Originally Posted by
JobHopper
Are people still doing that???
On another note, here is an interesting quote from Michael Boyd's Hot Flash this morning:
"It's not that Delta doesn't like Memphis. Or that the connecting hub there has no value.
But they're cutting 25% of the operations there by the end of the year...
At almost the same time, Delta ordered 12 more E-170s for Compass.
... Delta is moving with good sense to reduce the number of RJs in its fleet, and the E-170 order is completely consistent with that strategy. That's because, common nomenclature notwithstanding, the E-170 is not a "regional jet." To the contrary, the market niche they were originally aimed at was the lower-end of the single-aisle category - DC-9-10s, BAC-111s, F-100s - that had been abandoned by Boeing and Airbus. (We know - we were there.) Regardless of who's going to crew them, those -170s are all about moving toward less RJ and more mainline-cabin flying."
I've been following Boyd weekly for 7 years. He's right about, oh, 100% of the time. It's clear that management likes the DCI flying, we will never see that flying again at mainline us we TAKE IT BACK, and any future relaxation of scope will be fully exploited by the company.
The problem is Section 1.
compared with the rest of Section 1, the AF JV is tightly controlled. That is a good thing. The flying is balanced at a 50% share of ASMs across the Atlantic. They grow, we grow, they shrink, we shrink. The balance of ASMs is reviewed annually and there are remedies in place in case the balance goes beyond a 47/53% ratio (6% imbalance)...
The remainder of Section 1 covers codeshare and RJ flying, something different from a JV, but an agreement to have
someone other than Delta pilots do the flying nonetheless.
For some reason the architects of the remaining portions of Section 1 didn't have the foresight to require annual reviews as stipulated in the AF JV agreement.
If the RJ flying had been pegged at a certain portion of ASMs back when it was introduced, the RJs would have shared the fleet drawdown with mainline.
In fact had the DCI portion of Section 1 pegged the RJ/Mainline flying balance as a ratio of ASMs, we would have seen a reduction in the number of RJs as larger 70 and 76 seaters were introduced because the bigger jets produce more ASMs per flight...
Alas, that's not the type of agreement we have, so we're stuck with what we have...
Going forward this should be a good lesson. At a minimum require an annual review and establish a ceiling for non-JV Section 1 agreements with a cap on the ASM ratio...
Cheers
George