Originally Posted by
NuGuy
Heyas,
As I have stated all along, getting rid of the 50 seaters is fine, but:
1) Does nothing to replace mainline jobs
2) Provides talking point FUD, which distracts from the real problem
3) The real problem being 70-76 seaters, which have the range and lift to replace 100-125 seat aircraft. The entire DC-9 fleet was outsourced with them, probably along with some of the bottom 125 seat market to the tune of hundreds, and possibly thousands of mainline jobs (plus advancements).
The Alaska and JV problems are separate, but related. But here's the thing: Our sub 100 seat lift got outsourced because, ostensibly, the outsourced lift was cheaper.
DAL provided lift is cheaper than Alaska. DAL provided lift is also cheaper than many of the JV participants. Using the reasoning that what's good for the goose should also be good for the gander, why is DAL metal not repacing the "more expensive" lift under the DAL code?
We're getting it from both sides...
Nu
To me the answer is simple economics. DAL cannot afford to take on the debt, and or the banks will not allow them to. That is the reason for the effort to cut our debt in almost half in five years. DAL knows it needs feed for the jets they do have (Asia WB flying) but cannot afford to buy the jets to feed it, ala ALK code share.
In reality it is the same everywhere. Once they get down a billion or two more in debt it is my opinion that the ability to buy jets now changes, and we may see some show up, but until then, DAL wants to keep their network intact even if they have less control of it. That is why we see so many code shares, marketing agreements, and alliance partners being added. It also shows that pilot costs are really negligible in the scheme of things.