Delta E170 in LGA

[Sinca3]

So to continue to operate domestically, and feed their international routes, the Legacies have turned even more than before to an ALREADY EXISTING system. It is cheaper for them to pay a regional airline cost plus 5 or 10 or whatever percent to fly an RJ of some type even when the seat capacity is close. Regionals have always been around, yes as a stepping stone, and yes, paying "subpar" wages in comparison to mainline wages. So the majors are taking advantage of the market forces and utilizing the multitude of regional airlines, who are for the most part now independantly owned and are all bidding against each other for this flying. This is basic economics, people. This so-called "race to the bottom" is a natural economic result of competition, like it or not. This has little to do with ALPA "holding the line" and more to do with oil at $70 a barrel, the absence of government subsidy, and deregulation. Airline managment is desperately looking for ways to cut costs, because they can't afford to lose business by raising prices. Unfortunately for us as pilots, after they get rid of the peanuts and the sodas and the seat pockets (like Ryanair), and contract with the regional carrier that bid at the lowest acceptable price and service, they pretty much only have the employees to go after. Until WE are a low-supply commodity, our supply-demand curve will never move upward to provide us a better salary. So while you're flogging the usual targets of managment, regional airlines, and (dare I say it, knowing I'll get flamed) non-union outfits, you might as well blame your next door neighbor, who won't pay more than $300 bucks to fly intercontinental, and your former students who kept you employed as an instructor because THEY had the aviation dream, too.

I thought these comments from Jim Whitehurst (COO DAL) during a employee chat session on 5/11/06 were intresting:
Question 1- The Cost per Available Seat Mile of the regional jets is very high in comparison to mainline service, and passengers are beginning to dislike flying them, especially on some of the longer flights. Are the numbers of RJs in Delta's fleet justified by the revenue generation they produce in some of the smaller cities?
Answer from Jim Whitehurst:
Currently, RJ CASMs are significantly higher than mainline. That was not the case prior to our 2004 restructuring, when our mainline costs were high and fuel costs were low (RJs are much less fuel efficient on a CASM basis). Clearly given our new mainline cost structure and current high fuel costs, I'd rather have more mainline aircraft and fewer RJs. Getting new mainline aircraft will take time. In the interim, we need to continue serving those cities. So, while we are reducing our number of RJs substantially while in bankruptcy, they will remain a core part of our fleet.
Question 2- Presubmitted Question The 737-200's and 737-300's will be retiring more this fall. You have mentioned that they might be replaced eventually by 737-700's or smaller 70 or 90 seat jets. If they are replaced with the smaller planes, other than the 737-700, won't there be a loss of more Delta jobs, pilots, flight attendants, and possibly ground staff since a Connection Carrier would be flying those jets? If that is true, is there anyway for Delta mainline pilots and flight attendants to work those planes. Yes, Delta would be expanding, but Delta people would continue to be downsized. Can you address these issues?
Answer from Jim Whitehurst- Any aircraft above 76 seats will be flown by mainline. To be clear, the 76 seaters are a marginal economic boost over a 70 seater (required post NW ability to fly them.) We view them as a 70 seater with slightly better economics. They do not replace our need for a 100 seater in the mainline. Any 100 seater would be in the mainline and will likely be growth aircraft, creating new jobs.