DAL, Why Vote No???

[ACL65PILOT]

Those 9's will not be parked because of the merger. It will be fuel prices people. That way they can furlough until their hearts content.

 

[Superpilot92]

Those 9's will not be parked because of the merger. It will be fuel prices people. That way they can furlough until their hearts content.

the feed has to be done by something and it wont be 50 seaters. The 50 seaters are on the chopping block. Our scope will limit the number of regional jets so something at Mainline will have to be flown. The -9s will be used until we get a replacement. 2 crjs arent any cheaper to operate than a DC9-40/50.

The feed has to come from somewhere. This is why its so important to make sure that flying is at mainline. IMHO the DC9s will be a filler until OUR replacement is found.

 

[Fly4hire]

Those 9's will not be parked because of the merger. It will be fuel prices people. That way they can furlough until their hearts content.

The DC9-50 is only marginally less fuel efficient than a DC9-80. Factor in the cost of the leases on the Mad Dogs and the DC9 costs less to operate.

It doesn't matter that they are old or lack automation, it's about total cost of ownership vs. the revenue they generate.

If the former NWA DC9's are on the chopping block I'd be real concerned about the DAL DC9-80/88 as well.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Fly4Hire:

That just is not true. Each 9 replaced by an RJ adds ~ 4.1 million yearly to the bottom line INCLUDING ACQUISITION COSTS. The only restraint is the lact of a common operating certificate, which will act as a short term fence.

The 76 seat RJ brings in nearly as much revenue, costs much less to operate and is more capable.

I do not understand why you NWA guys are so protective of the DC9. Can anyone explain this irrational behavior?

We all wish that it was sticking around and that our union had not allowed management to outsource the replacement jets, but it is what it is and we have to be realistic.

AND YES, the MD88 is also on the block. Our MD88 fleet is shrinking. The numbers and capabilities of the MD88 give it a little breathing room, as well as a greater likelyhood of beig replaced by a mainline sized airplane, but YES the MD88 is next.

 

[~~~^~~~]

the feed has to be done by something and it wont be 50 seaters. The 50 seaters are on the chopping block. Our scope will limit the number of regional jets so something at Mainline will have to be flown. The -9s will be used until we get a replacement. 2 crjs arent any cheaper to operate than a DC9-40/50.

The feed has to come from somewhere. This is why its so important to make sure that flying is at mainline. IMHO the DC9s will be a filler until OUR replacement is found.

255 Large RJ's. Yes, 2 RJ's can be cheaper while producing greater revenue.

PLEASE don't make me search those quotes again from your President and CFO on the replacement for the DC9's, this is getting so old. Every two weeks you guys get back on the DC9 junk again and I've got to find Steenland's posts. Lets just skip this round - OK?

 

[Superpilot92]

Fly4Hire:

That just is not true. Each 9 replaced by an RJ adds ~ 4.1 million yearly to the bottom line INCLUDING ACQUISITION COSTS. The only restraint is the lact of a common operating certificate, which will act as a short term fence.Werent you saying recently the dc9-40/50s were just as efficient as the 50 seaters? Especially on short flights? The feed has to come from somewhere and our new scope will limit the number of 70 seaters.

The 76 seat RJ brings in nearly as much revenue, costs much less to operate and is more capable.

I do not understand why you NWA guys are so protective of the DC9. Can anyone explain this irrational behavior? So now its irrational to keep flying at Mainline? Arent you a big supporter of keeping the flying at mainline? WE as the NEW DAL need to do EVERYTHING possible to keep the DC9 flying even if it means replacing the aircraft at mainline.

We all wish that it was sticking around and that our union had not allowed management to outsource the replacement jets, but it is what it is and we have to be realisticRealistically we have scope protection to prevent the parking of all the dc9s and replacing them with 70 seaters unless they are mainline aircraft..

RA has said many times he likes the dc9s and the are much needed aircraft for the 100 seat market that DAL doesnt have. They could have kept the total of dc9s at 58 by years end if they wanted to but instead they changed it to 61 after the merger announcement. Why is that? Could it be that RA wants to keep them as a filler?

We may very well see a new order for 737s to replace them in the future but dont say its irrational to keep that flying. Maybe we will see 717's or Md90s also who knows.

Keep the Flying at Mainline

 

[Superpilot92]

255 Large RJ's. Yes, 2 RJ's can be cheaper while producing greater revenue. I was talking about 50 seat crjs you are talking about 70 Seaters. The 70 seaters arent on the chopping block, however HUNDREDS of 50 seaters are.

PLEASE don't make me search those quotes again from your President and CFO on the replacement for the DC9's, this is getting so old. Every two weeks you guys get back on the DC9 junk again and I've got to find Steenland's posts. Lets just skip this round - OK?

While your at it look up the quote from your President and CEO who states he likes the dc9 and how it will be a great airplane to fill the 100 seat market that DAL needs. Its nice how you state that you want to keep the flying at mainline but you dont care what happens with the DC9 flying.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Super92:

Huh? I want the DC9 flying to stay at mainline, but I'm realistic about the numbers. About 50% of that flying is going to the RJ's. It is already done. I hope we recapture half of that by getting Compass on the list during SLI.

If we fail (again) to get the flying on our list, then all that will remain is about 25% of what the DC9 does now. What isn't flown by RJ's, or flowed into other current mainline jets is the 14% of domestic capacity coming out of the system. That number will go up if oil prices do not abate.

I agree we need scope. Praying the DC9 somehow remains in service is not the answer. A better answer is required. Since we failed to scope out RJ's, we need to scope them in.

 

[jonjuan]

Can RA wait until 2013?

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazet....html?id=1ab2fbef-eee8-46a2-bec7-6a3e9525af33

Bombardier spreads wings of CSeries

New design aimed at European clients


ROBERT GIBBENS, Freelance

Published: Thursday, July 03
Bombardier Inc. said yesterday it has revised the designs of its CSeries commercial jet family, increasing wingspan, reducing length, improving range and adding the "hot and high" 130XT for shorter and high-altitude runways.
"The changes are part of the normal design process and match what potential clients have told us," said program director Benjamin Boehm. "We've talked design details with potential clients on every continent except Antarctica."

 

[Superpilot92]

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazet....html?id=1ab2fbef-eee8-46a2-bec7-6a3e9525af33

Bombardier spreads wings of CSeries

New design aimed at European clients


ROBERT GIBBENS, Freelance

Published: Thursday, July 03
Bombardier Inc. said yesterday it has revised the designs of its CSeries commercial jet family, increasing wingspan, reducing length, improving range and adding the "hot and high" 130XT for shorter and high-altitude runways.
"The changes are part of the normal design process and match what potential clients have told us," said program director Benjamin Boehm. "We've talked design details with potential clients on every continent except Antarctica."

Lets hope, if we work together we can ensure the flying stays at mainline. Giving more flying away Shouldnt be an option. NWA has already been in talks with Bombardier about the C-series as a mainline replacement for the DC9. That is from the DC9 fleet manager.

 

[Fly4hire]

That just is not true. Each 9 replaced by an RJ adds ~ 4.1 million yearly to the bottom line INCLUDING ACQUISITION COSTS. The only restraint is the lact of a common operating certificate, which will act as a short term fence.

The 76 seat RJ brings in nearly as much revenue, costs much less to operate and is more capable.

Well, 76 seater's are now effectively capped on the NWA side with the JPWA, so there is only so much revenue they are going to contribute. The 50 seater's are toast, and even if they have better costs, still only carry 50 pax, are frequently weight limited, and cancel with regularity due to staffing shortages.

Managements are also getting fed up with the endless delays caused by too many RJ's flying into the likes if LGA, EWR, JFK, etc. - it still takes up the same amount of space in the ATC system.

I do not understand why you NWA guys are so protective of the DC9. Can anyone explain this irrational behavior?

There is a niche for this aircraft that there is nothing else that fills for the *moment*, and despite the supposed economics of the 76 seater, however pax still hate the cabins, and management is growing weary of the the feeder operation reliability and quality issues.

The DC9 (and MD80's) will be the first to go, however I think reports of there their death are premature. Also consider there are alternatives for the 142 seat MD's now (A319/320, 737NG), where there is nothing for the 100-124 seat DC9 market. Despite your infatuation with the 76 seater, they are an inferior product from every perspective other than SJS.

I've been wrong before (once ), but I'll wager the DC9's are around until a suitable, true NB cabin, mainline operated NG 100 seat replacement is deployed.

 

[NuGuy]

Heyas F4H,

The problem is that manufacturers don't understand that to replace the -9, you have to build a -9.

The 717 was, no doubt, a great airplane. Too much "guilding the lilly", though.

You don't need fancy avionics. No super-deluxe front end furnishings. Just an airplane that goes when you want it to, over and over again, and ANY A&P with a wrench can fix it.

Cessna has it right. The 172 is still being built because sometimes you just can't improve something that simply works.

The problem is that kid's these days can't handle something like a -9 with 200 hours.

Nu

 

[clippyrip]

The problem is that kid's these days can't handle something like a -9 with 200 hours.

Nu

Going from instructing, to the RJ to the DC9 is tough for those that never flew by RMI. The DC9 is home sweet home for a BE1900 pilot. Shoot, it has an auto pilot...gravy.

 

[General Lee]

Going from instructing, to the RJ to the DC9 is tough for those that never flew by RMI. The DC9 is home sweet home for a be1900 pilot. Shoot, it has an auto pilot...gravy.

Luckily we are trending towards all magic, and away from steam gauges. Those guys may be great at flying the DC9, but an FMS and autorthrottle do save money on gas. It is also tough on guys who have never flown glass and maybe only flown DC9s during their careers. (I am sure there are some greenbooks that are still flying the -9 and only have flown it...) I bet they walk into an airbus and have no clue what is going on (same with me though.....).


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[MJ42]

Luckily we are trending towards all magic, and away from steam gauges. Those guys may be great at flying the DC9, but an FMS and autorthrottle do save money on gas. It is also tough on guys who have never flown glass and maybe only flown DC9s during their careers. (I am sure there are some greenbooks that are still flying the -9 and only have flown it...) I bet they walk into an airbus and have no clue what is going on (same with me though.....).


Bye Bye---General Lee

That's why I think you'll see those senior DC-9 guys retire instead of go to the Airbus as the 9 starts to disappear. One can only hope(from a junior perspective).