Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 752378)

HA! Got up before 80...

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 752375)

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The real risk that people like ACL and I see, is that our outdated narrow body equipment puts us at a disadvantage compared to our competition.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Can our marketing and network make up the premium revenue that we need to operate an outdated and inefficient fleet?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I think this economic dilemma is what forced United into basically outsourcing their no longer current 737 fleet.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.

Originally Posted by FlyingViking (Post 752439)

If management is in fact watching this thread ...

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 752469)

Management is too busy running the airline. They make the news, it gets reported and we discuss it. In effect, we are a three day old newspaper from the third world.

At most, a fellow fan of Delta airlines (and face it, aren't we ?) might read up out of curiosity.

The only time this web board might rise to more than a mere curiosity is if there were a concerted effort to take some sort of action which would effect the operation. But that is VERY unlikely in any event. If anything, a reader would see we are self policing when it comes to "abusing" the Company and would probably be reassured by that.

Also consider, the web boards where Delta customers (our revenue) discuss their opinions is more important than what the pilots think. We are employees and will do what we are told.

Originally Posted by Kargo (Post 752434)

Hey guys, stupid question;

I've looked but can not find it. What costs go into the Cost per Available Seat Mile? Is it everything, i.e. all variable and fixed costs related to the aircraft, lease payments, legal documents, mx hours, fuel, wages, coca cola, etc. Or is it just the variable costs like fuel and wages?

Thanks for the clarification. kargo

Originally Posted by FlyingViking (Post 752439)

Interesting reading and proves my point. Thanks for posting. If management is in fact watching this thread I think they are nothing but proud of us.

Originally Posted by Hawaii50 (Post 752330)

Yeah well, your track record been pretty clear everywhere you've ever written anything. You and Carl...ambassadors of devisiveness where every attack on anything and anyone fDL is fair game and any defense will not be tolerated. Sorry bud, there's still a couple of us on here that'll stand up.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 752472)

:D But they're probably extremely disappointed in our spelling and grammar. Incorrect comma use, no proofreading, loser vs looser and so on. And there is a propensity to push the acceptable allowances on public forum pornography but ironically its all creative and on topic. I guess thats a pilot for you, only reads, never spels, easily bored but very creative when they want to be. Boy that sounds like an ER crew.
---
Hey Ferd, are they doing bounces in a real 767?! I want to do that.

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 752459)

I think a next gen turboprop (something powered by something like a couple of those engines from the A400) may be the best answer for the 100 seat question. With the stage lengths they will typically be doing, it really makes a lot of sense.

Ironic that a turboprop, the idea at least, seems pretty promising... after so many years in the "jet" age.