Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-09-2011, 07:37 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,530
05-09-2011, 07:38 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: 7ERA
Posts: 269
05-09-2011, 07:42 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
Interesting fact: The large footprint of the current generation turboprops are what kept them out of DCI despite burning half the fuel of an RJ. A Dash 8 Q 400 needs as much room as a 737-800.
05-09-2011, 07:45 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: 757 Left
Posts: 1,306
Anyone know the status on winglet mods? Seems like they have slowed almost to a halt, at least for the 757. Maybe the -ERs are getting them instead? I know there's out of service time but with fuel where it is I would think they'd want the fleet done yesterday.
05-09-2011, 08:04 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: "Prof" button manipulator
Posts: 1,685
I'd have to agree with B-Bar on this one. I've seen 73's doing the North routes, similar in comparison to what the 319/320 used to do. (Don't know, could just be seasonal work shift.) Even Bismarck, N.D., of all places, now has a 73 operating once a day instead of an Airbus. Most of the winter is covered with only RJ's.
I'm not advocating an ATL 320 base, not in my job description to figure those puzzles out, but sure would like to see another 600 new faces on property.
Flight attendants too!!
GJ
05-09-2011, 08:34 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Don't forget, CAPEX, is CAPEX. The acquisition of the MD90's was only about half the expense of getting them into service. They are much larger units of capacity at a time when we are pulling down capacity. We need to keep revenue per seat mile UP, not only for our bottom line, but to improve market perceptions of our network's pricing power. Replacing DC9's with 50% more capacity in markets will result in RASM reductions as we cut prices to fill seats.
We need something in the sweet spot of 100 to 130 pax with a 100 seat cost footprint. The E175 is a lot closer to meeting that need than an MD90, with the added benefit of outsourcing the CAPEX off our balance sheet. Wall St. seems to think anything outsourced is cheaper, regardless of whether it is true or not. (one unused resource available to ALPA is running and publishing our own analysis of the costs of outsourced flying and changing perceptions that we're just too darned expensive to perform the work we perform)
Hence the reason they keep saying "we hate RJ's" but keep signing contracts for more of the "RJ's" that offer mainline type amenities.
We need something in the sweet spot of 100 to 130 pax with a 100 seat cost footprint. The E175 is a lot closer to meeting that need than an MD90, with the added benefit of outsourcing the CAPEX off our balance sheet. Wall St. seems to think anything outsourced is cheaper, regardless of whether it is true or not. (one unused resource available to ALPA is running and publishing our own analysis of the costs of outsourced flying and changing perceptions that we're just too darned expensive to perform the work we perform)
Hence the reason they keep saying "we hate RJ's" but keep signing contracts for more of the "RJ's" that offer mainline type amenities.
Aircraft that are running about 10 mil a copy to get on line are still far cheaper than a 170/75.
I see the added RJ contracts as two fold. One, they want the lift for LGA, and two it is replacing the DC-9's. If they opt to keep the 9's then it is good for everyone. DAL is still taking these MD-90's and still moding them. Of course some of the higher configured 90's has not been as warmly received by our passengers.
If you look at our passengers carried, and our elasticity to our pricing, you will see that we are doing quite well. Load Factor dropped an that is indicative of adding too much capacity too quick, but I venture to bet, that the modeling for this fall is not as precise as our executives are letting the financial world think. Our demand is high, and our ticket prices are still at the support level. Until that changes, I bet we are in a wait and see mode. We will pull down if needed, but opt out and rather quickly if there appears to moderate support for the lift.
I will say it has been nice having a few seats open to non-rev around on. It has been a welcomed change. (on this note also realize that slight over capacity is probably preferred to the penalties the US Government just levied on the airlines for involuntarily denied boardings)
05-09-2011, 10:25 AM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Same with the A330.
Remember the pulled half of the 767-400 time out of ATL... then replaced that with flying done by other bases. The seniority backslide since that in ATL has been brutal.
05-09-2011, 10:33 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
It would just be opening a base there with the amount of bus flying that already passes through. I assume "time" would be pulled from MEM and/or DTW and/or MSP.
Same with the A330.
Remember the pulled half of the 767-400 time out of ATL... then replaced that with flying done by other bases. The seniority backslide since that in ATL has been brutal.
Same with the A330.
Remember the pulled half of the 767-400 time out of ATL... then replaced that with flying done by other bases. The seniority backslide since that in ATL has been brutal.
05-09-2011, 11:01 AM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Anybody seen Carl? Maybe this will pull him out of the woodwork:
05-09-2011, 11:26 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I think Carl is at home debating taking the early out.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
