I assert that your company would be more profitable with all of its flying under one roof. The reason this is not done already isn't because of profits, rather it is because of labor group fragmentation.

Furthermore, since you were discussing profit sharing and revenue premiums, allow me to point out that your customers are willing to pay what you called a "RASM premium" because they perceive your product as being of a somewhat premium quality. If you agree with that statement, then perhaps you can see that bringing a product such as arrjay flying in house allows better quality control over your once outsourced product that is currently residing in those concourses you now likely try to avoid. Especially if you commute.

I'd like to know what percentage of travel itineraries purchased through "Delta" never actually fly on a Delta airplane. If you care about the next 10,20,30 years of your career at Delta, why would you be opposed to increased quality of your own product? Would that not enhance your customer's willingness to pay RASM premiums?

 

You sound like you have SJS. It's the same type rating and an extra $6-10 an hour.

I'll give the CRJ-900 a parade any day. It's here to stay. Cue when the saints go marching in.

 

A) So you're betting on a pilot shortage to solve the RJ problem?

B) 250 jets is a lot of capacity lost... actually, the union says 218 jets parked so even less. Run their numbers, 218 x 50 = 10900 seats lost AND THEN we add 70 new 76 seat jets which reduces the number of seats lost to only 5,580.

Now since we run stuff in miles take into account that they have said they can get better utilization out of the new jets than the old CR2s. You can close the gap further if they want.

C) Too late.

 

You're losing your argument.

 

Exactly. ..............

 

Ok. They were toast......maybe. I haven't seen anything that proves that. It's true that they aren't fuel efficient, but neither is a DC9. Networking has found routes on which they make money though. I think they've done the same with 50 seaters. That's how Delta has been making money for years now. Right?

Also, 10K filings did show how long Delta was on the hook for keeping the 50 seaters flying. So let's say we didn't give them more 76 seaters. What then? Just curious as to what happens next. BTW, you know I voted NO. I'm just bored, and up for discussion.



FTB,

I personally think the regional industry is going through a morphing phase. Certain regionals are already having difficulty staffing their jets. I'm anxiously awaiting to see RAH staff these 53 E-175s they just signed up for. They can't even staff the Q400s now, & they only have 30ish of those. So I really think that critical staffing issues will cripple the reliability of the regionals. They won't be able to attract applicants. But Delta will. So what do we offer? Bringing RJs to mainline.

 

Really? You don't think that a million a year legal firm couldn't fix the labor cost issue? If it was cheaper for us to do it, we'd be doing it. Do you take DAL management in the same light you apparently take me (as a fool)?

I commute. On RJs. I listen to the passengers. When they complain, I suggest they pass the word to Delta. Overall I'm satisfied with the product. Given the total passenger counts flying DCI metal is going to be stepping down significantly, I doubt quality of product factors in. Plus, if its a cheaper operation, the ticket price needed to supplement a "good enough" operation is less.

Fact of the matter the guys who count the beans have a much better top down view on this than we do. Let them count the beans. But I'm telling you right now that there's 30 years of sustainability in Delta's product.

 

Fixed it for you.

 

EB Oct 24: "So when you think about say bringing in 40 76-seaters and taking out 60, 50-seaters, there’s a really good balance sheet and CASM trade there."

 

See post above.

I bet they'll find pilots.