Delta to put 100 Rj's to the desert

[8sugarsugar]

don't even compare RJ's to a 9

The problem is that you can't sell enough tickets for enough money for a DC-9 or MD-80 to make money so they price the tickets to lose the least amount possible. Set the price where it needs to be to make money and your 140 seat plane goes out half empty, but an RJ would be full AND MAKING MONEY. Look at what other legacy carriers are doing, slashing domestic narrow body capacity. Right now RA is cutting capacity where he can with out jeopardising the merger.

Once again, I can understand people being defensive over the RJ's because of job security and watching them being parked. But in fact, the DC-9 has a lower break even load factor % than the RJ's. They are NW's highest profit margin aircraft. But when flying slows down, they can park a 9 and not lose money on lease payments...its lose-lose

 

[DoinTime]

Its funny how CRJ kids think they know everything about the 9...and stop telling people you fly the 9 when its the CL-65 CRJ 900

Whats even more funny is DC-9/corporate guys who think they know everything about CRJs.

But in fact, the DC-9 has a lower break even load factor % than the RJ's.

Care to support this statement? After all, you know everything about airline economics.

 

[ohplease!]

Your highlights missed two important sentences..."This may change but it looks like the direction things are moving". And..."Trust but verify".

I posted info from people who are "in the know". You post your personal opinion based on guesses as well as being offended that people say some ASA flying will be cut. You WILL see 50 seat flying reduced. The 76 seat flying will stay as will the DC-9 flying as stated in my previous post.

Things are going relatively smooth so far, hopefully this will continue. I posted stated facts. This doesn't mean things won't change, I'm not that naive.

Keep guessing, your thoughts are entertaining.

ok. I'll meet you back here in about 18 months. we'll take another look at things then.

for the record; I have no desire to see anyone lose a job (well, with the exception of a very few specific individuals).

and another thing; because it was "stated" by someone "in the know" NEVER means its a fact or that it'll happen.....just so you know...I'm happy to entertain/inform you.

and oh yeah BTW; if you are getting info from people "in the know" I'd be careful about saying so on public forums.....if they truly are high enough to know, they have no doubt signed non-disclosure agreements....I'd hate for you to get someone in hot water trying to impress a bunch of scum on the bottom of your shoe RJ pilots.....

 

[General Lee]

Unlike you, I've worked for a Richard run company. You take anything he tells anyone at face value and you're likely to get your feelings hurt.

You also keep beating the "RJ's can't make a profit" drum. I guess you missed the ABC story comparing the two (RJ vs. 757). Neither made money but, the RJ lost less.....

OH Give me a break! So you think 50 seat RJs are profitable? I guess you are the ONLY one, and ABC of course...., to think so. Riiiiight. It's about who can make MORE money. 5 RJ flights a day or 2 mainline? I think the mainline flights win, and so does your BOSS. Well, a lot of the RJs will be parked, and sooner than the MD88s and DC9s you are talking about. Yes, some DC9-30s are scheduled to go to the boneyard, but they will be in holding above the field due to the long string of RJs on final. And why are your ATRs going away too? That is something I don't really understand. You would think that large turboprops would be kept, or replaced with Dash-8-400s. It looks like now some of those RJ routes will be replaced with DC9-40s or -50s.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[General Lee]

ok. I'll meet you back here in about 18 months. we'll take another look at things then.

for the record; I have no desire to see anyone lose a job (well, with the exception of a very few specific individuals).

and another thing; because it was "stated" by someone "in the know" NEVER means its a fact or that it'll happen.....just so you know...I'm happy to entertain/inform you.

and oh yeah BTW; if you are getting info from people "in the know" I'd be careful about saying so on public forums.....if they truly are high enough to know, they have no doubt signed non-disclosure agreements....I'd hate for you to get someone in hot water trying to impress a bunch of scum on the bottom of your shoe RJ pilots.....

You might be an FO in 18 months, you never know. And, everyone can speculate on this board, and people can read about possible future plans in the quarterly reports. I highly doubt anything "secret" is divulged here.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[MJ42]

ok. I'll meet you back here in about 18 months. we'll take another look at things then. DEAL!

for the record; I have no desire to see anyone lose a job (well, with the exception of a very few specific individuals). Me too, I've already experienced a furlough.

and another thing; because it was "stated" by someone "in the know" NEVER means its a fact or that it'll happen.....just so you know...I'm happy to entertain/inform you.Entertain yes, inform, not even close! You seem to pick bits and pieces of my post and use it to prove a weak point.

and oh yeah BTW; if you are getting info from people "in the know" I'd be careful about saying so on public forums.....if they truly are high enough to know, they have no doubt signed non-disclosure agreements....I'd hate for you to get someone in hot water trying to impress a bunch of scum on the bottom of your shoe RJ pilots.....

Are you stupid, or do you just like to twist words? We had several road shows that were very informative. The people who spoke at the road show ARE "in the know".

Keep up the amusement, your ignorance is still making me laugh!

 

[ohplease!]

OH Give me a break! So you think 50 seat RJs are profitable? I guess you are the ONLY one, and ABC of course...., to think so. Riiiiight. It's about who can make MORE money. 5 RJ flights a day or 2 mainline? I think the mainline flights win, and so does your BOSS. Well, a lot of the RJs will be parked, and sooner than the MD88s and DC9s you are talking about. Yes, some DC9-30s are scheduled to go to the boneyard, but they will be in holding above the field due to the long string of RJs on final. And why are your ATRs going away too? That is something I don't really understand. You would think that large turboprops would be kept, or replaced with Dash-8-400s. It looks like now some of those RJ routes will be replaced with DC9-40s or -50s.


Bye Bye--General Lee

i have to agree with you on one thing.....the ATR thing baffles me. But then what do I know. Richard has it figured out. I hope.
And if he doesn't, we're so lucky that he has you to make up for his mistakes and save Delta.

Thanks General. I don't know how our companies would survive without you......

 

[ohplease!]

Are you stupid, or do you just like to twist words? We had several road shows that were very informative. The people who spoke at the road show ARE "in the know".

Keep up the amusement, your ignorance is still making me laugh!

18 months.

 

[MJ42]

18 months.

My facts vs your guessing...Deal! ROLL TIDE!

Sincerely,#42

 

[Jon Rivoli]

Once again, I can understand people being defensive over the RJ's because of job security and watching them being parked. But in fact, the DC-9 has a lower break even load factor % than the RJ's.

There is no break even load factor on a DC-9 with $4 jet fuel. Forget %, how many seats can you sell.

 

[sweptback]

There is no break even load factor on a DC-9 with $4 jet fuel. Forget %, how many seats can you sell.

How do you know this?

Oh right, you're just making it up.

 

[WildBlue]

Temp or not, DAL has decided that Mesa and Pinnacle are done. I'd bet on it, regardless of a judge and trial.

Medeco

I guess you lost your bet.

 

[Superpilot92]

You're really stretching your imagination. All the info from our MEC and the new DAL management team totally disagrees with what you just posted. After DCC, you'll start to see the DC-9 in ATL replacing 50's. This was stated by both our MEC and management.

You may not see 50's in the desert, but you will see a reduction in their flying(hence "equivalent"). DAL seems to be developing a good plan that does not include 50 seaters. It DOES include the -40 and -50 DC-9's(for the next few years). DAL also likes the A330. They DO NOT like the 787, so we will see what happens with the orders. New 737-700 (first one just delivered) and new 777 will both be a big player. You will also start to see 747-400 in ATL and 767 in DTW and MSP(that synergy thing...).

The above was stated by both DAL and our MEC's. This may change but it looks like the direction things are moving. RA is a sharp guy, looks like we are all giving him a chance. "Trust but verify".

Dont forget A320's out of CVG

 

[MJ42]

Dont forget A320's out of CVG

Thanks for the addition Super, I almost forgot. More facts to confuse (soon to be) F/O Oh Please. 18 months war beagle, less 50 seaters...period!

 

[MJ42]

18 months.

More FACTS for ya (courtesy of Sedona16)! I'm sure you'll have some wild GUESSES as to why this info is wrong. You are a prime example of my signature quote!

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=114915

 

[Jon Rivoli]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Rivoli
There is no break even load factor on a DC-9 with $4 jet fuel. Forget %, how many seats can you sell.

How do you know this?

Oh right, you're just making it up.

You wish. I'm talking in general terms. Have you noticed that every legacy not currently involved in a merger is reducing domestic narrow body capacity. United for example is parking all of their 737's while expanding the use of CRJ's. Sorry if you career expectations are in decline, but denial is never a good stragety.

Glen Hauenstein (Jul 9, 2008 2:17:37 PM)
The DC9 is a very interesting airplane in that its size fills a large void in the
DL network. We currently go from 75 seat regional jet to a 141 seat MD88
with nothing in-between. The number of DC9's we can effectively use will
depend on where fuel levels out since they are very inexpensive airplanes
to own, but expensive to fly since they are very heavy with old generation
engines.

 

[MJ42]

You wish. I'm talking in general terms. Have you noticed that every legacy not currently involved in a merger is reducing domestic narrow body capacity. United for example is parking all of their 737's while expanding the use of CRJ's. Sorry if you career expectations are in decline, but denial is never a good stragety.

Sorry Jon, in general terms, the new DAL is NOT comparable to UAL. DAL is in excellent shape compared to UAL. Read my link above and it will shed some light on your questions. DC-9 will be parked soon, but for the short term it fills a gap that DAL needs filled.

 

[Jon Rivoli]

See the edited post above referencing your link. The most significant difference between DAL and UAL is a pending merger and SLI, that more than anything is what is keeping the DC-9's around.

 

[MJ42]

See the edited post above referencing your link. I provided the rest of the quote The most significant difference between DAL and UAL is a pending merger and SLI, that more than anything is what is keeping the DC-9's around.No, the DC-9 fills a temporary void for DAL. The TA is being voted on as we speak. The SLI is being negotiated and will be done by NOV at the latest. The DC-9-40 and -50 are not as bad as you think(cost wise), unless fuel goes higher(which it may). We shall see what the new DAL's plan is after DCC but I think it will not change too much.

"The DC9 is a very interesting airplane in that its size fills a large void in the
DL network. We currently go from 75 seat regional jet to a 141 seat MD88
with nothing in-between."

Jon, you left out the first part of the quote, therefore misrepresenting it.

 

[Tim47SIP]

DC9 Economics

Glen Hauenstein (Jul 9, 2008 2:17:37 PM)
The DC9 is a very interesting airplane in that its size fills a large void in the DL network. We currently go from 75 seat regional jet to a 141 seat MD88 with nothing in-between. The number of DC9's we can effectively use will depend on where fuel levels out since they are very inexpensive airplanes to own, but expensive to fly since they are very heavy with old generation engines. Northwest has already announced a significant reduction in their DC9 fleet, and we will make adjustments to that plan as market conditions change one way or the other on fuel and demand.​

Sounds pretty streight forward to me so I am not sure what the above poster is getting at in terms of DC9 profitability. Bottom line, there will be a reduction in RJ AND DC9 service and the only thing we can do is wait and see what happens.​