Originally Posted by
forgot to bid
Well, they'd be under contract and if you can get rid of them then without a swap for larger aircraft, why not now?
Speaking of which, what is the penalty cost for parking CR2s before the contracts are up?
Because 1. if the cost to park CR2s is high for the company and we're bailing them out with the swap, are we being compensated properly for it?
2. If the cost is low, then why sign off on this CR9 swap for unwanted CR2s in the first place? Why not just do that now and not give up more 76 seaters?
That is a good question, and not one I have seen a good answer on.
The focus seems to be on the "opportunity" to swap leases between 50 and 76-seat jets. We permit that and get rewarded with 717s and the MBH-DBH ratio. Then there is the reduced number of DCI jets from 598 to 450. Fewer but more efficient RJs give Delta a small but high ROI fleet vs maintaining a large low ROI fleet of 50s especially considering the MX cost speed bumps ahead. Since capacity discipline is the de rigueur buzzword at DAL these days, the swap of 50s to 76-seat RJs presupposes a reduced fleet. I wonder how many 82-seat RJs it would have taken and how small the RJ fleet would have been, had we taken that deal...
What if the TA presented us with a really "creative approach" to use Ed's words:
Maybe we should permit DCI to fly 18 777s on a capacity neutral basis.
Boeing buys Delta out of the remaining 50-seater leases.
In turn Delta orders the 18 777s for DCI and gets the 717 for a song.
We would keep 100 50-seaters - just because - and have DCI capped at 118 jets total.
The ratio could be 1 777 for every 18 717 at mainline.
Obviously we would protect ourselves with a 6 to 1 and with the MBH to DBH ratio. Wouldn't that be a win?
- Delta gets the added revenue
- Delta gets to eliminate unproductive 50-seaters and avoid the upcoming MX cost
- DCI permanently capped at 118 vs 598
- 6:1 MBH to DBH ratio really takes back the flying from DCI to mainline
- Boeing gives Delta the 717 for free only because we order the 18 new 777s for DCI. (otherwise this deal will go away)
From a logical calculating non-emotional perspective why not?
Would this be different from the TA proposal? Wouldn't we finally get a huge reduction in outsourcing from 598 to 118 a reduction of more than 80%
Why is the 76-seat "line in the sand" more valid than the "number of airframes" line or the block-hour ratio?
Cheers
George