General Lee
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2002
- Posts
- 20,442
Valid point in theory, BUT...how do we factor in the fact that it would be DAL scope that allowed the parking while not shrinking the airline? We announced this week that we are parking an additional 10 DC-9's. This will result in a loss of 30 DC-9 CA positions, but we are adding 10 CA positions each to the 757 and 320 at the same time, for a net loss of 10 CA positions.
How are you adding those postion's again? Are you adding extra planes? We actually are. We don't have a net loss. Even with the potential parking of 15 MD88s or some 757s, we are getting more 777s (19 crew per plane--that is 19 777 Captains per plane---6 planes in 3 months to start with), plus 737-700s, plus potential MD90s down the road. Your 787s will take years to get, and Boeing hasn't started flying one yet.
The big worry here is what will happen IMMEDIATELY with those DC9s. Our scope clause did allow 3 76 seaters per new airplane, but we just dumped 35 Freedom Air 50 seaters, and more to come. Didn't Mesaba just get 12 50 seaters, and how many CR9s are they getting, along with Compass E175s?
We are dumping some mainline planes, but more 50 seaters than anything else. That is good. IF we merge and then dump all of the DC9s within a year or so, then who should take the brunt of that if there is a furlough? What would be FAIR?
Bye Bye--General Lee