The only shortage I see coming is in my pants.

I guess you really are that naive...

If an airline is flying a bunch of MD80s and other airlines are flying newer 737/A320s, you are getting beat because of the operational costs of the airframes, not passengers booking into or away from them.

I think most folks would say a E170/175 is more comfortable to passengers than a CRJ-700/900...so why have the 700/900 continued to sell? Because they are more fuel-efficient and economical to operate than the E-Jets.

Besides, Allegiant doesn't have any problem getting customers and turning a profit flying "undesirable" MD80s...

The public usually doesn't care about this, they may get interested when they realize it's one of those damn B1900s, but otherwise one big airplane with jet engines is the same as the next. What matters is if an airline can turn a profit, and the type of airplane is not the deciding factor, although sometimes it does have a pretty big effect. See how Allegient has managed to make a profit. Aquisition cost is probably one of the biggest issues in this industry, and the routes and revenue is just not high enough to justify the aquisition cost in most cases. Operating cost is another huge one, but the capital cost of a new airliner is crazy, and you have to fly it for something around 20yrs before it "breaks even". Given this, when you get your ducks in a row to secure funding for a "fleet", you damn better well be able to turn a nice profit, but hey, what is the purpose of airlines? I'd say it's to lose money and provide steady jobs for management :)

Oh you had your trousers hemmed too high? :D.

I could excuse the rest of what you said because you're being optimistic- nothing wrong with a little optimism.

However, to think that US airlines give a damn about comfort is downright silly. You really think AA announced the order of 737's and A320's because they are more comfortable? Is that really what it came down to- the more comfortable airplane? The fact that they may be more comfortable is merely a bonus. If we were talking about comfortable airplanes, none of the RJ's would be flying.

Your optimism is good. I'm not trying to destroy it. No doubt it helps you get through the 5 sector days. Despite what we've said, I'm sure I speak for all of us when I say I hope you're right. At the same time, a bit of reality won't hurt either. I fly with 20+ yr regional captains who "got in right before the shortage of 19xx."

You better let Allegiant know about this MD-80 thing, because they have been too busy printing money to adhere to your theory.

There rumblings of the Age 70 rumor are already stirring.....

Hmmm, I commute quite a bit on MD-80's. Sit in front and back. I can't recall a single person complaining about the aircraft. I like the 1 in 5 chance of a middle seat, also it is quiet (up front).

I wonder how the forums look like at railway companies.... Maybe I will change careers and grab the helms of a locomotive.. hmm

I have a friend who actually did that; quit aviation and became a train engineer.

Lasted just a few months.

Now he is CFO of a welding company, and about the happiest I've ever seen him.

Additionally, every Delta guy I've talked to about their mad dogs says that, while they are less fuel efficient, they are paid for and maintenance costs are surprisingly low relative to the other aircraft. If you think about what the acquisition costs are plus the interest on loans to acquire new planes, why wouldn't you keep flying the older ones as long as the numbers made sense?

They are just as comfortable on the inside as the 737 (except maybe for noise in the way back), and fewer people get middle seats. One big perk that I've noticed when commuting is that they don't tend to run out of overhead space easily either, because they've got two sides worth of overheads but one less column of people.

Now, if I have to jumpseat up front I'll take the A-319s over the Mad Dogs any time.