DL Negotiations effects on DCI Pilots from WSJ

[bvt1151]

Inclusivescope,

What are you talking about? With the low fares out there, we need to have bigger planes---not smaller. Why does Southwest have 737s and not RJs?

Why is Southwest flying 737's and not 767's?

 

[General Lee]

They got 737s first. Their model revolved around 737s. They also didn't fly to the larger cities (besides DAL and HOU) for a long time--finally leaving Texas and the contiguous states in the mid-80s. By then, they had established their model. But what do I know?----I ain't Herb..... Good try BVT.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[InclusiveScope]

They got 737s first. Their model revolved around 737s. They also didn't fly to the larger cities (besides DAL and HOU) for a long time--finally leaving Texas and the contiguous states in the mid-80s. By then, they had established their model. But what do I know?----I ain't Herb..... Good try BVT.


Bye Bye--General Lee

But General,
Using your logic, they would make more money with a 767 fleet. Their CASM would be less right? Which is it General?

 

[General Lee]

Well, I suppose they could use 767s and they would lower their casm--especially with 737 payscales. The problem is that their "model" includes quick turn around times---and let me tell you---767s have longer turn around times. Also, the 767s we have have two class seating---and Southwest would have one class. That would mean more passengers and more clean up time. The transcon deal at Southwest is fairly new--2 years ago they were still stopping two or three times to cross the country. So, yes--they could use 767s--but it would mess up a lot of their model. (besides having a second aircraft type) A lot of our 767s fly from Europe to JFK, and then onto LAX or SFO etc. I flew one a few days ago that had just come in from Rome--and all of the bottles of water were from Rome--they tasted GOOD.


Good try.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[InclusiveScope]

Well, I suppose they could use 767s and they would lower their casm--especially with 737 payscales. The problem is that their "model" includes quick turn around times---and let me tell you---767s have longer turn around times. Also, the 767s we have have two class seating---and Southwest would have one class. That would mean more passengers and more clean up time. The transcon deal at Southwest is fairly new--2 years ago they were still stopping two or three times to cross the country. So, yes--they could use 767s--but it would mess up a lot of their model. (besides having a second aircraft type) A lot of our 767s fly from Europe to JFK, and then onto LAX or SFO etc. I flew one a few days ago that had just come in from Rome--and all of the bottles of water were from Rome--they tasted GOOD.


Good try.


Bye Bye--General Lee

So now it is the greater turn times of larger aircraft? Your circular arguments are laughable General. The RJ has a much shorter turn time than the 737.

 

[General Lee]

And your RJ doesn't bring in enough revenue. Your arguments are just wrong. Look, I just read something about Indy Air and their low load factors(on Aviation daily?--I couldn't copy it) and how they are burning up almost 50% of their cash by the end of this year. Why? Because RJs can't fly competitively against low fare operators. And, they are growing. Your RJs are good as route finders, and flying to cities with no chance of LCCs---but those are getting smaller in number.


Why would Song go for more seats (199) on a 757 and go against Jetblue? (they could have used smaller aircraft) Are you smarter than John Salvaggio? He had it right. Now what about using Skywest RJs only flying to Montana in the Summertime? I don't know who came up with that one--since most of the flights used to be on 737-300s and 738s--with an occasional MD90 on there. There is no LCC competition there--and still we went to more frequency (even though we have three connection banks with larger mainline planes) with RJs. Makes no sense.

The key here is that RJs should be used as they were intended---to find new routes, to provide feed from cities that cannot sustain a mainline aircraft--and to replace props on routes that could sustain them. Someone in ATL needs to look at all this again..... (or instead we should pillage the pilot's contract!)

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[strega7]

The key here is that RJs should be used as they were intended---to find new routes, to provide feed from cities that cannot sustain a mainline aircraft--and to replace props on routes that could sustain them. Someone in ATL needs to look at all this again.....

Now that's the smartest thing anyone's said in along time.

 

[flaps30]

Yep

Every FO at a regional will work for those wages, welcome to our world. The chance to make Captain at an airline that is expanding beats waiting for scraps from you guys.

 

[N2264J]

Re: DL Negotiations effects on DCI pilots...

Now what about using Skywest RJs only flying to Montana in the Summertime? I don't know who came up with that one--since most of the flights used to be on 737-300s and 738s--with an occasional MD90 on there. There is no LCC competition there--and still we went to more frequency (even though we have three connection banks with larger mainline planes) with RJs. Makes no sense.

It makes a lot of sense. I've been operating from Salt Lake City to Helena frequently since last September and I've never had 50 people on the plane going or coming. Usually 20 to 30. Almost half the time, less than 10.

By the way, despite all your tough talk about striking the company during bankruptcy, the mainline pilots just aren't up to it. It would tear the pilot group apart. I predict the Delta pilots will look over the edge into the abyss of bankruptcy and fold like a cheap card table.

 

[vc10]

USAir bought $4.5 billion worth of new RJs in CHAP 11.

Not true. US Airways bought those RJs after they exited Ch 11 and the financing was provided by GE in return for US Airways not scalping GE when US Airways was in Ch 11. In other words "we won't gut your existing leases with us if you provide us with financing after Ch 11". GE basically did a double-or-nothing.

 

[NuGuy]

Hey all,


The one thing the General forgot to mention about any possible CO-DL merger is that it's not possible without the blessing of NW, which won't happen.

Put your way-back machine on 1997, NWA bought something like %25 of CO, with %50.1 of the voting equity. From what I understand, they snatched CO literally right from under DL's nose.

Just after, the CO-NW codeshare started. Then the DOJ got all huffy that NW's shysters were more clever than anyone elses, so they forced NW to divest themselves of most of the CO stock. HOWEVER, NW retained the "golden share" that allows them to veto any transaction regarding mergers or any other "captial" decisions.

But, from what I understand, the CO-NW codeshare has been VERY good for revenue for both carriers. The DL-NW-CO codeshare is doing great, despite being in just the startup stages.

FWIW...

Nu

 

[surplus1]

General,

What is "aspergus" -- the stuff you say is filling your planes from South America?

I'm not being facetious, I would really like to know.

 

[On Your Six]

GL is right again...

Inclusivescope and bvt,

As the economy continues to improve, limiting seats to 737 capacity would remove money from the table when 757/767s could be used on trunk routes. GL is correct, parking the super-expensive MD11s was a big mistake when they could have been used profitably to more-popular Europe, Sao Paulo or Tokyo routes. MD-11s costing $15K per day parked in the desert - who's the management wizard who made that decision?

I don't understand why there is a debate here - RJs belong in non-LCC contested markets so that they can make a healthy margin using premium fares and larger 757/767 aircraft should be used on trunk routes (or contested LCC markets) so that costs can be spread among more seats. That's pretty logical.

 

[General Lee]

Surplus1,


I probably misspelled it---you know, that green vegetable that makes your pee smell.....But it is great for you! I guess they grow a lot of it in Peru.... My whole point was that we do carry a lot of precious cargo out of certain markets...

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[CRJ puppy]

Asparagus.


Member of the lily family. New shoots are edible. A well tended bed will produce for 100 years or more. Generally not productive until the roots are about 5 years old. Grows in temperate climates.

 

[surplus1]

Surplus1,


I probably misspelled it---you know, that green vegetable that makes your pee smell.....But it is great for you! I guess they grow a lot of it in Peru.... My whole point was that we do carry a lot of precious cargo out of certain markets...

Bye Bye--General Lee

Thanks. I thought it might be that but didn't want to "assume". I wasn't picking on your spelling.
S1

 

[wms]

Does anyone know why the MD11s are parked? Does DAL not want them and can't find a buyer or is there another reason? I believe they the only plane still parked, with exception of the 72s which DAL just got rid of permanently.


According to the shareholder's report, DAL intends to be a 3-type airline when all is said and done. I don't know if that includes CRJs and if it combines the 75/76, which I assume it does.

 

[ATR-DRIVR]

737-800, 75,76,77

 

[General Lee]

I doubt the 738 will be the smallest aircraft. Probably a 737 family (-600, -700, -800), and maybe a 100 seater in there too. I bet 100 seater, 737 family, 757/767, and 777. Who knows?


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[wms]

I think the E-190 will not be worth the expense of the transition. 73 family (maybe with the 73-600 rather than a new type), 75/76, 777. What about the reason why the MD11s are parked?