Wondering About the NWA/DAL SLI?

[Helos2Galaxy]

the DC-9 fleet will be reduced from 94 aircraft at the start of 2008 to 61 aircraft (20 DC9-30s and 41 DC9-40s/50s) by year-end..

 

[General Lee]

the DC-9 fleet will be reduced from 94 aircraft at the start of 2008 to 61 aircraft (20 DC9-30s and 41 DC9-40s/50s) by year-end..

I think they had figured on losing about 30 DC9-30s anyway, and now it will be an additional 7 leaving? Sounds like Delta or NWA management may want the others (61 above) to still fly for Delta. If they needed to park them, they would do it now.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Fly4hire]

GL,

I think this is the same or less than previously announced - had heard as low as 58 at one point.

Any news on what DAL is parking as a result of the revised biz plan?

There was a rumor of 300 furloughs per side floating around.....

 

[Schwanker]

Compare today's letter with April's--not too much more

This was cut/pasted from the NWA board-interesting



While today's announcement of additional capacity and fleet reductions is somewhat vague, a quick comparison with what has already been announced leads me to conclude that the incremental reductions are small. I have pasted excerpts from today's press release and Doug's letter below (in boldface) with excerpts from April's announcement below for comparison purposes.

In response to the extraordinary fuel cost increases, Northwest will reduce its mainline capacity (domestic and international) in the fourth quarter of 2008 by 8.5% - 9.5% versus the fourth quarter of 2007. This includes the reductions previously announced in April.

In September, after peak summer travel concludes, Northwest will reduce its scheduled domestic system capacity by approximately five percent versus the 2008 business plan.

(Not an apples to apples comparison because I believe that the 2008 business plan called for a small increase in 4th quarter ASMs year over year)

As a result of the reduced capacity, Northwest is removing a combination of 14 B757s and Airbus narrowbody aircraft from the fleet.

In addition, the DC-9 fleet will be reduced from 94 aircraft at the start of 2008 to 61 aircraft (20 DC9-30s and 41 DC9-40s/50s) by year-end.

As a result of the five percent domestic capacity reduction from planned levels, Northwest will remove an additional 15 to 20 aircraft from service. Two DC9s will be removed in June and the remainder in the fall to coincide with the planned schedule reductions, bringing the total DC9 fleet to 61 aircraft year-end. The overall fleet reductions include approximately 10 DC9s, and the balance being a mix of Boeing 757s and Airbus A320s and A319s.

(No incremental change in the DC-9 fleet and somewhere between 4 and 9 A-319/320 and 757 reductions)

Northwest also accelerated the retirement of three freighter aircraft from its cargo operation.

Northwest Cargo is also accelerating the planned retirement of the three oldest, least-fuel efficient freighter aircraft.

(No incremental change in freighters)

As part of our disciplined fiscal approach, we are closely managing our capital expenditures, having reduced planned non-aircraft cap-ex spending in 2008 from $255 million planned to $150 million as our new target.

Northwest will reduce non-aircraft capital expenditures for 2008 by approximately $100 million. The airline now intends to invest $150 million in non-aircraft capital expenditures in 2008.

(Nothing new here)

Although the announcement of more reductions is not good news I am surprised (and relieved) that it wasn't much worse.



Schwanker

 

[General Lee]

GL,

I think this is the same or less than previously announced - had heard as low as 58 at one point.

Any news on what DAL is parking as a result of the revised biz plan?

There was a rumor of 300 furloughs per side floating around.....

What would we park when we are still getting planes? We would have to park 50 MD88s, and I don't see that. 6 777LRs at 38 pilots per plane, plus 6 737-700s this year (and another 4 next year for 10 total) equals a plus 250-300 pilots. So, if we were to furlough 300 pilots over here, we would have to park the equivalent of 600 pilots worth of planes. That would equal 600 co-pilots worth of planes. I still can't see that unless we had a MASS parking, and we need the MD88s in ATL, the Shuttle, etc...


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Schwanker]

What would we park when we are still getting planes? We would have to park 50 MD88s, and I don't see that. 6 777LRs at 38 pilots per plane, plus 6 737-700s this year (and another 4 next year for 10 total) equals a plus 250-300 pilots. So, if we were to furlough 300 pilots over here, we would have to park the equivalent of 600 pilots worth of planes. That would equal 600 co-pilots worth of planes. I still can't see that unless we had a MASS parking, and we need the MD88s in ATL, the Shuttle, etc...


Bye Bye--General Lee

Aren't you going to park all those old 767s that only pay 757 rates? I'm mean those things are old...old. I'm sure they're going to park all those old 767s soon! We better find out what they're going to do with those old 767s!

OK, now I'm done sounding like GL!

Schwanker

 

[General Lee]

This was cut/pasted from the NWA board-interesting



While today's announcement of additional capacity and fleet reductions is somewhat vague, a quick comparison with what has already been announced leads me to conclude that the incremental reductions are small. I have pasted excerpts from today's press release and Doug's letter below (in boldface) with excerpts from April's announcement below for comparison purposes.

In response to the extraordinary fuel cost increases, Northwest will reduce its mainline capacity (domestic and international) in the fourth quarter of 2008 by 8.5% - 9.5% versus the fourth quarter of 2007. This includes the reductions previously announced in April.

In September, after peak summer travel concludes, Northwest will reduce its scheduled domestic system capacity by approximately five percent versus the 2008 business plan.

(Not an apples to apples comparison because I believe that the 2008 business plan called for a small increase in 4th quarter ASMs year over year)

As a result of the reduced capacity, Northwest is removing a combination of 14 B757s and Airbus narrowbody aircraft from the fleet.

In addition, the DC-9 fleet will be reduced from 94 aircraft at the start of 2008 to 61 aircraft (20 DC9-30s and 41 DC9-40s/50s) by year-end.

As a result of the five percent domestic capacity reduction from planned levels, Northwest will remove an additional 15 to 20 aircraft from service. Two DC9s will be removed in June and the remainder in the fall to coincide with the planned schedule reductions, bringing the total DC9 fleet to 61 aircraft year-end. The overall fleet reductions include approximately 10 DC9s, and the balance being a mix of Boeing 757s and Airbus A320s and A319s.

(No incremental change in the DC-9 fleet and somewhere between 4 and 9 A-319/320 and 757 reductions)

Northwest also accelerated the retirement of three freighter aircraft from its cargo operation.

Northwest Cargo is also accelerating the planned retirement of the three oldest, least-fuel efficient freighter aircraft.

(No incremental change in freighters)

As part of our disciplined fiscal approach, we are closely managing our capital expenditures, having reduced planned non-aircraft cap-ex spending in 2008 from $255 million planned to $150 million as our new target.

Northwest will reduce non-aircraft capital expenditures for 2008 by approximately $100 million. The airline now intends to invest $150 million in non-aircraft capital expenditures in 2008.

(Nothing new here)

Although the announcement of more reductions is not good news I am surprised (and relieved) that it wasn't much worse.



Schwanker

What I am surprised about this is the number of DC9s remaining at the end of the year. (61) If DL maangement or NWA management wanted to do a MASS retirement of planes like UAL and CAL, they would have announced it NOW. We know that the DC9s will go away sooner than later, but it APPEARS now that they will not go away in the near future. Interesting, and hopefully that will stick for awhile. What we don't want is for the DC9s to all get parked a week after our SLI is finished.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[General Lee]

Aren't you going to park all those old 767s that only pay 757 rates? I'm mean those things are old...old. I'm sure they're going to park all those old 767s soon! We better find out what they're going to do with those old 767s!

OK, now I'm done sounding like GL!

Schwanker

Classic! And, a lot of the 767s are really not that old, and they are the ER version, which is needed and valuable. Thanks for sounding like me, though.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Schwanker]

What I am surprised about this is the number of DC9s remaining at the end of the year. (61) If DL maangement or NWA management wanted to do a MASS retirement of planes like UAL and CAL, they would have announced it NOW. We know that the DC9s will go away sooner than later, but it APPEARS now that they will not go away in the near future. Interesting, and hopefully that will stick for awhile. What we don't want is for the DC9s to all get parked a week after our SLI is finished.


Bye Bye--General Lee

The DC-9 fleet plan has remained relatively intact for the last 10 years. You're right, now would be the time if it was in the works. You never know, they could be left around as an accumulator to fill any capacity voids as all the network schedules get shuffled.

Schwanker

 

[General Lee]

The DC-9 fleet plan has remained relatively intact for the last 10 years. You're right, now would be the time if it was in the works. You never know, they could be left around as an accumulator to fill any capacity voids as all the network schedules get shuffled.

Schwanker

Fingers crossed! And, you are right, they could fill in the gaps on certain routes....And we do need a group of pilots to fill in the bottom of the SLI.......I keed, I keed, right? Right?



Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[FDJ2]

Classic! And, a lot of the 767s are really not that old, and they are the ER version, which is needed and valuable. Thanks for sounding like me, though.


Bye Bye--General Lee

The average age of the 767 fleet is 12 years, the ERs slightly younger, while certainly not brand spanking new, they aren't old either.

 

[nwaredtail]

The average age of the 767 fleet is 12 years, the ERs slightly younger, while certainly not brand spanking new, they aren't old either.

Bullsh#t, 12 years old, GMAFB

 

[Noserider76]

Bullsh#t, 12 years old, GMAFB

No bullsh#t and no FB for you. 12 years old it is. 80 of the the 101 are 767-300ERs and 767-400ERs which are all relatively new (5-15 years old). The other 21 are older (about 20 years) non-ETOPs domestic airplanes (for now) that seat 262 pax in the domestic configuration.

 

[nwaredtail]

No bullsh#t and no FB for you. 12 years old it is. 80 of the the 101 are 767-300ERs and 767-400ERs which are all relatively new (5-15 years old). The other 21 are older (about 20 years) non-ETOPs domestic airplanes (for now) that seat 262 pax in the domestic configuration.

You guys are so full of crap. The average age is 12.3 years. Get your numbers straight.

 

[NAAPilot]

Respectively, isn't an MD88/MD80 basically just a DC9-80? Obviously the DC9 isn't what we would call economical in today's environment, but how much more efficient is the MD80 series? Maybe NWA's lack of lease payments on the DC9's makes up for the disparity. Seems to me the MD88's have a good a chance of any of being phased out due to the ridiculous price of oil.
Not taking any sides at all here, just some honest thoughts and questions...

 

[FDJ2]

You guys are so full of crap. The average age is 12.3 years. Get your numbers straight.

You got us, we were off by approximately 4 months, congratulations. At least you did some research.

How old is your 747-400 fleet, 200 fleet and A320 fleet?

 

[General Lee]

Respectively, isn't an MD88/MD80 basically just a DC9-80? Obviously the DC9 isn't what we would call economical in today's environment, but how much more efficient is the MD80 series? Maybe NWA's lack of lease payments on the DC9's makes up for the disparity. Seems to me the MD88's have a good a chance of any of being phased out due to the ridiculous price of oil.
Not taking any sides at all here, just some honest thoughts and questions...

The MD88 is the "advanced" version of the MD80, with FMS and autothrottle (both not in DC9s), and that saves fuel. (compared to Manual) The MD88 lease payments were close to $280,000 a month prior to our BK, and are now supposedly $80,000 a month. The DC9-50 I think carries 124 pax, whereas the MD88 carries 146. So, the MD88 carries more pax (lower CASM), has systems that can accurately and precisely burn the correct amount of fuel in different phases of flight, saving money on high gas, and the chicks dig them better than the -9s. (from what I have heard anyway, I am staying with true Boeings)

We also have MD90s, which have larger engines that are quieter I believe (SNA ops), can handle "hot and high" better, and have more range. There are a lot of those on the open market too, including the 20 I have stated that we may be looking at still from Saudia........you never know.....


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[FBN0223]

You got us, we were off by approximately 4 months, congratulations. At least you did some research.

How old is your 747-400 fleet, 200 fleet and A320 fleet?

Just guessing but I'd say B747-400....18 years; B747-200....25 years; A320/319....7 years.

My estimates. Probably way off.

 

[nwaredtail]

You got us, we were off by approximately 4 months, congratulations. At least you did some research.

How old is your 747-400 fleet, 200 fleet and A320 fleet?

320=13.5 years, 319=6.2 years, average 747 (all)=19.6 years. Entire fleet =11.5

looks like we have a younger fleet than the airline we're saving.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

From what the guys are saying in route planning the 9's are coming to ATL. They are to take over the 50,70 and 90 routes. I just hope that we can keep the 757's on property. Even at 25 years old it is still an awesome machine.

 

[FBN0223]

Yeah, today's reduction announcement was really nothing new except for a number of B757s being placed on the chopping block. It's definitely our most versatile aircraft at NWA. It flies Intra-Asia, Hawaii, Domestic and Europe. So what's up with this move?

 

[FDJ2]

Yeah, today's reduction announcement was really nothing new except for a number of B757s being placed on the chopping block. It's definitely our most versatile aircraft at NWA. It flies Intra-Asia, Hawaii, Domestic and Europe. So what's up with this move?

Probably coming up on a heavy check. Save the cash, park the plane and increase rasm.

Overall, in line with what everyone else is doing.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Respectively, isn't an MD88/MD80 basically just a DC9-80? Obviously the DC9 isn't what we would call economical in today's environment, but how much more efficient is the MD80 series?

About 13 to 15% better than the DC9-50. The operating costs, including leases, are nearly the same.

Candidly, I think the MD88's are a target after the DC9's are eliminated. The 757 costs about the same to operate and the 737-800 costs less.

Of course, there are always rumors of MD90's from around the World. That would make a nice, training free and cap ex cheap replacement.

 

[Superpilot92]

I think the positive side of this is that it wasn't any bigger. It really was just a small adjustment to the original reduction announcement. I honestly thought we were going down to 55 dc9s so being that 61 is a higher number thats a plus i suppose. Looks like the -9 will be around to replace some regional jets.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Looks like the -9 will be around to replace some regional jets.

Not according to your Finance guy. RJ ops growing by more than 50%.

What happened to your scope that said RJ's would be parked if mainline cuts were made? Did your MEC know about this before sending the letter?

But it said regional flying would rise by as much as 55 percent as it adds new 76-seat jets. Chief Financial Officer Dave Davis said the smaller jets cost about 30 percent less to operate because of lower labor and fuel expenses, even after making the debt payments.

 

[JoeMerchant]

Not according to your Finance guy. RJ ops growing by more than 50%.

What happened to your scope that said RJ's would be parked if mainline cuts were made? Did your MEC know about this before sending the letter?

But it said regional flying would rise by as much as 55 percent as it adds new 76-seat jets. Chief Financial Officer Dave Davis said the smaller jets cost about 30 percent less to operate because of lower labor and fuel expenses, even after making the debt payments.

The lower labor costs are due to the low longevity of the Compass employees.....This is the new "B scale" or even "C scale".....We are going to start these new "airlines" within the mainline that requires employees to start their longevity over again....like Compass...

 

[737 Pylt]

320=13.5 years, 319=6.2 years, average 747 (all)=19.6 years. Entire fleet =11.5

looks like we have a younger fleet than the airline we're saving.

Keep telling yourself that......I'm sure it helps you out in the other areas which you lack!

737

 

[FBN0223]

In my view Compass was the number one reason to vote down the last CBA. There are some real "slap in the face" issues for junior NWA pilots flowing down to Compass if that were to happen. 1) A ten year DC-9 FO at NWA would start at second year CA pay at Compass(around 60/hr). 2) During a NWA pilot's employment at Compass, no longevity is accrued at NWA.

All the more reason to place all of these EMB175 jets and pilots on to the NWA/DL mainline and recapture that flying.

 

[JoeMerchant]

In my view Compass was the number one reason to vote down the last CBA. There are some real "slap in the face" issues for junior NWA pilots flowing down to Compass if that were to happen. 1) A ten year DC-9 FO at NWA would start at second year CA pay at Compass(around 60/hr). 2) During a NWA pilot's employment at Compass, no longevity is accrued at NWA.

All the more reason to place all of these EMB175 jets and pilots on to the NWA/DL mainline and recapture that flying.

It was a mainline agreement....But it was at a "C scale"....This is why I cringe when I hear how much greater it would be to get this flying on the "mainline".....For reasons of securing financing for the aircraft...The rates for this flying combined with the longevity issue make these agreements the new "low" mark....Undercutting current regional rates.....

This quagmire was a result of ignoring the issue for too many years....

 

[FBN0223]

To be more specific, mainline pay with mainline longevity and mainline seniority. And I cringe when I see EMB175s flying DC-9 and A320 routes