Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

ASA taking over Freedom flying

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Yes, I do get to pick which rules I will follow, I'm just that special.

I don't wear my hat because I put a lot of time into getting my hair just right and the hat would mess it up. It also doesn't look nearly as cool to put my Oakleys over the brim of my hat as it does to wear them on the top of my head. As for the sneakers and jeans, thanks for the idea! I'm sure if I got both in black I could pull the look off cause like I said, I'm just that special.

Shamrock, you are special.

Trojan
 
Going back to the thread title .... Does it really make any difference who does this flying from a DAL profitability (loss) viewpoint? How many $/Barrel does it take to make a 50 seater unprofitable?

ASA is cheaper because our completion factor and on-time performance is better than Mesa's. Also, we are actively pushing fuel conservation initiatives like Project-APU (which saves a ton of fuel, by the way). If we can keep ahead of the competition in these ways, we will get a lot of their flying.
 
ASA is cheaper because our completion factor and on-time performance is better than Mesa's.
I know of the graphs, but where does it say that we are cheaper than MESA?

Better on time and completion factor means that it costs Delta less money to operate the flight, since they don't have to reschedule a customer. Our fixed costs may be higher, but combine more satisfied customers with fuel savings from fuel conservation initiatives, and we may be cheaper overall. In real terms or otherwise.

I didn't say the graphs said we were cheaper. But just think of what the graphs are telling us about the operation as a whole, and how that affects costs to Big D.
 
Better on time and completion factor means that it costs Delta less money to operate the flight, since they don't have to reschedule a customer. Our fixed costs may be higher, but combine more satisfied customers with fuel savings from fuel conservation initiatives, and we may be cheaper overall. In real terms or otherwise.

I didn't say the graphs said we were cheaper. But just think of what the graphs are telling us about the operation as a whole, and how that affects costs to Big D.



I understand what you are saying now. I was hoping that there was some hard, verifiable info somewhere that pointed to ASA as a lower cost option than MESA, et al. However, what you are saying indirectly makes a good point.

I suspect that there is a large Excel graph somewhere in the Kremlin that breaks down which of the DCI stepchildren are the least and most expensive. Job security for us means being at the bottom of this list.

Looking around, I just don't see Delta, or any of the other 'parent' airlines, as all that concerned about the quality of the feed.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top