Will 717s also go by 2017?

The original order was 100/100. We converted 25 to firm + added 25 more options in Apr '21. In August '21 we converted 30 options. 70 options remain.
https://news.delta.com/delta-continu...irbus-a321neos

Another great resource is the quarterly 10Q report..and the annual 10k report. Shows breakdowns of fleet, outstanding orders, and delivery schedule by year.

https://ir.delta.com/financials/default.aspx

absolutely, no chance thats still here. 777's tomorrow.

And theyre bringing back the Avro, only jet with 5 apus

Appreciate the math by Saturn, honestly- facts into a conversation is nice to see; but the 717’s will likely be gone too by the lack of ATSB-out. (Roughly 81 airframes as I heard last)….Last I heard (leaving the fleet) it was more to retrofit than the cost of the jet (yes, we lease them, through BA). Last seen, 2030 is the latest next gen requirement, BUT the last deadline was published 2021 (COVID extension).. They burn a lot of gas, but are flown by mainline and from 5 years on it,(normally reliable), loved the darn thing.

4% growth seems to be a great shareholder report. Concerns lie in continued passenger growth, WB delivery ability, TOP ability (mainly parts)…another black swan, age 67, and what the regionals will be? If existing at all? Still need pilots. I’m against age 67, but the point remains that growth will need pilots. A 2 year change won’t change that fact and TBH, everyone I talk to has an ailment lined up for disability payments if 65 passes (I’m a NB guy). Common story- pension lost, “I’m getting mine..” yea, still a no on my end.



So where is the AE?

sorry for the typo

That's a good point. The 4% number was just thrown out mid-sentence in the middle of an answer about how big our pilot hiring pool is. The context was entirely around the number of pilots required, so I just assumed that's what they were referring to. In that scenario, 'growth' pilots would be about 600-700/yr, on top of retirement replacement of 400-500/yr, so that gets us pretty close to their 1300/yr number.

I also think that they're planning for best case scenario here. It'd be a lot easier to slow or stop hiring if something happens and the company doesn't reach targets than having to spool it up and hire more than planned if they find they need it. Better to overshoot, methinks.

Over the years from townhalls to earnings calls, I've heard people from network, flight ops, even Ed and Glen talk about growing at anywhere from 3-5%. Depending on whose talking, its been revenue or seats. But the basis is, the US and world economy grows. Populations grow. The demand, or per capita usage of air travel continues to grow over time. Our 4% growth is more or less just retaining our share of the airline industry pie. If we stay flat in revenue or seats... we actually lose market share. So 4% growth is really just a conservative defualt rate of growth to index future network plans.

Dude…this is APC! No admitting you were mistaken! Double down and reattack!

But seriously, no worries. It’s good to hash out history and make sure it’s accurate for the lurkers.

My math in public should always be doubted, so thanks for the corrections and source links.

In my opinion, the regional jet never made money on its own. Look around - how many pure RJ operators are there in the United States? They succeeded because their cost was buried in the network effect.

The RJ claim to fame was being available in large numbers right around 9/11 when airlines decided their capacity was too much. Also, in the late 90s there was slew of turboprop accidents that soured the view of the TP (I flew the ATR and liked it, so it's not turboprop hating) so the RJ was seen as a "safer" solution often using a jet bridge that provided strong revenue. Well - that's until SWA decided to expand after 9/11 and the majors shrank. Suddenly it became much cheaper to drive from Evansville, IN (for example) to Indy and take SW than to take an RJ and connect in a hub.

So suddenly the RJ became a high cost jet that was competing against SW. Airlines had to lower prices to match SWA on those routes, and any increased yield from the RJ (by going from a 100 seat DC9 to a 50 seat RJ) evaporated.

I don't think the major airlines ever broke out the profit/loss of their RJ operators or the RJ operation - I could be wrong though.

I'm glad if we can take the high cost RJ flying an bring it in house with a A220 or 717 - movement for a fair bit of the seniority list and we can make even more profit.