We're pushing the DAL birds very hard right now. Tech Ops is seeing this as well. This is just a snapshot but on a 4 day East Coast-West Coast shuffle with one leg a day, my SFO-JFK flight covered for a morning cancellation on a 737 due to MX, my LAX-ATL 767 flight cancelled due to MX (268 pax) and my wife was trying to get from DAY-ATL that same night and was delayed 4 hours due to a hydraulic problem on an MD-88. They didn't even comp drinks to the pax either. But that's beside the point. Maybe this is just an isolated set of examples, but I believe we are running the DAL fleet as hard or harder (read more efficiently) than its ever been run but we will see a price for running 20 year old airplanes this hard. We're not even into the summer flying yet. This issue has not escaped management's attention either. There is apparently concern over this. The good news from a total company standpoint is that the NWA side has the ability to take some of the load off the DAL birds.

 

I guess I just think about UPS, if you're going to fly an airplane 4 hours a day/night then why buy a new $70M to do the job when you can buy a 727? For a multitude of reasons it'll save money despite not being as fuel efficient. Now, you're going to fly an airplane around the world 21 hours a day to your most important destinations, what do you get? A 744F, new, under warranty, more fuel efficient, less likely to have problems, etc.

So, do you want to put a DC9 up to 15 hours or more a day? I mean, how many cycles would that be on the frame? Where is the break-even point between over/under utilization and is it a cycle or hour issue?
...
Of course, weren't we selling 2 ERs because they'd hitting their limit on cycles and it was smarter to sell them then just run them into the desert? Is it true too many ATL-Florida flights ruined a plane that could have lasted longer if it had just been in constant motion over the ocean?

 

Since we can't purchase aircraft that weren't previously financed, I'd rather see a DC9 flying 15 hours a day then an E-175 or CRJ900 take its place.

 

I (and I bet everyone on ML and DCI would) absolutely agree with you on that.

But I was just thinking that the low utilization might be purposeful by NWA? I wonder now with a plethora of parts available (via the desert) and the prospect of fuel prices getting cheap once our hedges run out, then I'm sure they could cheaply increase 9 utilization. I wonder if mx and fuel were the biggest factors to keeping utilization low? And if so, how much would they really increase utilization- 11 hours like the 88?

Actually, makes me wonder if the 88's utilization will start increasing even more.

But here is a question, say you bump all of the 9s up to 11 hours from 7-8, do we just take the flying back from DCI? Then are you stuck paying (in some form or fashion) DCI for flying they're not doing?

 

I don't think the company is thinking about taking flying from DCI, I think they are just down gaging equipment on the same routes so there are fewer seats and and they can keep the prices for those seats higher.

Denny

 

Exactly. We are reducing DCI flying, but most of that has taken a back seat to replacing the 757 flying. In this economic environment it is more important to take seats out of the market than get rid of 50 seat jets. Now when the economy and demand come back management will once again have to decide to use a 30 year old 9 or a 10 year old 50 seater on a given segment.
As I have said before, this down turn, added with the cost of the D Checks on the 757 fleet have, for the time saved the 50 seat market.
I am sure that DCI will get restructured as each contract comes up to year five, but there costs are so cheap compared to Mainline, they will always be around on some level. I do see a few DCI carriers going bye bye though.

 

I noticed this quote in the latest Delta Digest, talking about Northwest's fleet:

"Domestically, Northwest's smaller-sized narrowbody aircraft (DC-9s and Airbus 319s) fill a gap in Delta's existing mainline fleet," said Nat Pieper, vice-president-Fleet Strategy. "Delta's primary domestic aircraft are MD-80s and 757s. On routes where demand may exceed a regional jet's capacity, but not enough to use an MD-80, a DC-9 or A319 will offer a more optimal quanity of seats to better meet the demand," Nat said.

 

yep! That the fact.

 

I know which the public would prefer. 50 seat RJs are universally hated by the flying public.

 

Especially by the "customers of size" and those of us stuck next to them on the commute to work.