NWA/DAL negotiations update

[Jmoney]

Nice....

I don't think you are right. Our main problem at Delta right now is too many RJs, period. We already dumped our unprofitable fleets, consisting of 737-200s, 737-300s, and 767-200s. What we have today is a pretty efficient fleet, fitting almost every niche, except a 100 seater. Our smallest plane (not including the new 737-700s we will start getting in July) currently is the MD88, and they are more advanced than any MD80 out there, and have low lease rates thanks to BK.

NWA, on the otherhand, has a 100 seater that could be used on some ATL routes, and the only liability I see over there is the older 742s, which even UPS dumped. Could our management dump the DC9s? Sure, but they have said they would like a 100 seater, and we can't get our hands on any right now---even E190s are out of reach for awhile. The 742s could be replaced with NWA 744s eventually, which are proven to be better cargo haulers----even World Airways and Kalitta have gotten a couple recently. The smaller hubs that could take a hit are not very "mainline intensive"---meaning their possible closures would not be a very large hit on mainline (DL has 56 daily mainline flights out of CVG---that's it, MEM is similar). The other hubs will probably stay about the same size, with LAX growing. I don't see much downsizing, instead with an emphasis on growing the INTL side and reducing RJs on the domestic, and maybe even adding some MD90s in a year or so.

Bye Bye--General Lee

An MD-88 is more advanced than an MD-80? REALLY? Damn, you are smart, General!!! Isn't that a bit like saying a turd with peanuts is more advanced than a turd with raisins?

Damn good thing you aren't running the show-IDIOT! Replacing RJs with DC-9s would seem BRILLIANT-if the freaking DC-9 didn't burn more fuel than a 757 and carry only 20 more people than an RJ! You put the "damn" in the phrase "damn fool!"

Maybe they should promote you to upper mgmt. General! You will expedite their slide right back into "BK" (as you like to call it) faster than fecal material thru a goose! Talk about synergies!

-General-you are truly a genetic improbabability... Your mother should really be proud that she was fortunate enough to give rise to the retard of the millenium.... Maybe she should charge for autographs...

 

[~~~^~~~]

JMoney:

The 88 is more advanced. FMC's, authothrottles and more advanced engines are supposed to make a significant difference when compared to M80's.

 

[General Lee]

General:

Steenland's comments are public record. He planned to replace the DC9's and NWA's current fleet plan reflects this.

The E175 and the CRJ900's are very nearly 100 seat aircraft. They are close enough to fit the need and the CRJ900's are at least 8% more efficient on a CASM than any 100 seater out there. ... AND they are pulling some capacity out to increase revenue AND airlines like SkyWest are willing to take on the capital expense of the fleet acquisition AND Delta wants the walk away flexibility in case a really good 100 seater does hit the market in 5 to 10 years.

The 737-700 fits where the CRJ900 is performance limited.

100 seats isn't magic. 76 seats is close enough and a 737-700 is close enough, for now.

If DC9's could be operated profitably, AirTran would still have theirs. But AirTran could not beat MD88's with 9's and Delta can't beat anybody with in any market DC9's. To do so is to ensure an operational loss.

Some of the NWA pilots have realized that the DC9's are going away and think it will have happened by the time the SLI is worked out. I'm hoping they are right.

Hauenstein may not agree with that. But, I can understand where you are going. Regardless, how much does a new CR9 cost with monthly lease rates, only to bring in 76 seats per flight? I think some DC9s will remain to fill in a small niche. We shall see I guess....


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[General Lee]

JMoney:

The 88 is more advanced. FMC's, authothrottles and more advanced engines are supposed to make a significant difference when compared to M80's.

Arguing with JMoney is a complete waste of time since he is incapable of thinking of anything other than toothless ho-bags in Valdosta and Flint. Regardless, I think JMoney has no idea the difference between aircraft anyway. Everytime he follows a C172 into Valdosta, he claims "I have the 727 in sight, I will caution myself on wake turbulence....and I am cleared to land on taxiway Echo...."


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[FBN0223]

Arguing with JMoney is a complete waste of time since he is incapable of thinking of anything other than toothless ho-bags in Valdosta and Flint.

Bye Bye--General Lee

Agreed

 

[Superpilot92]

You will not have a seat lock in a displacement. If you are waiting for a 777, 767, 757 or 737 type, on your ticket, your head work is excellent.

Immediate NWA pilot parity is expected less would not be ratified.

You probably will not find many junior Delta guys who are looking forward to SLI, despite the fact we know it needs to happen. I just hope there is good news hidden in NWA's low fleet utilization numbers.

I know i wont get a seat lock in the event of the a displacement, hence why i am not bidding the bus now. If i get displaced from the -9 i have displacement rights to the bus since people below me are on it. Also after the merger is done if i dont have a seat lock I MIGHT have more flexibility to move to something else. We shall see.

For the SLI, I dont really look forward to it either but It needs to get done so we can move forward regardless of the outcome. Who knows what plane i will be on this time next year

 

[Superpilot92]

JMoney:

The 88 is more advanced. FMC's, authothrottles and more advanced engines are supposed to make a significant difference when compared to M80's.

The DC9 has autothrottles, However we have been *urged* not to use them :bomb:

 

[FmrFreightDog]

The DC9 has autothrottles, However we have been *urged* not to use them :bomb:

Much like we're *urged* not to use Flaps 50.... via a large piece of metal blocking the selection of said feature....

 

[Superpilot92]

Well, I still would like to be Superpilot 92's Captain on that -9. We would have a BLAST in Minot, Flint, and Lansing. Heck, I bet we could "rip the town a new one" in Grand Forks, and watch out Sioux Falls! Me and Super92, we will be KICKIN some Arse!!!! We'll show YOU---FARGO!


Bye Bye--General Lee

Now that would be funny seeing as i would have to teach you how to use enroute charts and navigate without an FMS again!! Besides how can we rip the town a "new one" if you look like Lurch? You are going to have to pull your own weight out on the town, especially in those places.:beer:

 

[Superpilot92]

Much like we're *urged* not to use Flaps 50.... via a large piece of metal blocking the selection of said feature....

Very much like that, but dont pretend you dont think about it though! :nuts:

 

[JAM-BRO]

Actually, relative seniority by equipment.

By equipment???????? You are either on dope or you are very junior... What's your DOH? 2008...

 

[Monster Buck]

[quote=~~~^~~~

Steenland's comments are public record. He planned to replace the DC9's and NWA's current fleet plan reflects this.

The E175 and the CRJ900's are very nearly 100 seat aircraft. They are close enough to fit the need and the CRJ900's are at least 8% more efficient on a CASM than any 100 seater out there.

100 seats isn't magic. 76 seats is close enough and a 737-700 is close enough, for now.



Huh? If the route needs a 100 seat, using a plane with about 25% less capacity on it from the get go plays real hell on your 8% savings doesn't it. With the current margins, a 76 seat is no where near "close enough" to a 100 seat jet. Maybe ten years ago, but not now. Hence the reason Steenland and NWA were driving hard for the C-series. The plan. They may try to hold market on some routes with a loss on capacity but definately not as a system wide plan of replacing the 9's with 76's.

 

[patrickdc9]

Well, I still would like to be Superpilot 92's Captain on that -9. We would have a BLAST in Minot, Flint, and Lansing. Heck, I bet we could "rip the town a new one" in Grand Forks, and watch out Sioux Falls! Me and Super92, we will be KICKIN some Arse!!!! We'll show YOU---FARGO!


Bye Bye--General Lee

Those Minot, Grand Forks, and Fargo overnights are usually the most fun layovers, and it could potentially be a fun night with the General as captain. Unfortunately the most likely scenario would be me and the flight attendants waiting down in the lobby for the General to show up, only to realize that he never will because he's closed the curtains to his hotel room, stipped down to his underwear, turned on his computer, and logged on to FI.com (his happy place). Meanwhile the flight attendants and I are having a blast at the bowling alley enjoying several $5 pitchers of beer, playing all the games we can for $5 while making fun of the locals and our lame-o captain.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Huh? If the route needs a 100 seat, using a plane with about 25% less capacity on it from the get go plays real hell on your 8% savings doesn't it. With the current margins, a 76 seat is no where near "close enough" to a 100 seat jet.

What part you having a hard time with?

DC9's CASM for 2007 on the -30's was 11.1 cents per seat mile. The -50's had the best numbers at 8.8 cents/mile. The CRJ900's are 7.3 cents/mile. These are total costs, inclusive of acquisition/lease expenses, crews, fuel, etc....

That's even better than Delta's MD88 costs of 7.5 cents per seat mile.

Do you need me to look up NWA's fall and winter quarter 2007 conference calls for Steenland's comments (again ) ?

In actual trip costs, using Compass & Mesaba saves NWA ~ $1,000 a block hour. The 24 seat reduction will take out the family and kids going to Disney before it takes out the salesman on his way to a business meeting on a high yield fare.

If justification exists, Delta will up gauge the route to a 737-700 or 124 seat A319 for 6.1 cents per seat mile.

Either way, an airplane with 11.1 cent CASM can't make money going head to head with against the competition AND SkyWest, Republic and a host of others are happy to buy the airplanes AND have paid cash for code share (reference the ASA asset sale and numerous codeshare sales at US Air) AND Delta is in codeshare contracts in needs out of. They can work out a deal to park 50 seaters in exchange for growth 90 (configured with 76) seaters.

Delta will not chose a 11.1 CASM jet when a 7.3 CASM alternative is readilly available. The company has to make money. They are not nostalgic for old airplanes.

Every DC9 parked should increase marginal profit around $3,500,000.00 a year and yes that is considering RJ acquisition costs. Throw in the loss of longevity and other factors associated with outsourcing and the numbers are probably better.uke:

UNDERSTAND - I don't advocate this, I'm just explaining what the numbers are. The managers have better data and are years ahead of me. I'm just typing for the folks who don't read their own Company's PR.

Doesn't NWA have a displacement bid out?

 

[~~~^~~~]

By equipment???????? You are either on dope or you are very junior... What's your DOH? 2008...

It was a reference to Arbitrator Nicolau's reasoning in Tigers/FedEx and Am West/US Air.

It is highly likely that the precedent of arbitrators crafting awards to maintain the status quo will remain the logic used in future awards.