DAL4EVER

That's why I feel that we've been good soldiers, stormed Iwo Jima and gave it back to the generals. Now, will the generals make airfields that lead to victory or will they just abandon the island we gave them. In short, we've given mgt. every tool they need now to go achieve air supremacy. The routes, the planes, networks, etc. The ball is in their court now. But come 2012, I want what's mine...........................

Free Bird

The company knows what we want. The Co. is simply trying to figure what to take from us in exchange for what we want. My guess is the next contract will have some good #'s on it. They're probably going to go for scope in exchange. Just a guess.

DAL4EVER

That's why I like oil at $80-90 barrel. They make money and it makes the RJ to costly to operate with any type of profits. More flying comes to us and the RJ issue is worked out on its own. Our biggest issue is the world economy. Particularly the economies of some of the up and coming countries we are serving. Hiccups and slowdowns for them will hit them much harder than an equivalent slowdown here. A large drop in demand for the international product would be disastrous for us.

Wasatch Phantom

I realize this is a rotten thing to say, but I have very little (if any) sympathy for the RJ world.

I'd like to see 'em all turned into beer cans!

DAL4EVER

Nothing rotten at all. RJ pilots should want that too. That means more mainline jobs at mainline pay, trip and duty rigs, scheduling, etc.

Bucking Bar

Sorry, but that is incorrect. The new third generation of these aircraft have better numbers than the DC9 and MD88. Higher fuel prices drive flying towards the CRJ700's, 900's and E170's & 175's.

It is what it is. Look at Aviation Daily's 2007 numbers published by Aviation Week and Space Technology. It recaps the Bureau of Transportation Statistics numbers. When the 2008 numbers come out, it will show an even greater cost advantage, on a seat mile basis, for modern equipment.

Here's a recap for 2007 in CASM:

DC9 30/40/50:11.1 / 9.5 / 8.8
MD88: 7.5
CRJ700: 7.9
CRJ900 (76 seats): 7.3

Some have been spreading around this theory that oil drives the RJ out of business. It does drive some RJ's out of the market, mostly old 50 seaters from the first airlines that operated the early versions.

Comair CRJ200: 13.4
SkyWest CRJ200: 10.0

But note, even SkyWest's old 50 seaters beat DC9 30's and would beat DC9 50's on longer stage lengths.

The DC9 and the MD88's costs are out of line for the mission they accomplish. These airplanes will have to be replaced since they can not compete with 737-800's flying in the 5.6 CASM range.

As the President of Midewest just quoted as he replaced his 717's with E170's

sailingfun

We will get them next time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sailingfun

[quote=Ferd149;454902]Well, sort of. The way I understood the last postions at the "Starbuck's Meeting" (road show in March, and I'm an old guy) was you guys countered the dynamic list with pilots that would be needed to man future 777 options. Those extra pilots threw the ratio off and put appx 2000 NWA guys under Delta guys that started on May 8th of this year. Who walked away from who is irrelevant, especially now.

The Delta proposal was to use the respective business plans each airline had for future near term growth. NWA agreed to this concept. NWA's committee however failed to model this in advance. Once they saw it translated to a seniority list they did not like what they saw and came back with a counter to what they had already agreed on that was far worse from the Delta side. The whole concept of a dynamic list is a can of worms and one that I would like to avoid. It would certainly help NWA senior pilots but would crush their junior pilots.

Bucking Bar

Sailingfun has it right.

Once the Delta retirements kick in three years after the NWA wave, dynamic would then stink for the NWA guys.

Dynamic would be an unprecedented result from an arbitration panel. Since the two MECs did not agree to it beforehand, it should be a dead issue.

The NWA side will come out of this just fine and enjoy better bidding choices. It will be diffficult to maintain any semblence of status quo for the DL side, but their long term prospects are probably better. My crystal ball says 5 to 9 years to break even. Of course there are a lot of variables still unsolved in this equation.

Boeing's strike vote isn't helping the 787. I see that date is slipping again and may be 2009 for a first flight. Boeing should not have outsourced so much. They designed a great airplane that they can't get built.

We mainline pilots need a more efficient platform to come along. All of the action has been in the < 100 seat market.

DAL4EVER

Hey Bar,

I don't disagree with you on these numbers at all but they hide a major cost that's not factored into these equations, acquisition costs. The RJs I was referring to are the 50 seaters. However, the only RJ that might make money is the 90 seater when oil is above $100 barrel. If you factor in the acquisition costs, lease rates, whatever, you double these numbers. This is where even the MD80s and DC9s depending on HMV issues get compelling. DAL can pick up MD90s right now for around $2 mil apiece. A new 70 seater is around $23 mil. You can get nearly 12 aircraft for the price of one. Post bankruptcy DAL is leasing 757s for nearly 1/4 in some cases as the what they are paying on CRJ700s.

The reason Midwest Express went with the E170s is that there was little to no acquisition cost difference from the B717s. So the CASM really made a difference. With DALs and NWAs fleets of older, possibly paid for aircraft, the cost of acquisition isn't beneficial over the CASM. That is why Bastian has stated they see no massive fleet renewal plan in the next 5-8 years. Its cheaper to maintain what you have than fly something slightly more efficient.

Take me for example, I own a paid for seven year old SUV. It sucks to go to the pump and I can get lured into thinking about a more efficient car but than I think that cost of a new car is $20-30k. That new car may get 10 more miles a gallon than my SUV. Based on what I drive, that would work out to a 30 gallon per month savings. So I'd be saving $120/month with a new car but my payments might be $400. In the end, I'm paying more than $3000/year to get a new more efficient car.

I still believe oil around $90-100/barrel is more beneficial to mainline flying. We will see.