Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-05-2012, 06:20 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: 7ERA
Posts: 1,216
Originally Posted by DeadHead
Would increasing the seat capacity to allow 90 seats, BUT reducing the overall limit from 255 airframes down to lets say 180 (or something like that) be such a bad deal?
255 airframes X 76 seats = 19,380 seats
180 airframes X 90 seats = 16,200 seats
So reducing the hull limit aggressively while allowing 90 seaters would decrease frequency and overall DCI seats by 3,180 seats.
It pings me to say that, but I figure less airframes is probably as important as the amount of seats each aircraft can .
255 airframes X 76 seats = 19,380 seats
180 airframes X 90 seats = 16,200 seats
So reducing the hull limit aggressively while allowing 90 seaters would decrease frequency and overall DCI seats by 3,180 seats.
It pings me to say that, but I figure less airframes is probably as important as the amount of seats each aircraft can .
Whatever size airframe you are thinking about, accept that one day DCI will have as many as they want. Then decide if you can still live with it.
05-05-2012, 06:23 AM
On Reserve
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Posts: 10
Regarding Delta's fuel consumption......according to R.A. Delta is the largest non-governmental consumer of fuel in the world. More than some entire countries such as Denmark and Spain.
Even as the largest purchaser in the world, we get no breaks on the price. Hence the plan to establish some control over what we pay for fuel. Shrink the crack spread by purchasing our own refinery.
Even as the largest purchaser in the world, we get no breaks on the price. Hence the plan to establish some control over what we pay for fuel. Shrink the crack spread by purchasing our own refinery.
05-05-2012, 06:24 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,919
Originally Posted by Xray678
The problem with your theory is a limit on the number of airframes has never held up. When we got the 76 seaters it was sold as only 30 airframes, 15 the first year and 15 the second.
Whatever size airframe you are thinking about, accept that one day DCI will have as many as they want. Then decide if you can still live with it.
Whatever size airframe you are thinking about, accept that one day DCI will have as many as they want. Then decide if you can still live with it.
I'm guessing it has something to do with the ratio between mainline and regional airframes only moving up and not down.
05-05-2012, 06:26 AM
Kerbal Rocket Surgeon
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DTW 717A
Posts: 1,099
Originally Posted by DeadHead
I'm expected to get crucified over this, but here goes anyway.
Being junior, I am well aware of the significance and importance of holding scope at no more than 76 seats, so with that being said, haven't we technically already scoped out 90 seat aircraft?
I mean the DCI aircraft themselves have been reconfigured for 76 seats, but still have a capacity for 90 seats. I'm just looking at this objectively here, and before I get accused of selling short term contract gains for scope relaxation here is my question;
Would increasing the seat capacity to allow 90 seats, BUT reducing the overall limit from 255 airframes down to lets say 180 (or something like that) be such a bad deal?
255 airframes X 76 seats = 19,380 seats
180 airframes X 90 seats = 16,200 seats
So reducing the hull limit aggressively while allowing 90 seaters would decrease frequency and overall DCI seats by 3,180 seats.
Trust me I would love to see that flying being brought to mainline, but if that doesn't happen isn't reducing the amount of seats/airframes being subcontracted out just as beneficial?
It pings me to say that, but I figure less airframes is probably as important as the amount of seats each aircraft can hold.
I'm just playing devil's advocate here, not saying the company would go for something like.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, just curious as to what some of the more senior/experienced guys think.
Being junior, I am well aware of the significance and importance of holding scope at no more than 76 seats, so with that being said, haven't we technically already scoped out 90 seat aircraft?
I mean the DCI aircraft themselves have been reconfigured for 76 seats, but still have a capacity for 90 seats. I'm just looking at this objectively here, and before I get accused of selling short term contract gains for scope relaxation here is my question;
Would increasing the seat capacity to allow 90 seats, BUT reducing the overall limit from 255 airframes down to lets say 180 (or something like that) be such a bad deal?
255 airframes X 76 seats = 19,380 seats
180 airframes X 90 seats = 16,200 seats
So reducing the hull limit aggressively while allowing 90 seaters would decrease frequency and overall DCI seats by 3,180 seats.
Trust me I would love to see that flying being brought to mainline, but if that doesn't happen isn't reducing the amount of seats/airframes being subcontracted out just as beneficial?
It pings me to say that, but I figure less airframes is probably as important as the amount of seats each aircraft can hold.
I'm just playing devil's advocate here, not saying the company would go for something like.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, just curious as to what some of the more senior/experienced guys think.
The CR9 and E175 currently run 12 1st and 64 coach.
In an all coach config they can handle 88 (not sure if "economy comfort" would still be possible)
Now jump down 1 size to the CR7/E170. Those aircraft could be configured with 70-78 seats in an all coach config, and technically that would have been possible 2 years ago before the additional 175s came online with Shuttle America and Compass. However the management/marketing/man behind the curtain have all decided that having first class in the CR7/E170 is more important than getting the most seats possible out of those airframes.
More people, but probably less revenue. USAirways gave up 90 seat scope and for the better part of the last decade had their CR9s and E175s floating around with 88 seats in coach. They have recently reconfigured all of their CR9s and E175s to 8/72 (imo to compete with DAL).
That said, I would be surprised if mgmt even went for it. Now if you went to them and said 90 seats on a E190, they would of course be all over it. But 88 seats on a CR9 results in 88 ticked off people standing in a jetbridge in the middle of Summer (and Winter) about 35 minutes after they landed waiting for "regional elite" (oxymoron?) to bring their bags up the stairs. Really not a classy product, and I hope you would not want to put your customers through that in exchange for the measly 5% raise they may offer you in exchange.
05-05-2012, 06:26 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
Originally Posted by DeadHead
I'm not seeking to allow ANY type of ratio up gauge allowance. The total airframe limit would be a strict limit with absolutely zero allowance above that limit.......Until the next contract is negotiated...... Xray explained it better than I could in his previous post.
But, you do bring up another question I had in mind, can the amount of airframes be increased above the max agreed limit without going to the group for ratification? Basically could the reps sign an MOU that would allow additional airframes without the group's vote?
But, you do bring up another question I had in mind, can the amount of airframes be increased above the max agreed limit without going to the group for ratification? Basically could the reps sign an MOU that would allow additional airframes without the group's vote?
Denny
05-05-2012, 06:32 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,919
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
I would think any change in scope of that magnitude would have to go to a vote but........you never know until it happens.
Denny
Denny
05-05-2012, 06:40 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
DH,
I will vote no on anything that increases scope beyond 76 seats. Think long term with your senario. If we allow any amount of 90 seaters on the property the company will jump on it and the camels nose will be under the tent. Long term the company will seek to increase that amount and then, all of a sudden, the 100 seat flying is gone........ We do NOT want that to happen.
Denny
I will vote no on anything that increases scope beyond 76 seats. Think long term with your senario. If we allow any amount of 90 seaters on the property the company will jump on it and the camels nose will be under the tent. Long term the company will seek to increase that amount and then, all of a sudden, the 100 seat flying is gone........ We do NOT want that to happen.
Denny
Carl
05-05-2012, 06:44 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by DeadHead
But, you do bring up another question I had in mind, can the amount of airframes be increased above the max agreed limit without going to the group for ratification? Basically could the reps sign an MOU that would allow additional airframes without the group's vote?
Carl
05-05-2012, 06:45 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by Xray678
The problem with your theory is a limit on the number of airframes has never held up. When we got the 76 seaters it was sold as only 30 airframes, 15 the first year and 15 the second.
Whatever size airframe you are thinking about, accept that one day DCI will have as many as they want. Then decide if you can still live with it.
Whatever size airframe you are thinking about, accept that one day DCI will have as many as they want. Then decide if you can still live with it.
Carl
05-05-2012, 06:47 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,325
Originally Posted by DeadHead
I'm not sure if they would still have that option.
I just bring the 90 seater thing up because I figure that's the rumor that's been getting kicked around.
I just bring the 90 seater thing up because I figure that's the rumor that's been getting kicked around.
I have heard a different rumor. I will post it here as a rumor only. The company is not asking for more then 76 seats. What they want is more aircraft allowed above the 153 or 155 cap on large RJ's. They are willing to have fewer over all RJ's but more aircraft in the 70 to 76 seat range. This is not acceptable to me as I believe the E175 should be at the mainline. They will offer some type of block hour arrangement/ratio as a inducement to ratify.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
