Originally Posted by
forgot to bid
Seems as if every aircraft is compromised to chose from. I'll give you that. The E190 has issues but has a nice cabin, the C-Series is awesome but doesn't exist, the 737s and A320s are what they are, and there are a bunch of weird regional jets to compete with the E190 coming out from all over the world.
The best 130ish seat aircraft for us imho is the A319. We've already got them.
But of course if you want to move 100 seaters out of mainline, because evidently you've lost your mind about operational and brand control and are blind to what happens if you finance your competition, but if you want to move it there is only one way to make that happen - ask for scope relief from Delta pilots and convince them to say yes.
That's IF that is the objective. Trying to be an optimist that producing your core product in house still means something.
As to the age of aircraft:
FTB,
You seem to be good at graphs and analysis. I have said this numerous times. IMHO, I really think it would be cheaper, in the long run, to run our own airplanes with our own pilots/company. Initially, outsourcing works. But the inefficiencies of outsourced works and the different variables of product degradation will come to play.
Is there a way you can graph (time line) something like this? Maybe put in variables like:
1) Price to contract DCI
2) Cost of Fuel for DCI
3) Lost customers due to aircraft usage (175s instead of 737s)
4) Lost customers due to "operated by XXXXXXX" I know many family members that will not book a flt on a DCI or Regional Airline
5) Loss of Revenues to DCI strikes and Labor/MGR disputes (ie RAH/F9 vs IBT)
I am almost certain that OUTSOURCING is a COSTLY way of doing business. I just think MGT does it to mitigate the cost of negotiating with MAinline pilots and also securing short term bonuses.
I think if you can graph and prove this, WE WILL GET BACK ALL OF OUR FLYING. THe proof is in the pudding.
TEN