I disagree with you dash the only thing management at these places see is the dollar sign republic has 24 emb 145s they can get rid of and bring on emb 175s. Delta is trying to reduce their debt. What better way to do it than let someone else buy it. United and usair let republic fly for them delta probably doesn't care either.
You are logical but that's why your Wrong

Disagree with you on this one, if DAL mgmt had a problem with RAH they would not have created a carve out for them on the new mainline contract holding company language. Now if you wanted to make a case for RAH's costs being higher, their completion factor / a14 numbers being worse, or the fact that shuttle america flies around the northeast at mach .64 then I could agree.

The only way RAH or SkyWest will buy aircraft is with a longterm CPA from DAL. If they can't get that long term commitment they won't want to purchase aircraft they would be stuck with should they fall out of favor. That is why you will probably see DAL hold the leases on these planes and then be able to move them when one carrier steps out of line.



Also, under a capital lease, the lessee has pretty much all the benefits and risk of ownership. So the lessee (SkyWest, RAH, etc.) reports the leased asset on their balance sheet as an asset (equal to price of the lease) and as the lease as liability (price of the lease), thus essentially transferring it off of DAL's balance sheet (in the amount equal to the lease). Instead of it being listed as an expense (like say you renting a car), which is an operating lease.

Oh the wonderful dark world of accounting!

Up to 9 of the EMB140's rah is going to operate as Delta Connection are carved out as a scope exemption. RAH is currently up to 29 EMB145's as Delta Connection.

If they're being operated on contract where RAH shares the profits/losses, then they may not count against it. I'll have to read more.

The other thing to remember is it will take several years to see the changes take effect. Delta hasn't ordered any additional large RJs yet. Delivery will likely take 16-18 months after they're ordered. 44 B717's must be operating in revenue service before a single large RJ can show up. We won't have 44 B717's into service until 2015. 88 B717's must be online before all 70 additional large RJs can be added.

The 2012 pwa allows rah to place up to 9 pro-rate 44 seaters in service, which are exempt from the cap. NWA ordered 36 ERJ-175's with options for 36 more. We are still holding those options. 4 are available to Delta as early as 2013, 18 in 2014, and the remaining after 2014.

Where are you getting the 44 717 number? I'm not aware of any such requirement. The trigger is that the company first establishes a new fleet of narrow body aircraft (1 76 seater for every 1.25 717's), and secondly reduces 50 seaters IAW a scale in 1.b.46.f.

Whats your source on the options numbers? I'm not suggesting they're inaccurate, just haven't seen any public info from DAL on those post merger.

2011 10k on sec.gov.

Thanks a bunch. Here's the link for anyone else:

DAL 12.31.2011 10K

That's what I remember being told by a DALPA rep. Perhaps I misunderstood him. WRT delivery times, I'm quoting Richard Anderson. That's what he stated on the latest earnings call.

Adding 44 717's would have brought us up to a protection in the pwa that we vaporized in c2012.

I think Anderson was speaking in general terms regarding aircraft orders & deliveries during the call. The transcript is on seekingalpha.com for ease of use.

Do you expect the entire fleet make up as far as who operates what to be announced in December? Or just a numbers announcement?

His statement was in response to a question specifically asking about the additional RJs.

They stated in the earnings call that they'd go in to greater detail. I'm not sure what they will reveal.

True. I think he chose to respond by talking generally about orders & deliveries. It's possible that the ERJ delivery timetable would have to be renegotiated given the swap out arrangement.


Kelly Yamanouchi - Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Great. And I was also wondering if there’s an idea for a timeframe for deployment of the additional 76-seaters once you reach a deal?

Richard Anderson
Kelly, this is Richard. Typically when you place an order for an airplane, the earliest you get it is 16 months to 18 months after you placed the order. So you would expect just like on our 73-900ER order, we placed that, it’ll be 2 years ago this August or August 13 and we’ll end up taking the airplanes somewhere around, the first airplane about 26 months after the order. So, and then you end up taking about a dozen the year, something like that. So I hope that helps give you some timeline.

Maybe. I'm not familiar with how those options work. I was just going by what RA said. :)

Those pro rate aircraft are permitted because RAH also lets DAL access additional LGA slots that they would otherwise not be able to use.

" Now if you wanted to make a case for RAH's costs being higher, their completion factor / a14 numbers being worse, or the fact that shuttle america flies around the northeast at mach .64 then I could agree."

Hahahahhahahahahaha, it's so true!

.64? Slow down Speedracer!

.64, that's dangerous. You could run over a Citation at that speed.

Fixed it for you

It's a sad attempt to boost their paychecks by overblocking every single leg. Was behind them about 2 years ago from LGA-MCI. Center noticed the speed discrepancy, and asked them their speed. ".64." They accepted a vector off course and a lower altitude to keep that speed, so that every eastbound airplane out of LGA passed over them and around them.

The sad part is they continue to be awarded flying, while the rest of us work hard to put up excellent on-time performance numbers each month.

Proof positive that Richard Anderson only cares about one thing: cost. Pitiful.

You think they're the only ones? Bahahaha

That depends on the Citation. ;)

Citation X

Cessna Citation X - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And who is it you fly for that you are treated so well at the regional level, that you do everything you can to be an exemplary regional pilot to your mainline contractor?

We do fly slow, all of RAH. Personally, I like the environmental impact, or lack there of, I'm making by conserving fuel, but the extra cash certainly helps. Especially so on the FO side. Do I care about on-time performance? To be honest with you, I'm only paid to be so much of a professional, and caring about on time performance is much more professional than what I'm paid for.

However, I do make sure every one of my flights is very safe. That's what bare minimum pay and sub-par relations get you. And safety often means that on time performance suffers. Again, not paid to care about that.

For you regional yahoo's who do all they can to be the best regional pilot they can be. Think about what your company has done for you recently. Is your regional a little better than RAH? That could very well be the case. But do remember that you still fly for a Regional Airline, a business whose sole purpose is to undercut labor costs at any cost. There is no bright side to this business model, it's all about lowering cost at all levels of this profession.

It's still funny to me that you are complaining about someone flying slow, or unprofessional, and still getting flying from the majors.

"The sad part is they continue to be awarded flying, while the rest of us work hard to put up excellent on-time performance numbers each month."

Really? Is it that much harder to put .78 in the box than .64? Maybe I'm missing something here...

That rant is pathetic.

I was referring to other things like quick turns at out stations and being pro-active to get the on-time departure. That can be difficult when you block in 10-20 mins late because you fly green dot for 2 hours.

I respect saving fuel, and will do so when when can maintain schedule integrity. I would suggest flying at optimum altitude and selecting LRC in the box if you want to be as efficient as possible in the 170.

I have a vested interest in Delta's all around performance, since their success keeps my airline in business. My secondary interest involves my airlines performance. I don't want them to go the way of Freedom if the performance begins to suffer.

My reasoning seems pretty valid if you ask me. It should be for you as well, if you value having a job.

Where does your family and dignity fit in to that priority list? People seem so concerned with keeping a job, but what if that job won't support a family no matter how quick you turn your plane or how much fuel you save? There are very few CEO's in this industry, none of which are in the regionals, who would reinvest those saving into labor. I don't disagree with doing the right thing, if you can get in early that's great, but don't for one second think it is going to keep you employed.

No, you "yahoos" at RAH need to speed up. I'm also sick and tired of following you "yahoos" to the Northeast and being asked to slow to .70 or less when my plane's min speed is .74, with a normal of .82. You can convince yourself that you're saving fuel or acting "professional" all you want, but none of it will make up for your pathetic excuse of a contract that requires you to over block every leg to make any money. and it's hardly professional delaying your passengers 15+ minutes and screwing their connections just to make a few extra bucks.

If you are that unhappy. Find another carreer! Sounds like you are happy screwing the pax. Hope you are not looking at getting on with a legacy carrier. If so put your quote on your resume. You are sure to be hired.

I've never understood guys who fly .65 to make overs. Block or better dude. I'd rather be 30 minutes early and get paid for the time I don't fly than working 5 times as hard to get 10 minutes of extra pay. Now, if weather is involved and it looks like we're gonna be real early, I'll pull it back to save some gas, but not just for the sake of a few extra bucks.

What bird has a min speed of .74? Youre saying you will stall below .74??

And if it is your min speed then why is it so insulting to you to be asked to fly .70? Unable is the word that comes to mind.

The Atlantis, duh...

An MD-11. At altitude, even the A321 can't slow to .74.

321 is a pretty large bird.... same wing as the 320?

Would make sense why it wouldn't be able to get slow at altitude.

CRJ-700/900 above F350. And yes, below .74 you get so far below the power curve, you need to go to climb power to accelerate above .74. Flying at .70 puts you at or below min safe speed at typical operating weights.

I'm glad your "real airliner with engines below the wings" can go that slow...

Wow, you're a tad hostile aren't ya.

Fantastic reaction to a simple question.

Also, your little comment implies I fly at republic, which I do not.

You can go back to harassing everyone as you see fit from behind your laptop good sir.

So long as you cruise above FL290 you're burning more fuel per leg at .64 than at LRC.