We are taking them and some of GOL's fleet too. GOL, under Delta's guidance, renegotiated their leases and order book.

 

TWA pilots, notwithstanding, of course.

 

That's what we've been hearing all around, as well as the 321's (particularly the 50 additional ones etc). But for a company who loves to sharpshoot every route they can, there's a pretty big seat difference between an 88 and a 739/321. This leaves us with a relatively small number of 90's (still 160 seats) and the existing number of old and aging 320's that are already spoken for on existing routes. Other than that, we'll have nothing between the 120 seat and 180+ seat ranges (vaporware C-300 notwithstanding).

Is that really going to work?

 

I'm going to try and stay consistent to my preTA views. Pilots don't buy planes, we fly them. As long as the company keeps to the contract then my brain bytes are better spent worrying about other things. I feel like we've got a good group of guys running the show at ALPA who will keep the company honest, so I'm going to go worry about where I'm going to fuel up as I take my HD through the Smoky Mountains this weekend. Later!

 

Prior to the NWA merger the smallest aircraft in the fleet was the MD88 other then the 10 737-700's. I think the fleet mix may not be exactly what they want but you omit 80 or so 737-800's to go with the A320's. The realities of runway and gate availability will drive bigger and bigger fleets.

 

I needed a good laugh this morning. ALPA will indeed point out when the company is out of compliance, however then it is up to the company to decide what to do. Last time they just paid the grievance, for pennies, and didn't change a thing. I don't consider that keeping them honest.

 

*now 158 seats

 

Right, but the 320's and -800's are already on existing routes that they are right sized for. So when we remove 120-ish(?) 88's in the 150 seat range, can they really only be replaced by 180+ seaters? That's what I was getting at.

Then consider the significant squeeze on the bottom end (so called DC-9 sized "RJ's") and it could bait most static textbook marketing teams into a self induced "liquidity trap" with capacity/CASM/seats available that makes it harder to grow markets and easier to downsize or abandon markets.

If the accelerated 88 retirement plan is really going to happen, replacing 149 seaters with mostly 180+ seaters (and some 100 seaters, but that's probably to pick up the RJ slack anyway) seems like a less than optimal solution. Speaking of the -800's, why are we not getting more of them? That adds 10 seats instead of 30 and is cheaper? CASM isn't king for everything, especially when that CASM is only theoretical because you can't fill them up. SWA is getting them at good enough of a price obviously, and penny pincher Ryan Air loves them. So why can we only make the stretchiest version of a narrow body work when everyone else does just fine with them?

 

With the MD88s leaving the fleet, and the 10 year leases on the 717s being up in 2023 what's the chance Delta also gets rid of the MD90 by 2023 and we reduce fleet types?

We can add the A319NEO & A320NEO to fill that gap.

Our narrowbody fleet would look like this:

C110
A319/20/21
737-700/800/900
B757-200/300

4 aircraft categories would be more efficient than 6 and the Airbus is a much more friendly plane for customers compared to the 717 or MDs.

 

A successful C100/300 gives DAL the ability to bypass hubs in thinner markets at vastly improved economics. It will have 2x the range of the 717. Think pairings like SEA/STL, LAX/HOU, LAX/DAL, LGA/IAH, SFO/SAT and many more. It will be a game changer for DAL structure. The 717 will continue to shoulder the shrinking regional routes in and out of hubs. Cue Bowie singing "Changes".