Which brings up an interesting point......so focused on today's profit & paying down debt. Well will that really do any good when we have to finance a bunch of aircraft and put ourselves right back into a pit of debt again?

Guess it won't matter for a management team though. They'll ride off into the sunset with millions in bonuses.

 

But there is a lot in the fleet that is pretty fuel efficient and not needing replacement, 320, 757, 738, 764, 330, 777. It's just what's on the market is old but at new prices, why buy yesterdays designs today at tomorrows price when you can just save and buy tomorrows planes tomorrow at a good price. Also you can then buy today's airplanes tomorrow at yesterdays prices.

 

I should write a letter to the editor.

For starters, ever notice that all the writers of aviation articles always use the same adjectives? Usually for older aircraft it is "fuel-guzzling" while newer aircraft are "fuel-sipping" "misers" etc.

I was especially amused that the WSJ actually seemed to think (with a straight face) that people would make some moral-based decision on which aircraft to fly based on the fuel efficiency.

What I really wanted to contrast was the trans-con experience on any single-aisle versus twin-aisle. With a single-aisle 3x3 configuration, you have one aisle, 1/3 of the seats are aisle seats, fully 1/3 are middle seats, and the other 1/3 that are window seats require the window seat passenger to climb over two other passengers to use the lav--which is frequently unavailable due to the FAs and cart blocking the (one and only) aisle.

With a 767 on a 2x3x2 setup, only 1/7 of the seats are middle seats, and they have two options for leaving the seat to hit the lav. 4/7 of the seats are aisle seats. The 2/7 of the seats that are window seats only require the passenger to inconvenience one other passenger to get out of the seat.

A few years ago I flew a few trips with a 6 hour ATL-YVR non-stop. 6 days a week it was on a 757, and on Saturdays it was a 767 due to cruise ship tourists. The FAs told me that they could sense a palpable difference in the stress and attitudes of the passengers comparing Saturdays with any other day.

Of course the real issue is: do we make any money on most 767 domestic flying? And despite their complaints, do passengers really buy a domestic ticket based on the aircraft type? I think that answer to both those questions is no.

 

They buy it based on price, convenience and on time.

 

Many years ago, I recall seeing an issue of the USA Today where, in the lower lefthand corner of the front page, they showed the results of an airline passenger survey in pie chart format.

The question was: What is your prime consideration when choosing an airline?

It was hilarious! It was this pie that had a 97% slice labeled "ticket price", and it had a few, barely visible, slivers of the pie with names like "ontime performance", "customer service", and "baggage handling."

It spoke volumes! Mostly, people only care about the price of their ticket. That's not going to stop them from complaining about the ancillary issues, however.

 

1. Did the majority of Arkansas citizens vote for Clinton for governor in 1978?

Yes!

2. Did the majority of Arkansas citizens vote for Clinton for governor in 1982, when he ran a second time?

Yes! And he kept the governorship for TEN YEARS until being elected president.

3. Did the state of Arkansas give all its electoral votes to Clinton in the 1992 presidential election?

Yes! Overwhelmingly so, in fact.

4. Did the state of Arkansas give all its electoral votes to Clinton in the presidential 1996 election?

Yes! It wasn't even close.

So, you're saying that most of the people in Arkansas didn't like Clinton? Very doubtful.

Surely (and don't call me Shirley), you're not saying that a call-in talk show has statistical significance.

You worked in the Clinton White House? Cool! I'm not sure how that makes you an expert on the predilections of the Arkansas electorate, however. The numbers speak for themselves, your experience notwithstanding.

 

If it is so important to spell the name of the company "Delta Air Lines" instead of "Delta Airlines" then why is it spelled "Delta Airlines" on the pilot seniority list? Go look, it's spelled wrong.

 

Well, of course a call-in talk show represents "a sample." It's just not a statistically significant sample and, therefore, worthless as a basis of drawing correct conclusions.

The nature of a talk show inherently has a biased database and is in no way a representative sample. For instance, what percentage of Rush Limbaugh's listeners would characterize themselves as "liberals"?

What percentage of Air America Radio listeners would characterize themselves as "conservatives?"

Professional pollsters, those who make a living on trying to ferret out ACCURATE results, know that there is actually a SCIENCE to these sort of things - and call-in talk shows are certainly not scientific.

 

When I heard those things about William the Slick wrt his time in the Pig State... (soooooooooowwwwwiiieeeeee... Razorback) I wondered the same thing because of all the reasons you highlight above.

 

For those wanting a review of Droid2, these youtube vids are better than any review I could post in the forum.

YouTube - Motorola DROID 2 for Verizon review - part 1

YouTube - Droid 2 hands-on