Based on the CEO's comment that 15-20% growth annually has and will be acceptable, and that they are still looking at the future of the 319, my guess is a combination of aircraft deferrals with extensions of the 319 leases. A net gain of zero. Pure, wild speculation on my part!!

 

It sounded to me like they are evaluating gauge more than overall numbers. With a switch to smaller market flying and shorter stage lengths their might not be a need for so many 321s and Neos. They could be looking at deferring some of those and keeping the 319s. I would imagine the lease payment on the used 19s would be far lower than new aircraft.

 

focusing on improving the product and getting focusing on customer service is fantastic news. Slow growth some to get our ****** together is wonderful for the long term viability of this place. I believe this business model won't change very much, and shouldn't but offering cheap fares doesn't have to equate to crap service. I don't think we are gonna be going all allegiant like, and start hitting up spots Like Fargo and Des Moines.. but sounds like places Like MEM, CVG, BNA, OKC, SDF could be the places we see more of than some of the bigger cities.. I was happy with the call overall.. I think noticeable changes are coming..

 

That would make sense, and I commend you for your logic (a rarity on APF). That said, there is a possible added cost to deferring deliveries vs. returning a leased aircraft. Given that Bob is interested in smaller markets, is it more beneficial to have the lower CASM associated with a 320 vs. a 319 vs having a higher load factor?? (I honestly don't have an answer, just thinking rhetorically.)

 

I agree overall, but the cities you mentioned I wouldn't consider small, more like medium. Bob specifically referenced small.. Any ideas? I guess it's all in the eyes of e beholder....

 

He mentioned small to medium.. Whats small and whats medium is up for interpretation of course. I would consider a Dayton small, and a Columbus medium. who knows. But I would consider all the ones i already mentioned with the likes of IND and CMH and cities that size to be prime targets. If you're a family of four in Indianapolis that lives on say, teachers salaries, and wanna take the family to disney world once a year flights on Delta and United thru ATL/ORD could be quite cost prohibitive. I think we could operate in cities like that without massive competition from the big guys and appeal to a market of folks who would love to go to Vegas, or Cancun, or Florida for cheap..
OKC
CMH
LIT
CVG
SDF
IND
BHM
just in my opinion some cities that could offer some potential without going Head to head with the Likes of AA in DFW for example.. I don't suspect well see drastic changes and pullouts from major cities…but just a gradual shift to such places I've listed. All speculation.. but it surprised me just how many times route structure was mentioned

 

He mentioned small Midwest cities to florida. I don't know but it sounded to me like we are going to become more like Allegiant.

 

And this is what has me scratching my head. If this was their alternate plan, what was the original?? The aforementioned cities I have been surprised we don't serve for vacation destinations (LAS, MCO, FLL, etc...), though I'd add STL, RDU & BNA to your list...

 

Does that mean we need to start brushing up on our SE work?

 

Quite honestly, who gives a flying fukc?

Keep your head in the game boys. We shouldn't care if we fly to LAX, ORD, ATL, or BNA, FAR, and BFE.

The plane goes wherever they want it to go and we are going to fly it there. We need to focus on how to make as much as we possibly can providing that service. We also need to make sure it's us providing the service and not code shared on say frontier or Allegiant. That's SCOPE for those not from a previous airline.

The company is going to do whatever they need to do to make as much money as possible and we need to do the same. Who cares to speculate about route structure. Big picture guys!!