Originally Posted by
slowplay
Your analysis is incredibly simplistic and flawed.
What is the ownership cost for 2 CRJ-900 vs 1 MD88?
What is the crew cost for 2 CRJ-900 vs 1 MD88?
What is the engine overhaul cost for 4 motors vice 2?
What are airport costs for 2 flights vice 1?
etc., etc.,
Bottom line is aircraft are selected to hopefully match demand (revenue) to costs. Note that Delta and NW used to have 800 "connection aircraft." Now that number is less than 700. My bet is that it will be at lot less at this time next year.
And why are you using MD88's or DC9's for comparison? Why not use the 64 A319 and 737-700's in the analysis? Or does that skew the results you want?
He is using the numbers posted earlier by Bar and from the bureau of transportation statistics for BH and ASM which should include all fixed and variable costs associated with the particular models as reported by Delta and Northwest. To my knowledge his numbers are right. All cst divided by BH and or ASM is what he was using.
Here is what you also have to consider, the costs associated with maintaining older equipment like the Douglas series (MD88 and DC9) in comparison to a new aircraft have to be tremendous. I think about the ERJ, it was nothing but valves, pumps and computers telling them when to open or close, turn on or turn off and that was just about the entire airplane. I look at the 88, not so.
The overhaul on CRJ900s should be a ways off too. Hence the problem, you're paying for it with the cost of rent but your saving on maintenane.
Now as to the airport cost, thats something different. I don't think DAL would for several reasons want to have a lot of <150 seat aircraft in LGA, JFK or major airports where at some point the landing fees and gate fees make it prohibitive to have 2 airplanes operating instead of 1. But, out of ATL, MSP, DTW and MEM, why not opeate 2 instead of 1.
To me thats our problem, we'll still own ATL-LGA, ATL-MCO, etc, but we'll lose a lot of other routes unless we get the 76 seaters on our side of the fence... starting with acquiring Compass and going from there.
Of course, if folks are fine with giving up most narrow body flying and just stick to aircraft that have 151 seats or greater, than I think there are some in this union and many in the company that would go along with that idea. We just need to do something about the 3400+ pilots that we need to get rid of.