Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
04-12-2010, 10:30 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
The reason is that most of the numbers posted here are far from reality. There are so many issues with older airframes it just does not make sense to keep them for most airlines. In fact the smaller airlines that decided to go with new equipment have either done well or turned around such as Spirit and Jet Blue as examples of doing well and a turn around.
You have to deal with noise and slot issues, aging airframe inspections, increased overall maintenance costs before you even talk about fuel.
If you have a jet that is 30 percent more efficient on fuel the overall savings is enormous at 80 dollars a barrel and can easily pay the lease payment and more each month.
You have to deal with noise and slot issues, aging airframe inspections, increased overall maintenance costs before you even talk about fuel.
If you have a jet that is 30 percent more efficient on fuel the overall savings is enormous at 80 dollars a barrel and can easily pay the lease payment and more each month.
I think fuel prices would have to come up more than double to get a CASM of new 738 with a lower fuel burn (144gph) but with a lease to beat out a lowly already owned 88 if you only look at fuel and the 737s lease.
Like I said I don't have the numbers but what, we pay $2.17/gal based on $75bb oil (?).
On a 500nm trip each plane takes 1.1 hours with the 88 burning 8586lbs an hour and 738 burning 7611lbs. If each plane did a super healthy 360 legs per month or 396 hours a month then you're looking at a 738 costing $112K less per month in fuel vs the 88. The numbers came out to be $991K for the 88 and $878.6K for the 73.
But tack on a lease on a $40M 738, which if the rough estimate numbers I was given for large corporate jets of .1% the price per month is right, then you're looking at an extra $400k tacked on. So to get a CASM based on a 88 with a soon to be 150 seats vs a 737 with 160 seats the 738 takes the 88 at a 225% increase in fuel or what, $168bb?
That doesn't include maintenance which is according to ATW $332/hr for the 88 but I have no idea about the 737.
All that to say, I don't know if that ^^^ is right and of course thats not looking at all of the costs like you said not to mention flightdeck and in-flight costs, nextgen avionics upgrades, and the 737s range flexibility. I'm just getting to the point that leases are pretty darn expensive and how many MD88s could you buy right now for the cost of 1 EMB-175 lease or 738 lease? If you were Allgeiant you just bought MD80s for $4M total, thats probably 10 airplanes vs 1 737.
Hence I think they'll be here for a long time and thus the reason the 9-50, and New
, is sticking around. The problem at Delta is management simply does not want a 100 seat aircraft. Its not coming and there wont be a purchase regardless of what we do with scope. They will mention it and really start to dangle it out there in the 2012 contract but in the end just like every other time the last 20 years the airframes wont show up.
Last edited by forgot to bid; 04-12-2010 at 10:41 PM.
04-12-2010, 10:31 PM
Underboob King
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Guppy Commander
Posts: 4,412
its depressing to look at the stats on the crystal ball with it set on age 60 vs 65. Oh well, hopefully some growth will boost the numbers along with the continuation of guys retiring at 60 to make up for it.
04-12-2010, 10:35 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
Yeah. I looked at one graph with it at 65 and said forget that and set them all to 62.
04-12-2010, 10:38 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
Oh wow! I just looked at 60! 
04-12-2010, 10:45 PM
Underboob King
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Guppy Commander
Posts: 4,412
04-13-2010, 12:50 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: 7ERB
Posts: 2,039
Heard, again, from a little birdie, that DAL will start HIRING in late summer...400 pilots..
Any solid truth to this,or is it still a sliding statement?
Have a great week..
TYG
Any solid truth to this,or is it still a sliding statement?
Have a great week..
TYG
04-13-2010, 02:29 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
04-13-2010, 02:30 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
That should be "officially" announced within four weeks. That is the time line they have just stated. (Go, no-go)
04-13-2010, 02:34 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
04-13-2010, 02:44 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I have a question for Delta S pilots.
Why is it that when a union meeting reveals more domestic and international codeshare, S pilots get excited. For example, my good buddy at SWA couldn't be happier about parting ways with Westjet, yet union reps at Delta uphold codeshare as the holy grail of a business plan? Seriously guys, when does it benefit a pilots career to have another carrier, flying like equipment on former routes? If it were that great of a business model why do the most profitable airlines operate without RJ fleets or codeshare?
Maybe I am missing something here, but it seems the codeshare with Alaska, a higher cost per seat mile airline, is not the ultimate business solution. It only results in pilots getting kicked further east and bumping more junior pilots to lesser paid equipment. The company has been given entirely too much leeway on scope relief and I am one too few waiving the *** flag? Sure airlines like AA have furloughed thousands, but imagine if they weren't capped at 50 70-seat jets, AA would be a brand name only with 6,000 pilots. I hope our union figures this out before we all end up on the street pulling gear for another company going head to head with the Latest and Greatest Codeshare Giant.
Why is it that when a union meeting reveals more domestic and international codeshare, S pilots get excited. For example, my good buddy at SWA couldn't be happier about parting ways with Westjet, yet union reps at Delta uphold codeshare as the holy grail of a business plan? Seriously guys, when does it benefit a pilots career to have another carrier, flying like equipment on former routes? If it were that great of a business model why do the most profitable airlines operate without RJ fleets or codeshare?
Maybe I am missing something here, but it seems the codeshare with Alaska, a higher cost per seat mile airline, is not the ultimate business solution. It only results in pilots getting kicked further east and bumping more junior pilots to lesser paid equipment. The company has been given entirely too much leeway on scope relief and I am one too few waiving the *** flag? Sure airlines like AA have furloughed thousands, but imagine if they weren't capped at 50 70-seat jets, AA would be a brand name only with 6,000 pilots. I hope our union figures this out before we all end up on the street pulling gear for another company going head to head with the Latest and Greatest Codeshare Giant.
It really is a short term solution, imo, until we get our debt paid down. At that time we need to decide if we are going to acquire them or buy our own jets.
Economically speaking, if we were to enter these markets too, the RASM goes though the floor and everyone loses money. A code allows revenue gained from each seat sold, less competition, and control over how it is done.
Now I agree, we as the pilots should be negotiating some percentage of the revenue from each code share, or JV deal.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
