Sure, I see that and you see that and our management understands that: but is there too much pressure from the analysts for capacity control? I see the pressure to reduce debt, and that is very good - it helps lower our costs.

I guess I see the discussion with the analysts a bit of theater, where we say we're going reduce capacity, and we can point to some reduction, but we don't really. It is in the company's best interest is to upgauge rather than lower capacity, from what I can see. A 757 is a better plane to compete with a 320/737 from a Low Cost Carrier, rather than using a MD88. Lower seat miles, etc. Bigger airplanes does make the pilot force happier, as long as we're not parking smaller planes. (I know that doesn't make sense, but we should use those MD88s on markets that were previously RJs or DC9, etc)

 

Don't know if you have seen this, but it will make our interport ops more difficult.

Japan?s Airports Have Sufficient Jet Fuel for 10 Days, IATA Says - Bloomberg

 

And with a honestly a better product.

 

Sink,

I agree with everything you say above and we should definitely try to absolutely minimize the radiation exposure. With that said I think the radiation threat is being hyped and sensationalized.

Did we not blow up Atomic bombs in Nevada in the 1940's and 1950's?

I don't think people on the east coast were much affected by radiation.

Did we not blow up Hydrogen Bombs in the pacific in the 1950's?

I don't think people on the California coast were much affected by radiation.

And I am talking about surface testing on the ground and in lagoons.

There is definitely a very real threat, but exaggerating it and causing people thousands on miles away to worry uneccesarily does not do anyone any good. For example, my mother called and said she saw on the news that the radiation will reach California today and that I should stay indoors. Really? Thank you 24 hour news cycle!

Scoop - Throwing caution to the wind and going on a bike ride along the California coast!

 

Not disagreeing with you, however the general populous did not know that much about the latent radiation dangers in the 40s and 50s.

 

Both above posts make sense. I don't know how to define "safe" in this case, but I'm only distinguishing "reasonably safe" from "wishful-thinking safe". I'm not promoting a "paranoid-freak" level of safety.

Just don't forget to shower thrice after the bike ride, Scoop. And shave your head, and burn the hair.

 

RJ's kill a market. Customers have a bad experience and blame it on Delta, the company from whom they bought the ticket. We lose customers to competitors like SWA. And then when we try to put mainline back in, we've already run off a whole bunch of customers. This is the part the bean counters don't seem to know how to quantify. And they're too stuck in the world of their cubicle to figure it out.

 

I did. I assume they will ship some over from Korea.

 

DAL88, I agree the premise on which they grew was based on incorrect assumptions. Basing it on the fact that frequency with reduced capacity would allow the RASM and margins to rise was all well and good, but they forgot two things; customer sanctification, the response of all of the other airlines. Market shares remained the same, other airlines acted in kind, and the markets were flooded with frequency on a higher cost jets. The ticket price increases never materialized.

My comment was more TIC, but the fact is a small jet works as long as no other airline responds in kind. As we know, that ain't going to happen. (It does work for DAL in many small southern markets where they are the only game in town, but not many)

Also, it is not just RJ to mainline, it can be mainline to mainline as well. I have heard some very interesting comments from passengers flying the 767 on these Transpac's.

 

Awesome!

Watch what Airlines app is being bypassed for the Delta app =)




YouTube - Apple - iPhone 4 - TV Ad - App Store

Cheers
George