Latest ASA INFO????

[~~~^~~~]

No kidding, while I was shipping boxes at the UPS Store on my way out for a three day two people stopped me, asked me who I fly for, and told me that they love our Regional Jets - that they were comfortable. One was even a White Plains customer.

The unsolicited opinions I've heard still seem very favorable to the "RJ."

 

[Heavy Set]

A friend of mine at Delta told me that the VP of Planning (Mike Bell) told a group of retruning furloughees that when they schedule an RJ to a route they actually factor in the "turn away factor" for people who dislike RJs. Apparently it is very common. Yet, they keep ordering them! Pure genius.

 

[Stifler's Mom]

Look at the July/August "Among Friends" if you receive it. In it, GG, says that DCI is stretching the limits of the RJ when it is flown on routes longer than 2 hours. He describes it as an uncomfortable experience for passengers.

He also goes on to say that DCI has a role to play in Delta, but that mainline is where they have to make their living.

 

[FDJ2]

A friend of mine at Delta told me that the VP of Planning (Mike Bell) told a group of retruning furloughees that when they schedule an RJ to a route they actually factor in the "turn away factor" for people who dislike RJs. Apparently it is very common. Yet, they keep ordering them! Pure genius.

Luckily for all of us a DAL, Mike (I love RJs) Bell is retiring soon. Just another SERP recipient out the door.

 

[Heavy Set]

That can't be good news for the DCI guys.

 

[Stifler's Mom]

That can't be good news for the DCI guys.

Short term maybe not. But good news for the big picture for those of us who want to move onto a mainline job someday. Growing the DCI portfolio while leaving mainline stagnant is not what I want to see. If the DCI portfolio is downsized in the future, who's to say that CHQ and Skywest won't lose out on flying before the WO's.

 

[~~~^~~~]

A friend of mine at Delta told me that the VP of Planning (Mike Bell) told a group of retruning furloughees that when they schedule an RJ to a route they actually factor in the "turn away factor" for people who dislike RJs. Apparently it is very common. Yet, they keep ordering them! Pure genius.

I am familiar with the term, but that is not what it means. Coming out of many cities we don't have enough available seats and have to turn business away. The Company is crying for more 70's to address this problem, but of course they have the arbitrary limit set by ALPA which keeps Connection from bringing even more passengers to ATL to connect with DL flights.

You mainline guys will believe anything and parrot anything negative regarding an RJ. Yet, you continue to ignore the obvious facts:
(1) Without RJ's mainline airplanes would be parked and be smaller. 15% of the average 757 is filled with passengers who connected from an RJ.
(2) Passengers prefer convenient schedules more than anything else
(3) DL can not get credit to buy anything but an airplane which is supported by the Canadian government.
(4) The jobs are on RJ's and your union is negotiating to put you in them

I'm betting your tune will change after you see the re-org plan.

~~~^~~~

 

[Heavy Set]

Fins,

How did the Delta guys ever survive without you and RJs? They probably never ever turned a profit until you guys flew RJs! You are awesome. Pat yourself on your back. And, didn't Pulumbo, the new CFO, buy new aircraft during his Chap 11 experience with TWA? Like new 757s and 717s? Are they built in Canada?

 

[bvt1151]

A friend of mine at Delta told me that the VP of Planning (Mike Bell) told a group of retruning furloughees that when they schedule an RJ to a route they actually factor in the "turn away factor" for people who dislike RJs. Apparently it is very common. Yet, they keep ordering them! Pure genius.

"Turn-Away Factor" is synonomous with "Demand Spill." It has to do with more people wanting to fly than seats, not people refusing to fly on small aircraft.

Due mainly to the large gap between 50-seaters and the MD-88's. Not enough seats on a 50-seater, yet way too costly on an MD-88 (737's also). Scope clauses prohibit anything in between. So the 50-seater gets the flight, and they over-book.


I got a good kick out of your friend's definition though, heavy.

 

[Heavy Set]

I am familiar with what you are saying and the term, and I probably didn't phrase it correctly. Mike Bell, VP of planning, loves RJs and now he's retiring according to FDJ2. Probably not a good omen for RJ fliers out there...

You cannot deny that many passengers are spooked by the size of RJs and would easily prefer something larger. I have seen it myself recently on an ERJ - a passenger became very emotional and almost elected to get off the aircraft claiming that it was too small... I have never seen that on a 737 or a 717.

Let's not kid ourselves here - RJs are not the popular cure-all that we might have expected and AirTran is proof that passenger comfort is a big consideration in a LCC market... RJs might work on thinner routes with no competition (e.g., ATL-XNA or ATL-HPN), but not on LCC routes where passengers have a lot of choice. Bvt1151, choice is your enemy...

 

[ATR-DRIVR]

Just a small point here. The ERJ is much narrower than a CRJ. It is a Bakillia with jets. Same basic cabin dimensions except longer.

 

[FDJ2]

The Company is crying for more 70's to address this problem, but of course they have the arbitrary limit set by ALPA which keeps Connection from bringing even more passengers to ATL to connect with DL flights.

Fins, you do know that DAL can fly as many RJs as it wants don't you?

 

[Heavy Set]

I am familiar with the term, but that is not what it means. Coming out of many cities we don't have enough available seats and have to turn business away. The Company is crying for more 70's to address this problem, but of course they have the arbitrary limit set by ALPA which keeps Connection from bringing even more passengers to ATL to connect with DL flights.

You mainline guys will believe anything and parrot anything negative regarding an RJ. Yet, you continue to ignore the obvious facts:
(1) Without RJ's mainline airplanes would be parked and be smaller. 15% of the average 757 is filled with passengers who connected from an RJ.
(2) Passengers prefer convenient schedules more than anything else
(3) DL can not get credit to buy anything but an airplane which is supported by the Canadian government.
(4) The jobs are on RJ's and your union is negotiating to put you in them

I'm betting your tune will change after you see the re-org plan.

~~~^~~~

What about Grinstein's comment about RJs not flying more than 2 hours since it "abuses" Delta's most loyal customers? Didn't Grinstein actually refer to the CRJ flight between JFK and ATL?

Also, didn't Grinstein say that he wouldn't "shrink to profitability" in his recent 5-point memo to employees? To pay off the current debt load, won't Delta need to generate sufficient revenues and profit to do so? How can you do that by shrinking? I am guessing that you think Chapter 11 is the answer....

 

[FDJ2]

BVT, there is no scope clause that prevents DAL from flying as many RJs as they want or any other aircraft for that matter. Mainline must be over booked as well, since the mainline load factor is higher then either ASA or CMR.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Fins, you do know that DAL can fly as many RJs as it wants don't you?

Yep, I know that.

What you don't know is what you will fly them for.

Get some situational awareness gentlemen. Delta is not buying bigger airplanes. Delta has lost the ability to secure credit outside government loan programs. Delta does not care who flies the airplanes. A dollar is a dollar and US air pilots make 20 to 40% less flying ERJ's than do ASA's ATR pilots. That is what is going on out there.

And as far as the ASA contract goes, there is a reason why management is suddenly very concessionary, hard nosed and wanting to re-negotiate the items agreed to in IBB. They have seen "the plan" and my guess is that it undercuts the current ASA contract.

Now this is a pure guess, but one way to invalidate Delta's scope is to merge. "Mainline" block would soar on paper, allowing even more outsourcing. ALPA would be left having to deal with the tremendous mess of integration. This could be one interpretation of Skip Barnette's "Delta does not care who flies the airplanes, that is ALPA's problem." Again this is a pure guess, but I can not think of a part of the puzzle that does not fit.

 

[737 Pylt]

please not more rjdc propoganda!

I The Company is crying for more 70's to address this problem, but of course they have the arbitrary limit set by ALPA which keeps Connection from bringing even more passengers to ATL to connect with DL flights.

Fins:
The company can buy as many 70 seaters as they want. After #57, they go to mainline, its that simple. There is no limit on the number, just the number that can be outsourced!
737

 

[bvt1151]

Fins:
The company can buy as many 70 seaters as they want. After #57, they go to mainline, its that simple. There is no limit on the number, just the number that can be outsourced!
737

But #58 immediately becomes unprofitable at your rates. Why get another 70-seater when it would cost as much as an MD-80?

 

[Jetpig]

The company can buy as many 70 seaters as they want. After #57, they go to mainline, its that simple. There is no limit on the number, just the number that can be outsourced!
737

I may be wrong but with ASA's 31 CR7s and Comair's 27 CR7s, combined they have already passed that number. One extra to be a spare how does that play into the scope limit of 57.

 

[FDJ2]

But #58 immediately becomes unprofitable at your rates. Why get another 70-seater when it would cost as much as an MD-80?

What are mainline rates? Weren't you arguing before how profitable RJs at DCI are , even if they flew at an Indy CASM of 22cents? Why does the RJ become immediately unprofitable the moment a mainline pilots flies it? Are RJs very profitable or not?

 

[bvt1151]

What are mainline rates? Weren't you arguing before how profitable RJs at DCI are , even if they flew at an Indy CASM of 22cents? Why does the RJ become immediately unprofitable the moment a mainline pilots flies it? Are RJs very profitable or not?

You're kidding, right? First of all, I spent about 20 minutes explaining how ACA's CASM was, in fact, not 22 cents. Secondly, crew costs are a very integral part of total CASMS. You can make any aircraft unprofitable by paying the pilots outlandish amounts...kinda like the DAL payscales. To apply Delta's current MD-80 rates to the 70-seater (take current rates divided by 2, which obviously wouldn't be the case, but once again in my attempt to not skew the numbers in my favor, I'll be conservative) would increase the 70-seater's total CASM by over 20%...and thats conservative!