Originally Posted by
sailingfun
Exactly, The big point missed in all the talk about DCI is that you can only bring the flying back in house if you can do it within a few percentage points of the costs at the regional carriers. If you can't the entire process is doomed to fail and you lose not only those jobs but the feed. Its a fine line about where you can make the cost issue work. I think it was crossed with the E-170/175. The company would disagree. Regardless if your going to convince the company to bring that flying back you have to produce a solid economic plan on cost and how you will equal the current regionals. There is a reason why all the airline managements fight the unions tooth and nail on this issue and its not that they hate pilots. Its cost pure and simple.
This is a VERY valid point that is obvious, but I find I hadn't really considered it strongly until this post... My going-in stance is that I want all 70+ seats at Delta, and scope is a single-issue go/no-go for me. However, sailingfun is right here-- there will STILL be slave-wage regionals out there eager to jump into and win any market that "Delta-flown RJs" can't match the price-point on. How to make Delta-flown RJs viable from a bottom-line is the key.
I don't have ANY numbers, and don't really have a good idea of what all the costs are to run a regional op, nor what % of that cost is the pilot pay. However, this WOULD be a very interesting topic for more knowledgeable folks to cover. What GAINs do we get by moving the flying in-house (no assured profits to other airlines, no overhead to run 2nd separate airline, increased efficiency due to one true op, etc.)? What reductions do we get on the leases? What ARE the true differences in pilot costs, and what % of the bottom line is that?
Good post by sailing in any case.
And I can see now (after posting this) that 3 or 4 other guys are thinking along the same lines-- FTB right above here is asking the exact same thing, but in his generally more-thought-out and more-graphical manner
