|
|
|
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1282328)
What does we also reduced the profit sharing going forward and that's an important part of helping to fund that cost growth?
|
Originally Posted by Fly4hire
(Post 1282152)
They already got you covered there. The definition of seats permitted is reference an "aircraft" without reference to power plant.
I want to limit all DCI to current generation powerplants, and when the GTF or next-gen TP's come on line for the "below 77" seat aircraft market that they are flown at mainline. It allows DCI to operate the current fleet of jets techinically "forever", but the economics of the current fleets will eventually be outdated. The 20-76 seat flying would more naturally evolve and shift to mainline aircraft in the future without causing the contractors who provide the lift to be uncooperative or screw over DAL in the short term. It's a long-view solution to the RJ problem, but it would be easier(IMHO) to get the company to agree to than a "drop-dead" on RJ's type provision. |
Originally Posted by Sink r8
(Post 1282008)
I think Delta has relatively low costs, while UCAL and LCC labor costs are probably going to jump (if they want to actually have any degree of service at all). In terms of networks and offerings we'd be able to capture revnue as effectively as the other networks.
Paul Jacobson Thank you, Ed, and good morning, everyone. During the quarter our nonfuel unit costs increased by 5.6% and we expect to see a similar level of growth in the December quarter. While due in part to our capacity reductions, we’ve continued to experience cost pressures from the investments that we made in the business. The 5.6% increase was driven primarily by wage and benefit changes which accounted for roughly half of the increase Ed Bastian Jamie, this is Ed. The $1 billion that we’re referring to is candidly, part of that same cost-reduction initiative that we talked at the Investor Day last year as we laid out that plan. As I think he said at that planned discussion it’d take probably about two years to implement and that’s where we’re at now in terms of the implementation. I think we said at the time and we said since that 8.4 was a calculation at a point in time, it’s obviously influenced by a lot of other factors, capacity levels which we continue to take down, the opportunity to move ahead with our pilots which obviously puts much higher pressure on it. So from that standpoint it’s not backing down from our cost goals, we’re saying that we’re going to have to have a reset though due to the change in the macroeconomic factors, not anything that’s different from the $1 billion target. We currently enjoy a cost advantage compared to some of our full service network airline peers, but that will be stressed next year with our pay increases (12.84% over same period previous year) and no offsetting revenue increases from upgauged mainline (B717) until late in the year. If the revenue doesn't materialize as forecast, the cost increase still remains. |
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1282202)
I dont know the rules vis a vis refining your own fuel, but IMO DAL also has the ability to remove state and federal tax from jet fuel burned in our aircraft, but will charge fed and state tax when sold to competitors.
Taxes are a big chunk of fuel cost. Couple that with hedging and directly buying from Bakken shale providers and you have a powerful money generator (or cost cutter). |
Originally Posted by capncrunch
(Post 1282435)
If you run that though the Slowplay ALPA Translator2012 BS machine, what he is really saying is we are going to hire, we are getting tons of new AC and nobody will be displaced.
Maybe you can challenge the data and conclusions, or are you so weak-minded that you can only resort to ad-hominem? You can always select the "ignore" function if I'm disturbing your comfortable version of reality too much. BTW, the fleet forecast calls for 796 mainline jets in 2015 (up from 740 in 2009) and an increase of 127 mainline jets by 2017, while the total Delta+DCI fleet shrinks by 26. That means that net of any deliveries DCI shrinks by 153. |
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1282202)
....fuel cost. Couple that with hedging and directly buying from Bakken shale providers and you have a powerful money generator (or cost cutter).
COLUMN-U.S. coastal refiners' Bakken lifeline eroding: Campbell | Reuters |
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1282461)
Nice...
Maybe you can challenge the data and conclusions, or are you so weak-minded that you can only resort to ad-hominem? You can always select the "ignore" function if I'm disturbing your comfortable version of reality too much. BTW, the fleet forecast calls for 796 mainline jets in 2015 (up from 740 in 2009) and an increase of 127 mainline jets by 2017, while the total Delta+DCI fleet shrinks by 26. That means that net of any deliveries DCI shrinks by 153. Since the first year of that is a big goose egg, and the second might be as well, the years right after that are going to have to be monster to meet those numbers. Although to be fair, no one this summer had any idea the economy kind of sucked, nor did anyone have any idea that things were gettin kinda hectic in the United States of Europe. Those are two huge post TA suprises that can wipe out thousands of projected hiring numbers (although AS keeps hiring so that's good). |
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1282464)
Bakken is cheap right now because it's hard to get it to market. It has to be railed and/or barged to get to refineries which adds a bunch to the total cost of the fuel. Estimates I've seen are $12 per bbl to the Gulf coast and $20/bbl to the east coast. Those costs will ease over time as new transportation options are put in place.
IOW, will that source truly be cheaper long term for us or will it all come out in the wash? |
Die Hard 2 - Classic!! Who wants to work when I get to sit around and watch the kid and classic movies!!
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:25 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands