself this is good. But what is troubling is that the 50 seaters would be going away anyway. Another wildcard is frequency - which maybe the new Block Hour ratios would help with.

Food for thought.

Scoop

 

Scoop,

The 50 seaters will go away, for sure. We just have to wait about a decade, and hope engine technology doesn't change enough to make them viable again.

 

You know, when you put it in terms of seats now vs. seats proposed, it looks even worse.

That's only about a 20% cut but the 70 new airplanes allowed are SO much more capable and comfortable and mainline-like than the 50 seaters.

 

Unless of course you look at ratios and consider the attendant increase in mainline. That helps.

 

Without the purchase of more 900's, the 50 seaters would die a very slow death and wouldn't go away until 2022.

 

As a counter balance to that, we are sharply increasing the longevity of DCI by allowing 70 more jumbo RJs.

 

How so? Do you think 325 stay around longer than 255?

 

The 50 seaters will be gone by 2022ish.

Anderson has stated that when he buys an airplane, he plans on it staying around for 30 years. The 900's are much more viable and "mainline quality" type aicraft.

So, while I agree that DCI is smaller, we are enabling DCI to maintain a higher mass for longer by this agreement. In essence, trading 190 short term planes for 70 long term aircraft.


______


Taking this a bit further:

My major beef with this portion is the amount of jumbo RJs allowed. When I was briefed on this concept, I could have swallowed 30 or even 40 gain in exchange for the 50 seaters- but only about 75 50-seaters allowed to remain. Let them have a little bit more viability while reducing their mass significantly vice marginally. Everything in this TA is taken to the limit of what I could tolerate, and then over the edge into ridiculousness:

70 more Large RJs? Wayy too many while allowing too many smaller gauge jets to remain.

RAH fixed, but carved out for RAH forever with no sunset.

The pay?? Considerably lower than survey guidance and well below my limit. I don't see how you who gave so much in bankruptcy are not downright insulted.

DC- 1%... The pension was taken in BK and we only get one more 1% in the first section 6 after it?



I'll stop here, because these just illustrate my point that this thing wreaks of seeing how little they could get away with and possibly still get a pass.

 

OK, so I get that logic and it's a fair point. The new large RJ's would keep DCI around 3-4 years longer if airframe longevity determines their viability. The 70 seaters on average have a 15-17 year contractual life with DCI, so I think 30 is a bit optimistic for that space.

 

What does that have to do with anything? If they sign 2 year or 200 year DCI contracts, that doesn't mean at the end of those contracts those jets just go away. They are very clearly considered permanent jets. If they weren't, they would have a sunset clause to all of them, yet none of them do. When the leases run out, they will be renewed or given to a cheaper DCI carrier who "deals them an ace" to undercut another DCI carrier. The seat ranges and counts we give them will remain at DCI forever unless they become totally out of whack with CASM. The extra 90 seaters we are giving them insure fierce mainline CASM loyalty to DCI and not mainline for every seat of that lift for all eternity.