fyp... and I take it all back :D:D

Whew.. and I thought it was just me..

Boeing or airbus delivering a "plastic" airplane to replace the 737 is not likely to occur anytime soon if ever. Too many engineering challenges still exist yet in making that aircraft, plus it will look good on paper but on the line it will be a flop. The C-series or the 195x are about it as far as a 100 seat aircraft go for the next 10-20 years. If the CASM of these aircraft do not live up to what DAL considers a mainline CASM then there will be no 100 seat jet at mainline. I think management is not saying anything about these aircraft because of the scope issue. It's only my opinion but if DALPA were to give up 100 seat scope the C-series would suddenly become toted by DAL as the greatest thing since sliced bread.....

Yikes!! Capt Ferd......I like the ring to that BUT????

"Get me some coffee boy and send up that FA for a few jokes":D

NWALPA computer bidding guys used to swap avoid employee info with Pro Stan........does DALPA do that, I could be #1 in no time:eek::D

Respectfully, you are incorrect. The CRJ700 (40% more revenue for 9 to 11% greater cost) and the 900 (70% more revenue for 15% greater cost) are the second and third generation aircraft. Comparing a CRJ50 (200, or 200) and the newer generation jets is like comparing, well, a DC9 and a MD90.

Compare these CASM stats*:
9.5 to 11.1 = DC9
7.5 = MD88
10.0 to 13.4 = CRJ-2
7.9 = CRJ-7
7.3 = CRJ-9

*Source 2008 DOT Form 41 submissions by Delta, Northwest, Comair and Skywest (in in costs including ACMI).

What you see from the statistics is that replacement of a DC9 with a new generation RJ makes sense every time. Replacing a MD88 with an RJ is a wash and really depends on the capability needed for the route.

Now compare the costs for modern narrow body equipment:
6.1 = A320
5.6 = 737-800
5.4 = 757-200
4.2 = 757-300 (winner of most efficient airplane in the fleet, BTW)

The real risk that people like ACL and I see, is that our outdated narrow body equipment puts us at a disadvantage compared to our competition. This disadvantage skyrockets if fuel goes up. American, AirTran, Southwest, United, US Air, Continental and Virgin have all crunched the numbers and come up with a different answer than our management has.

Our loss last year was due to fuel hedging. Hedging that is made necessary due in part to the fact that we are more exposed to fuel price fluctuations than most of our competitors.

Can our marketing and network make up the premium revenue that we need to operate an outdated and inefficient fleet? I don't know. I think it is a gamble.

Also, we are failing to re-invest in a fleet that is a constantly depreciating asset. We are doing this because we already have a lot of debt on the books. But, when the bill comes due to fleet renewal it will be a big one.

I think this economic dilemma is what forced United into basically outsourcing their no longer current 737 fleet.

We've invested roughly 12 billion in RJ's. I don't think it was a good investment, but at least as far as a narrow body replacement goes, it was not as bad on paper as some would lead you to believe. Hence the reason I'm still thinking we screwed up by outsourcing the Compass flying and giving up on restoration of 76 to 100 seat flying to Delta mainline. JMHO.

P.S. The MD90 strategy is brilliant and an excellent move.

aaah, Ferd. I know who you are. I don't think so. :D

HA T! :D

I cannot spell PM. I can't spell MSP or IND either. But here is a question, do you think he'd ever become a collegiate coach? I'm sure it'd be at UT.
---
HA! Got up before 80...

Hey boyz...........I'm headed up to MSP for that 767 bounce training thing tomorrow morning. Pray for the tires..........they'll need it!

Ya all be good...........

Ferd

remember, no flare and don't chop the power!

Geeze Bar,

Did Delta have a recruiting fair at Harvard for their MBA's with pilot liscense's. :).