Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

Respectfully, you are incorrect. The CRJ700 (40% more revenue for 9 to 11% greater cost) and the 900 (70% more revenue for 15% greater cost) are the second and third generation aircraft. Comparing a CRJ50 (200, or 200) and the newer generation jets is like comparing, well, a DC9 and a MD90.

Compare these CASM stats*:
9.5 to 11.1 = DC9
7.5 = MD88
10.0 to 13.4 = CRJ-2
7.9 = CRJ-7
7.3 = CRJ-9

*Source 2008 DOT Form 41 submissions by Delta, Northwest, Comair and Skywest (in in costs including ACMI).

What you see from the statistics is that replacement of a DC9 with a new generation RJ makes sense every time. Replacing a MD88 with an RJ is a wash and really depends on the capability needed for the route.

Now compare the costs for modern narrow body equipment:
6.1 = A320
5.6 = 737-800
5.4 = 757-200
4.2 = 757-300 (winner of most efficient airplane in the fleet, BTW)

The real risk that people like ACL and I see, is that our outdated narrow body equipment puts us at a disadvantage compared to our competition. This disadvantage skyrockets if fuel goes up. American, AirTran, Southwest, United, US Air, Continental and Virgin have all crunched the numbers and come up with a different answer than our management has.

Our loss last year was due to fuel hedging. Hedging that is made necessary due in part to the fact that we are more exposed to fuel price fluctuations than most of our competitors.

Can our marketing and network make up the premium revenue that we need to operate an outdated and inefficient fleet? I don't know. I think it is a gamble.

Also, we are failing to re-invest in a fleet that is a constantly depreciating asset. We are doing this because we already have a lot of debt on the books. But, when the bill comes due to fleet renewal it will be a big one.