Originally Posted by
80ktsClamp
Those 50's were toast anyways... the company didn't want them and the customers hated them. So, instead of letting them die on the vine, we gave them more airplanes that are going to be around much longer.
Ok. They were toast......maybe. I haven't seen anything that proves that. It's true that they aren't fuel efficient, but neither is a DC9. Networking has found routes on which they make money though. I think they've done the same with 50 seaters. That's how Delta has been making money for years now. Right?
Also, 10K filings did show how long Delta was on the hook for keeping the 50 seaters flying. So let's say we didn't give them more 76 seaters. What then? Just curious as to what happens next. BTW, you know I voted NO. I'm just bored, and up for discussion.
Originally Posted by
forgot to bid
1) Pay
2) Better performing jet
3) It's a jet Delta loves vs one they and (according to EB) our passengers don't like and obviously makes more money or we'd keep the 50 seaters. Thus, it has a future and the other one doesn't.
FTB,
I personally think the regional industry is going through a morphing phase. Certain regionals are already having difficulty staffing their jets. I'm anxiously awaiting to see RAH staff these 53 E-175s they just signed up for. They can't even staff the Q400s now, & they only have 30ish of those. So I really think that critical staffing issues will cripple the reliability of the regionals. They won't be able to attract applicants. But Delta will. So what do we offer? Bringing RJs to mainline.