It would be assuming to much to say it's not going to happen, but I (and most other reasonable people) think that a smaller number will be around for quite a while.

There are a number of markets that can't support large aircraft which will need that size aircraft.

Oh, we don't THINK they'll won't park the DC-9's, they'll need the lift.

Where have I heard that before...

That said:

The interesting thing about TA/NO TA with regards to NB scope:

No TA:

No cap on 50 seats, but economics is driving to park them
102 70 seaters
153 76 seaters.

By taking 34 aircraft, of ANY type, the company can convert all the 70s to 76 seaters.

255 70+ seat jets.

TA Passes
223 76 seaters
102 70 seaters

325 70+ seat jets

But the company can only get the additional 76 seaters if they take all 88 717s (or 319s), which will drive the block hour ratio to 1.7Xish.

AFTER the company gets all of the 717s/319s, they can turn around and park 767 domestics and smaller aircraft back down to a BHL of 1.56, which would be about 40 aircraft above what we have now.

That sound right? How is that not a pump and dump? They're not getting 70 more 76 seaters in exchange for 88 seat NBs, they're getting 70 more 76 seaters in exchange for 40 NB aircraft, AND getting to keep the 102 70 seaters they already have.

Nu

Just remember guys, Delta cannot afford to fly large RJ's at mainline....they are going broke. DALPA has told us so:rolleyes:

Delta invests $65 million in Aeromexico - latimes.com

Delta to Buy $100 Million Gol Stake to Boost Brazil Flying - Businessweek

Delta buys a Phillips 66 refinery for $180 million through a subsidiary | World Airline News

As an aside for those in the know....what affect do these purchases have on profit sharing payout?

We can easilly bury them in ATL at any fare if we wanted to. But we will have to be willing to compete and bleed in the short term to win long term. If we send the message that we will cull capacity on our end no matter what to preserve our RASM, we are going to be in for a world of hurt. If even half the LCC/ULCC order books happen plus another era of fare wars and maybe one more semi-viable start up by the time we realize we have to dig in and fight we won't be able to.

Forgive me if I missed the memo, but when do I get to vote no on this thing?

Exactly right. But somehow I gather you would rather they pump and dump MORE without any of the protections of the 1.56 BHL.. Right now the ratio is 1.19. They can dump right back to that, and for some silly reason I do not see that as a better option. I would love for you to convince me that it is a better option to allow that.

Of course the part that seemingly ALWAYS gets left out in these discussions is the decline of the 218 50 seaters that will accompany this. At least you admitted there would be an additional NB aircraft on mainline.. And *sigh* again... if you would rather wait another 12 years to get rid of the 50s.. by all means vote no.

Very true during the runup to BK and the initial year or so into it. Even while on the way out of BK though, DL started to fight back hard and bloodies AT's nose in ATL pretty badly. AT was forced to scramble into markets DL didn't care as much about as well as into direct competition with SWA instead. I think AT pulled back 20% or so from their ATL peak during the hey days you mentioned. They do advertise in certain markets quite well. So does SWA, JB, NK and others. We need to learn sometimes you have to spend money to make money. Keep Climbing is cool, but we need to get way more agressive with our marketing everywhere the way we're finally starting to in NYC.

Despite the previous reductions, post merger (AT/SW) they've already gone from 250ish to 175ish flights a day in ATL. This round of fare wars is not a signal of their over all strength particularly in that market. They are trying to maintain an even lower level of relevancy in the major market they just bought their way into. The only remaining variable that needs to be sovled for is DL's ongoing resolve to win long term versus bowing down to the short term quarterly result monger crackberry day traders analcysts. We can win this battle easilly, but we'll have to pay today to win tomorrow. Do the ones we have at the helm have that mentality or are they quarterly results by any means necessary B school reactionaries? Time will tell.

The canaries in the coal mine to see if we ever decide to get serious about investing in long term success (at least domestically) are LA/SEA (which would be taken care of by default in an AS merger) and more difinitively BOS. The way DL rolled over and handed one of the best and well traveled O&D revenue markets for its size anywhere and flat out gave it to start up to rule without question (notwithstanding one brief last hurrah with 50 seat RJ's and small turboprops just prior to the massive marketshare cull and giveaway) remains a textbook case of bad airline management. The excuse then was emergency survival at any cost, but today sitting on a massive, radically underutilized terminal while an ULCC sleeps with your hot ex girlfriend with the shades open because they know you are watching is inexcusable and symptomatic of the unsustainability of perpetually shrinking to profitability.

At some point we will hit the breaking point and it will either be "fight's on!" or we'll watch the roaring fireplace go dark while we huddle on the bare floor in an empty house.

Bump. Help!

If they wanted higher support, they should have increased the block hour protection higher to what is "planned" instead of allowing such a huge flex down capability in it.

The 50 seater count that will be parked as a result of the TA (hopefully) is 190, not 218. Also, all that does is put us 5 years ahead of current projections, not 12.

Check your math and your data.

Just for clarification, when did DALPA tell us Delta was going broke? :confused: