Originally Posted by Scoop (Post 1201960)

Not sure 76 seaters will grow - A No vote may stop this. True, the three for one would allow more 76 seaters but when you consider 70 seaters will have to parked (255 CAP on 70 +76 seaters) the large RJs will not really grow with a NO vote.

If we sold Scope what did we get for it? Scope is too complicated to accurately describe in a bumper sticker. Bad decisions go back decades and the final straw was in BK - I wouldn't really call that selling it.

ALPA and DALPA both have made many poor Scope descions - this is very obvious in hindsight. but I am not sure it was obvious back when they were making the decisions. 70 Seat Scope at DAL actually goes back to 1986. Before the RJ, Scope strictly limited seats and made no distinction between jets and Props. Along came the RJ and we have been playing catch up ever since.

PM me your E-mail address and I will send you a 5 page history of Scope at DAL written a few years ago be a C-44 guy.

Scoop

Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg (Post 1202271)

The 76 seaters can grow in number regardless. They could get extra 76 seaters if the go over a certain number of mainline planes, which we are about 40 shy of now. Add 88 717s, then add 3 76 seaters for every plane over that limit. Now, it is true they would have to replace 70 seaters with those new 76 seaters, but then Delta would keep 50 seaters around that aren't profitable in high oil. Is that what you want? Keep the less efficient ones? There are 331 50 seaters still on the lease hook through 2015, and this TA brings that down to 125 50 seaters, and allows 102 70 seaters to cover some of those 50 seater routes, in hopes to make more profits on them.

Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg (Post 1202271)

but then Delta would keep 50 seaters around that aren't profitable in high oil. Is that what you want? Keep the less efficient ones?

Originally Posted by JungleBus (Post 1202323)

That's exactly what I want. Let economics kill the DCI beast once and for all. Let the CRJ become the Edsel of tomorrow's business schools. Make mass outsourcing the folly that all future Delta CEOs wish to avoid repeating.

Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg (Post 1201550)

You really are mad. Are you the bottom guy at DL? Sounds like it. Go to a roadshow, please.

Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg (Post 1202271)

The 76 seaters can grow in number regardless. They could get extra 76 seaters if the go over a certain number of mainline planes, which we are about 40 shy of now. Add 88 717s, then add 3 76 seaters for every plane over that limit. Now, it is true they would have to replace 70 seaters with those new 76 seaters, but then Delta would keep 50 seaters around that aren't profitable in high oil. Is that what you want? Keep the less efficient ones? There are 331 50 seaters still on the lease hook through 2015, and this TA brings that down to 125 50 seaters, and allows 102 70 seaters to cover some of those 50 seater routes, in hopes to make more profits on them.

Originally Posted by DLpilot (Post 1202431)

Amen. We do not want it to be profitable to outsource. If all you care about is profits then give them unlimited large fuel efficient RJs. Then watch domestic mainline shrink away.

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1201521)

That's not even a burp for one year. In the 80's we hired on average over 600 per year. In the 90's we hired over 500 per year, and that was pre-merger. The system can handle way more than that.

Originally Posted by galaxy flyer (Post 1202935)

Gee, gloopy, I didn't know DL mainline pilots wanted to be corporate jet drivers. Who knew? Real ones, not DPJ guys, make DL 767 CA pay, btw.

FF