Airline Pilot Central Forums - Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/)

- - Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta? (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/36912-any-latest-greatest-about-delta.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erdude32 (Post 1366023)

Hopefully this is also the beginning of the end of the Alaska codeshare. I think Marketing and network finally woke up to the reality that they are NOT our little regional feed and through the "enhanced" agreements with American and Emerites...that they are a competitor and should be treated as such. My prediction: when we start taking deliveries of the 717's and 900's next fall/winter, we won't be parking the older 320's and 757's as scheduled....but that we will continue to replace Alaska capacity on the West Coast, ultimately ending the codeshare completely by this time next year:).

You're my new best friend. Call me every 5 minutes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasatch Phantom (Post 1366310)

Chuck,

The Simpson-Bowles commission recommended doing away with the mortgage interest deduction. Believe it or not I'd be okay with that, provided other loopholes/tax breaks were similarly closed, tax rates in general were lowered and everyone paid income taxes, even if at a low rate. Everyone needs to have some "skin in the game".

By the way, renters don't directly pay property taxes, yet those renters with children go to the local schools. Aren't the "uber rich homeowners" subsidizing those children's education?

BTW, the home mortgage interest deduction is not absolute. The deduction phases out at higher income levels, providing a greater tax benefit to lower- and moderate-income earners.

And far worse than the revenue considerations is the massive malinvestment this kind of targeted government driven behavior shaping subsidy drives. It in effect falsely inflates the value and cost of something, ironically something its designed to make more affordable, and sucks capital out of other areas in the process while (bonus!) creating false paper value (equity) that pumps the bubble up even more, until....

Dumb goes around, Keynesian style.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1366565)

I did not catch his podcast. I know there has been a big struggle. Flight ops wanted the nines gone to time the training with the 717. Last spring they were told by marketing they had to keep them longer. Flight ops came back with that would require hiring pilots because of the training. The bean counters refused to fund the hiring. Perhaps in the end there was a compromise and the nines retirement was moved back up. It would make sense.

So they wanted more planes around longer for the revenue, but we didn't have the pilots, so to avoid hiring pilots we're getting rid of the planes that would have produced the revenue.

CanihazMBA?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1366677)

Churches not for profit! Now that is funny!!!!!!!

Definitely much more offensive than anything Jesse ever posted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Columbia (Post 1366711)

Not that we needed more proof as to who the libs and union apologists are on the thread.

As always Sailing never ceases to surprise with his distasteful ability to condescend.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TANSTAAFL (Post 1366718)

They do. Same as in ATL. It's a 365 as has been stated. I don't get the extra MD then award between DC9 and 717 in DTW if that's where they ultimately want them.

Wow.. Two posts in a row and Alfa and Slow aren't here to accuse you of being on FPL and posting.... Hmmmmm

Quote:

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1366727)

So they wanted more planes around longer for the revenue, but we didn't have the pilots, so to avoid hiring pilots we're getting rid of the planes that would have produced the revenue.

CanihazMBA?

Good stuff Gloopy.

Whoever is searching the big bras ads, thanks.;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1366727)

So they wanted more planes around longer for the revenue, but we didn't have the pilots, so to avoid hiring pilots we're getting rid of the planes that would have produced the revenue.

CanihazMBA?

I suspect they made a decision that the revenue generated would not offset the costs involved. It is also rumored some 757's have been extended to offset the seat count loss.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeadHead (Post 1366768)

Definitely much more offensive than anything Jesse ever posted.

As always Sailing never ceases to surprise with his distasteful ability to condescend.

It was meant to be funny not condescending. Clearly you have not watched TV on Sunday morning. Grab your checkbook and sit down and take a gander at whats on TV on any Sunday, especially if you live in the south.

Quote:

Originally Posted by georgetg (Post 1366717)

Re: 747-400 vs 777-300

Norwegian was banking on the 787 and built its network plans around the new jet.
So now they are scrambling for a replacement and have sourced 2 used 340-300 leased from Boeing

Plugging in typical lease rates and fuel burn, at a 90% load factor, the monthly fuel+lease costs favor the A340-300 by $300,000/month.

I'm certain similar modeling would favor the 747-400 over the 777-300 at Delta in particular after factoring in the fuel cost margin afforded by Monroe and the existing MX support for that type...

Aeroturbopower: Norwegian A340-300 vs 787-8 analysis

Cheers
George

I would love to see 747's. I read the above article and its a very simple analysis that makes some strange assumptions and leaves maintenance out completely. Very smart people who have spent their careers in this business with lots of data make these kind of decisions. The market has spoken loud and clear on which aircraft have the greatest profit potential. As I mentioned in another post there is a reason they are breaking 747-400's up for scrap. Delta might be in a better position then some to take on more 747's but in the end I think that when the numbers are run by our accountants the concept wont float. The other consideration is that if you take on older aircraft your making a gamble on future fuel prices. You would have to assume at least a 5 year in service time for the aircraft with the cost of the interior mods. Who knows what fuel might cost in 5 years. There is one point in favor of the 747. Boeing is going to put the 777-X on the market in 2019. If we placed a early order for that aircraft Boeing might give us some 747 for almost nothing to cover lift requirements to the 2019 time frame.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1366795)

. Boeing is going to put the 777-X on the market in 2019. If we placed a early order for that aircraft Boeing might give us some 747 for almost nothing to cover lift requirements to the 2019 time frame.

Sound like our play book in a nutshell.
Plausible theory of the day award.