Midwestindy wrote:

NateGreat wrote:

So, does that mean that once the MD-88/90 are all phased out, the C Series will be replacing the MD-88/90 out of New York and LA, while the A321 will be replacing the MD-88/90 out of Atlanta, Detroit, Minneapolis, etc?

1. The MD88 aren't in NYC anymore
2. This is DL's strategy moving forward
50 seaters going away.
76 seaters taking over 50seater flying, with slightly less frequency.
110 seaters (CS) taking over 76 seater flying, with slightly less frequency.
160 seaters taking over 110 (717) and 149 (MD88) seater flying
180-90 seaters taking over 160 seater flying.

NateGreat wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

NateGreat wrote:

So, does that mean that once the MD-88/90 are all phased out, the C Series will be replacing the MD-88/90 out of New York and LA, while the A321 will be replacing the MD-88/90 out of Atlanta, Detroit, Minneapolis, etc?

1. The MD88 aren't in NYC anymore
2. This is DL's strategy moving forward
50 seaters going away.
76 seaters taking over 50seater flying, with slightly less frequency.
110 seaters (CS) taking over 76 seater flying, with slightly less frequency.
160 seaters taking over 110 (717) and 149 (MD88) seater flying
180-90 seaters taking over 160 seater flying.

Which aircraft are the 76-seaters?

sonnyville wrote:

I would think their missions are well suited like this for example, and this is all existing current DL network (either or both interchangeably operated by a DbA E175 or mainline DL 717/A319/737) :

LAX-SAT-MSP
LAX-DFW-DTW
LAX-IAH-SLC
LAX-IAH-SEA
LAX-YVR-MSP
LAX-PDX-SFO/SEA
LAX-SEA-FAI
LAX-MTY-DTW/MSP
LAX-SEA-SFO
LAX-SEA-ANC
LAX-SFO-SLC
LAX-SFO-LAS
LAX-PHX-DTW
LAX-PHX-MSP
LAX-OAK-LAS
LAX-SJC-LAS-SEA/SLC/LAX/MSP/DTW

But also not excluding that they can be utilized for downgauged hub to hub missions.
Possibly alternate A319/A320/737/ daily and deploy interchangeably LAX-SLC. Remember that DL is Hub-Spoke when it comes to their network model. Connecting the W Coast and MidWest directly from W Coast DL hubs, some other routings maybe;

If DL wanted to be creative and think outside of the box, compete against LCC like Frontier or Allegiant. I think the C series maybe doing something like LAX-LAS-CVG-MSP, or LAX-LAS-DEN-MSP or something, ideal for the C series, but who knows? The C series are fantastic for DL because it allows them to use a smaller aircraft of great range and capabilities that doesn’t require a huge plane like a 319/320 or a smaller E175 against it’s competitors and doesn’t have the current range limitations of the 717s. I do hope they also consider the C 300 version.

Configuration wise, I think first 4 rows will be DL One in 1-2 configuration (12 DL One seats), followed by 2-3 for DL Y+ (maybe 3 or 4 rows of Y+) , and the rest Y of course. Wether or not DL decides to equipment these C series with individual PTVS or not, not sure. I wouldn't be surprised if they roll them out without PTVs, but instead every seat has individual powercharger/usb ports to connect devices. Even mainline LX did not include individual PTVs on any of their C series and from the looks of KE's C series, they also did not include any individual PTVs on theirs.

impromark wrote:

YYC-SLC operates Daily on an E175, is this a candidate for replacement? I may fly that route again someday, so the interest is purely selfish...

Mark

jubguy3 wrote:

impromark wrote:

YYC-SLC operates Daily on an E175, is this a candidate for replacement? I may fly that route again someday, so the interest is purely selfish...

Mark

Possibly, but Delta has said that the bases for the CS100 are going to be NYC and LAX. The competitive advantage gained by using fuel efficient CS100 is not needed in Salt Lake City because it is a fortress hub without a DC-9 derivative base, and there is little incentive to using the newest aircraft here.

TVNWZ wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

.... with capacity definitely under 120 seats that met our mission profiles, including average route distances of under 1,000 nautical miles, not the 2900 nautical miles that have been defined today.
.....
In fact, our agreement is structured with maximum takeoff weight provisions that reflect our intended deployment plan to fly the aircraft, on average, on routes that are less than 1000 miles. If we exceed those averages, i.e., the plane needs to carry more fuel because it's flying longer distances, we're going to be required to pay Bombardier additional payments

A fleet average of 1,000 miles leaves a lot of wiggle room for longer routes to be used.

INFINITI329 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

In fact, our agreement is structured with maximum takeoff weight provisions that reflect our intended deployment plan to fly the aircraft, on average, on routes that are less than 1000 miles. If we exceed those averages, i.e., the plane needs to carry more fuel because it's flying longer distances, we're going to be required to pay Bombardier additional payments

It baffles me why DL would limit the capability of their investment. Use airplane as you see fit but don't limit its capabilities. As others have stated this makes the CS100 at DL a glorified regional jet. A jet capable of 3,000+ nm range and you are limiting it to a 1/3 of that to save a couple pennies just doesn't make sense to me.

LawAndOrder wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

ilovelamp wrote:

My post was mostly rhetorical in that I know it hasn’t been announced officially. I just found it funny that’s being spoken about as if it's a given when Delta Networking won’t even know where they will be based until the last minute. Sure, some execs have stated those places publicly but that’s not the official word.

Ummm, it is all but confirmed guys, and has been for a while....They even confirmed it to investors, the media, pilots, flight attendants, and probably the neighbors dog too. I'm not sure how much more they need to do to make it known that they will base the Cseries in NYC and LAX...It isn't like network just found out about these planes either, they have known about them for years....they aren't just now deciding what to do with them, lol.

cessna2 wrote:

Technically they may be smaller, but the CS will hold the least amount of pax at 109. 1 less than the 717. So it will in terms be the "smallest" A/C in our fleet.

I'm aware, we were discussing the current fleet, and the person I was quoting was saying the MD88 was smaller than the B717

StrandedAtMKG wrote:

Wait...what? How does that work? DL has to pay Bombardier more if they utilize the aircraft's full range? I'm not clear on the concept here.

Greg May.
Senior Vice President of Fleet and Supply Chain Management at Delta Airlines.

On buying C Series:

I can't stress enough that when we began looking at our single-aisle replacement growth strategy in 2015 our focus was on reducing our 50-seat regions jets by up gauging to small gauge mainline aircraft. One of the highest priorities at the time was to find a small gauge aircraft, one with capacity definitely under 120 seats that met our mission profiles, including average route distances of under 1,000 nautical miles, not the 2900 nautical miles that have been defined today.
.....
In fact, our agreement is structured with maximum takeoff weight provisions that reflect our intended deployment plan to fly the aircraft, on average, on routes that are less than 1000 miles. If we exceed those averages, i.e., the plane needs to carry more fuel because it's flying longer distances, we're going to be required to pay Bombardier additional payments

The initial 2 route planned or that has been communicated to the media are over 1000 miles. But I suppose you combine them with some short haul "shuttle like" markets you can get to under a 1000 average stage.

ilovelamp wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

ilovelamp wrote:

Where is the official announcement they are going to NYC and LAX?

Delta has not ever (to my knowledge) provided an announcement of pilot bases.

Having said that its one of the worlds worst secrets that LAX and NYC will be the first pilot bases for the airplanes. It has been talked about internally, by employees in public and even executives on earnings calls several times.

My post was mostly rhetorical in that I know it hasn’t been announced officially. I just found it funny that’s being spoken about as if it's a given when Delta Networking won’t even know where they will be based until the last minute. Sure, some execs have stated those places publicly but that’s not the official word.

cvgComair wrote:

StrandedAtMKG wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

From what I have heard, current delivery estimate is either AUG 18 or NOV 18. I think economy will be 2-3 seating

"Parenthetically, the Delta testimony revealed that its transaction with BBD priced the CS100 as a 1,000-mile airplane. Should Delta begin using the aircraft on longer routes, additional monies will be paid to Bombardier. The CS100 has a range of more than 2,900nm."

Wait...what? How does that work? DL has to pay Bombardier more if they utilize the aircraft's full range? I'm not clear on the concept here.

Yep, DL never intended the CSeries to open up these long/thin routes everyone has been talking about. That is a bad use of new (and expensive aircraft), thin margin routes are not going to cover the cost of new planes. This plan allows them to acquire the airplanes for a lower cost and put them on the routes to increase capacity without going up to larger mainline aircraft. Routes like LGA-CVG/RDU/ORD/etc and LAX-SFO/LAS/PHX/etc are where the aircraft is going to be operating, replacing CR9/E175's, which can replace CR7/E170's on other routes, which can replace CR2's.

deltal1011man wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

impromark wrote:

YYC-SLC operates Daily on an E175, is this a candidate for replacement? I may fly that route again someday, so the interest is purely selfish...

Mark

Possibly, but Delta has said that the bases for the CS100 are going to be NYC and LAX. The competitive advantage gained by using fuel efficient CS100 is not needed in Salt Lake City because it is a fortress hub without a DC-9 derivative base, and there is little incentive to using the newest aircraft here.

first bases.

There will be other bases in the future.

TVNWZ wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

.... with capacity definitely under 120 seats that met our mission profiles, including average route distances of under 1,000 nautical miles, not the 2900 nautical miles that have been defined today.
.....
In fact, our agreement is structured with maximum takeoff weight provisions that reflect our intended deployment plan to fly the aircraft, on average, on routes that are less than 1000 miles. If we exceed those averages, i.e., the plane needs to carry more fuel because it's flying longer distances, we're going to be required to pay Bombardier additional payments

A fleet average of 1,000 miles leaves a lot of wiggle room for longer routes to be used.

The actually range is going to be right around 2,000nm. The airplane will be able to do basically anything from the interior hubs and everything but transcons from the coastal hubs.

INFINITI329 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

In fact, our agreement is structured with maximum takeoff weight provisions that reflect our intended deployment plan to fly the aircraft, on average, on routes that are less than 1000 miles. If we exceed those averages, i.e., the plane needs to carry more fuel because it's flying longer distances, we're going to be required to pay Bombardier additional payments

It baffles me why DL would limit the capability of their investment. Use airplane as you see fit but don't limit its capabilities. As others have stated this makes the CS100 at DL a glorified regional jet. A jet capable of 3,000+ nm range and you are limiting it to a 1/3 of that to save a couple pennies just doesn't make sense to me.

because Delta is going to use the airplanes for mostly regional flying. Its fairly stupid for Delta to pay BBD and Pratt for higher weight/thrust plus pay for the higher maintenance and operational cost that comes with it.

LawAndOrder wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

Ummm, it is all but confirmed guys, and has been for a while....They even confirmed it to investors, the media, pilots, flight attendants, and probably the neighbors dog too. I'm not sure how much more they need to do to make it known that they will base the Cseries in NYC and LAX...It isn't like network just found out about these planes either, they have known about them for years....they aren't just now deciding what to do with them, lol.


I'm aware, we were discussing the current fleet, and the person I was quoting was saying the MD88 was smaller than the B717


Greg May.
Senior Vice President of Fleet and Supply Chain Management at Delta Airlines.

On buying C Series:

I can't stress enough that when we began looking at our single-aisle replacement growth strategy in 2015 our focus was on reducing our 50-seat regions jets by up gauging to small gauge mainline aircraft. One of the highest priorities at the time was to find a small gauge aircraft, one with capacity definitely under 120 seats that met our mission profiles, including average route distances of under 1,000 nautical miles, not the 2900 nautical miles that have been defined today.
.....
In fact, our agreement is structured with maximum takeoff weight provisions that reflect our intended deployment plan to fly the aircraft, on average, on routes that are less than 1000 miles. If we exceed those averages, i.e., the plane needs to carry more fuel because it's flying longer distances, we're going to be required to pay Bombardier additional payments

The initial 2 route planned or that has been communicated to the media are over 1000 miles. But I suppose you combine them with some short haul "shuttle like" markets you can get to under a 1000 average stage.

and that is what will happen. I would bet on most of the short haul flying out of LA and Seattle to become CS100 routes. DEN, PHX, SFO etc.
There will be some mid cons on the fleet but the average flying will be mostly regional.

ilovelamp wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

Delta has not ever (to my knowledge) provided an announcement of pilot bases.

Having said that its one of the worlds worst secrets that LAX and NYC will be the first pilot bases for the airplanes. It has been talked about internally, by employees in public and even executives on earnings calls several times.

My post was mostly rhetorical in that I know it hasn’t been announced officially. I just found it funny that’s being spoken about as if it's a given when Delta Networking won’t even know where they will be based until the last minute. Sure, some execs have stated those places publicly but that’s not the official word.

not how that works at all.

The company has to be pretty clear with DALPA on the first bases. If the airplanes come in August like being talked about an AE will need to be done pretty quickly and get pilots in the training pipe line.

I get your point but we are getting to the time where the first bases will be set in stone. Now network could come out in August and say the first route is ATL-MCI, but the pilots will be coming from NYC/LAX.

jubguy3 wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

Possibly, but Delta has said that the bases for the CS100 are going to be NYC and LAX. The competitive advantage gained by using fuel efficient CS100 is not needed in Salt Lake City because it is a fortress hub without a DC-9 derivative base, and there is little incentive to using the newest aircraft here.

first bases.

There will be other bases in the future.

TVNWZ wrote:

A fleet average of 1,000 miles leaves a lot of wiggle room for longer routes to be used.

The actually range is going to be right around 2,000nm. The airplane will be able to do basically anything from the interior hubs and everything but transcons from the coastal hubs.

INFINITI329 wrote:

It baffles me why DL would limit the capability of their investment. Use airplane as you see fit but don't limit its capabilities. As others have stated this makes the CS100 at DL a glorified regional jet. A jet capable of 3,000+ nm range and you are limiting it to a 1/3 of that to save a couple pennies just doesn't make sense to me.

because Delta is going to use the airplanes for mostly regional flying. Its fairly stupid for Delta to pay BBD and Pratt for higher weight/thrust plus pay for the higher maintenance and operational cost that comes with it.

LawAndOrder wrote:

The initial 2 route planned or that has been communicated to the media are over 1000 miles. But I suppose you combine them with some short haul "shuttle like" markets you can get to under a 1000 average stage.

and that is what will happen. I would bet on most of the short haul flying out of LA and Seattle to become CS100 routes. DEN, PHX, SFO etc.
There will be some mid cons on the fleet but the average flying will be mostly regional.

ilovelamp wrote:

My post was mostly rhetorical in that I know it hasn’t been announced officially. I just found it funny that’s being spoken about as if it's a given when Delta Networking won’t even know where they will be based until the last minute. Sure, some execs have stated those places publicly but that’s not the official word.

not how that works at all.

The company has to be pretty clear with DALPA on the first bases. If the airplanes come in August like being talked about an AE will need to be done pretty quickly and get pilots in the training pipe line.

I get your point but we are getting to the time where the first bases will be set in stone. Now network could come out in August and say the first route is ATL-MCI, but the pilots will be coming from NYC/LAX.

Unless they get options, I would find it difficult to see them splitting 75 aircraft between more than 3 bases, and SLC is not a first contender between the announced NYC and LAX bases and the presumed ATL base. I imagine they will move more A319s and 717s towards SLC as part of their mainline upgauge strategy to reduce regional flying at SLC.

INFINITI329 wrote:

A jet capable of 3,000+ nm range and you are limiting it to a 1/3 of that to save a couple pennies just doesn't make sense to me.

MIflyer12 wrote:

cvgComair wrote:

StrandedAtMKG wrote:

Wait...what? How does that work? DL has to pay Bombardier more if they utilize the aircraft's full range? I'm not clear on the concept here.

Yep, DL never intended the CSeries to open up these long/thin routes everyone has been talking about. That is a bad use of new (and expensive aircraft), thin margin routes are not going to cover the cost of new planes. This plan allows them to acquire the airplanes for a lower cost and put them on the routes to increase capacity without going up to larger mainline aircraft. Routes like LGA-CVG/RDU/ORD/etc and LAX-SFO/LAS/PHX/etc are where the aircraft is going to be operating, replacing CR9/E175's, which can replace CR7/E170's on other routes, which can replace CR2's.

There's nothing that says a long thin route - these are narrowbodies, not ULH 773s - is a low margin route.

So, you think it's a good idea to run a much less fuel efficient 319 on a 2000 mile route instead of a best in class CS100?

This is why Delta systematically reduced average stage length on MD-88s.

INFINITI329 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

In fact, our agreement is structured with maximum takeoff weight provisions that reflect our intended deployment plan to fly the aircraft, on average, on routes that are less than 1000 miles. If we exceed those averages, i.e., the plane needs to carry more fuel because it's flying longer distances, we're going to be required to pay Bombardier additional payments

It baffles me why DL would limit the capability of their investment. Use airplane as you see fit but don't limit its capabilities. As others have stated this makes the CS100 at DL a glorified regional jet. A jet capable of 3,000+ nm range and you are limiting it to a 1/3 of that to save a couple pennies just doesn't make sense to me.

SteelChair wrote:

I predict Delta to eventually have 450 or so CSeries aircraft in service and on order including CS100, 300, and 500 versions..

SteelChair wrote:

The dumping claim was really about Boeing's certainty that they cannot compete with the CS500 imo..

SteelChair wrote:

The MOB plant helps the 300 and 500 get built for Delta (counters the next round of Boeing dumping claims)

SteelChair wrote:

it also holds YMX employees honest, they wouldn't want to be outworked by a bunch of Alabamians...haha.

sonnyville wrote:

Configuration wise, I think first 4 rows will be DL One in 1-2 configuration (12 DL One seats), followed by 2-3 for DL Y+ (maybe 3 or 4 rows of Y+) , and the rest Y of course. Wether or not DL decides to equipment these C series with individual PTVS or not, not sure. I wouldn't be surprised if they roll them out without PTVs, but instead every seat has individual powercharger/usb ports to connect devices. Even mainline LX did not include individual PTVs on any of their C series and from the looks of KE's C series, they also did not include any individual PTVs on theirs.

cvgComair wrote:

NateGreat wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

1. The MD88 aren't in NYC anymore
2. This is DL's strategy moving forward
50 seaters going away.
76 seaters taking over 50seater flying, with slightly less frequency.
110 seaters (CS) taking over 76 seater flying, with slightly less frequency.
160 seaters taking over 110 (717) and 149 (MD88) seater flying
180-90 seaters taking over 160 seater flying.

Which aircraft are the 76-seaters?

CRJ-900 and ERJ-175. That list is missing the 69 seaters (CR7/E170), which will also replace 50 seaters (CRJ).

SteelChair wrote:

My prediction is that Delta will attempt to place the airplanes in service before the end of this calendar year. There is a huge anount of work to be done both at Delta and the manufacturers by then. Bombardier and PW have done a poor job (understatement) with production ramp up, and PW is still engineering fixes to the engine. Program failure is still possible.

I predict Delta to eventually (by 2027-28 and assuming the manufacturers get their act together) have 450 or so CSeries aircraft in service and on order including CS100, 300, and 500 versions.

The dumping claim was really about Boeing's certainty that they cannot compete with the CS500 imo.

The MOB plant helps the 300 and 500 get built for Delta (counters the next round of Boeing dumping claims)and it also holds Le Quebecois employees at YMX honest, they wouldn't want to be outworked by a bunch of Alabamians...haha.

NateGreat wrote:

cvgComair wrote:

NateGreat wrote:

Which aircraft are the 76-seaters?

CRJ-900 and ERJ-175. That list is missing the 69 seaters (CR7/E170), which will also replace 50 seaters (CRJ).

What would New Bern, NC (EWN) get as a replacement for the daily CRJ-200s?

NateGreat wrote:

So far, all we know about Delta’s C Series aircraft is that they will be based out of NYC and LAX. What routes and destinations could we expect to see the C Series operate, and will they fly to other Delta hubs like ATL, DTW, and MSP? What kind of seating configurations could we expect? 1-2 or 2-2 in First? 2-3/3-2 or 3-3 in Economy? Could we expect Comfort+? PTVs or no PTVs? Mood lighting or no mood lighting? Finally, when can we expect the first delivery and inaugural flight? Let me know what you guys think.

Jouhou wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

My prediction is that Delta will attempt to place the airplanes in service before the end of this calendar year. There is a huge anount of work to be done both at Delta and the manufacturers by then. Bombardier and PW have done a poor job (understatement) with production ramp up, and PW is still engineering fixes to the engine. Program failure is still possible.

I predict Delta to eventually (by 2027-28 and assuming the manufacturers get their act together) have 450 or so CSeries aircraft in service and on order including CS100, 300, and 500 versions.

The dumping claim was really about Boeing's certainty that they cannot compete with the CS500 imo.

The MOB plant helps the 300 and 500 get built for Delta (counters the next round of Boeing dumping claims)and it also holds Le Quebecois employees at YMX honest, they wouldn't want to be outworked by a bunch of Alabamians...haha.

Places like Alabama are chosen for manufacturing due to low wages and a lack of worker protections. It's not really a good thing.
It's the domestic equivalent (for American companies) to sending jobs into countries in the developing world where workers are underpaid and abused. For Airbus and bombardier, it's pretty much sending jobs to the developing world...

INFINITI329 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

In fact, our agreement is structured with maximum takeoff weight provisions that reflect our intended deployment plan to fly the aircraft, on average, on routes that are less than 1000 miles. If we exceed those averages, i.e., the plane needs to carry more fuel because it's flying longer distances, we're going to be required to pay Bombardier additional payments

It baffles me why DL would limit the capability of their investment. Use airplane as you see fit but don't limit its capabilities. As others have stated this makes the CS100 at DL a glorified regional jet. A jet capable of 3,000+ nm range and you are limiting it to a 1/3 of that to save a couple pennies just doesn't make sense to me.

WaywardMemphian wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

My prediction is that Delta will attempt to place the airplanes in service before the end of this calendar year. There is a huge anount of work to be done both at Delta and the manufacturers by then. Bombardier and PW have done a poor job (understatement) with production ramp up, and PW is still engineering fixes to the engine. Program failure is still possible.

I predict Delta to eventually (by 2027-28 and assuming the manufacturers get their act together) have 450 or so CSeries aircraft in service and on order including CS100, 300, and 500 versions.

The dumping claim was really about Boeing's certainty that they cannot compete with the CS500 imo.

The MOB plant helps the 300 and 500 get built for Delta (counters the next round of Boeing dumping claims)and it also holds Le Quebecois employees at YMX honest, they wouldn't want to be outworked by a bunch of Alabamians...haha.

Places like Alabama are chosen for manufacturing due to low wages and a lack of worker protections. It's not really a good thing.
It's the domestic equivalent (for American companies) to sending jobs into countries in the developing world where workers are underpaid and abused. For Airbus and bombardier, it's pretty much sending jobs to the developing world...

Those wages are fantastic for Alabama and South Carolina. 17 bucks in the South is 22 bucks or even higher on the West Coast, especially Seattle.

cvgComair wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

cvgComair wrote:

Yep, DL never intended the CSeries to open up these long/thin routes everyone has been talking about. That is a bad use of new (and expensive aircraft), thin margin routes are not going to cover the cost of new planes. This plan allows them to acquire the airplanes for a lower cost and put them on the routes to increase capacity without going up to larger mainline aircraft. Routes like LGA-CVG/RDU/ORD/etc and LAX-SFO/LAS/PHX/etc are where the aircraft is going to be operating, replacing CR9/E175's, which can replace CR7/E170's on other routes, which can replace CR2's.

There's nothing that says a long thin route - these are narrowbodies, not ULH 773s - is a low margin route.

So, you think it's a good idea to run a much less fuel efficient 319 on a 2000 mile route instead of a best in class CS100?

This is why Delta systematically reduced average stage length on MD-88s.

No, its not smart to put a new and expensive aircraft on a long and thin route. It locks these planes up for significant blocks of time and when you have to pay off the price of these aircraft, you need high utilization and profitable routes. It makes sense for Delta to put the A319 on these long and thin routes since that aircraft is already paid off for and can be blocked out on these long routes. There is a reason routes like SEA-IND/RDU/MKE/MSY/etc or SLC-BNA/STL/PIT/etc are operating with the A319. Given that DL is getting a big discount on the CSeries by using them on shorter routes, yes, it makes sense to use the A319 for longer routes instead of a CSeries. The CSeries will be a great cost reducer on frequent/shuttle routes on large RJ/B717's like LAX-SFO/SEA, NYC-ORD/DCA/BOS, CVG/RDU-LGA, etc. That gives a lot of fuel savings and increased efficiency.

It is possible that a few long routes emerge, but expect these to be anomalies, not the normal usage of the aircraft. These will be routes where Delta can command a premium based on O&D pax.

msycajun wrote:

cvgComair wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

There's nothing that says a long thin route - these are narrowbodies, not ULH 773s - is a low margin route.

So, you think it's a good idea to run a much less fuel efficient 319 on a 2000 mile route instead of a best in class CS100?

This is why Delta systematically reduced average stage length on MD-88s.

No, its not smart to put a new and expensive aircraft on a long and thin route. It locks these planes up for significant blocks of time and when you have to pay off the price of these aircraft, you need high utilization and profitable routes. It makes sense for Delta to put the A319 on these long and thin routes since that aircraft is already paid off for and can be blocked out on these long routes. There is a reason routes like SEA-IND/RDU/MKE/MSY/etc or SLC-BNA/STL/PIT/etc are operating with the A319. Given that DL is getting a big discount on the CSeries by using them on shorter routes, yes, it makes sense to use the A319 for longer routes instead of a CSeries. The CSeries will be a great cost reducer on frequent/shuttle routes on large RJ/B717's like LAX-SFO/SEA, NYC-ORD/DCA/BOS, CVG/RDU-LGA, etc. That gives a lot of fuel savings and increased efficiency.

It is possible that a few long routes emerge, but expect these to be anomalies, not the normal usage of the aircraft. These will be routes where Delta can command a premium based on O&D pax.

I don't understand your logic here. Delta is not generally charging a premium based on the newness of the aircraft. Economically it makes sense to maximize the amount of time the C Series is in the air - that is where they will save the most fuel compared to other aircraft. Shorter routes where the plane is on the ground proportionally longer each day are more suited to less efficient aircraft, because the efficiency doesn't matter as much when it's not flying. Whether or not it's paid for doesn't factor into it apart from managing the cycles for maintenance purposes. The money is spent the same whether it flies a "premium" route or a "long and thin" route.

Now I realize they got a discount for the range limitation, but I still don't see them favoring the CS on short shuttle type routes over medium length routes, once the training period is over.

Say for example you had two 1000 mile routes, one flown by a 319, and the other by a C Series, the total cost of operating these two flights is going to be the same whether you put 319 or route A or B. If we assume the number of seats is similar on the two aircraft, it makes no difference to Delta which route gets the newer plane, even if one route makes more money than the other. Now say you have one 1000 mile route or two 350 mile routes - you want the more efficient plane on the longer route and the older plane on the shorter ones to minimize the total fuel cost.

Polot wrote:

Shorter routes are actually the best way to maximize revenue. For the same amount of fuel/crew costs/aircraft utilization you can carry more passengers (whoxh equals more money) in the same amount of time. The US3 make a killing on their shorter routes where they have a monopoly or near monoply (ie DL’s southeastern flights), not on the transcontinental/near trans cons. It doesn’t matter if it is on the ground slightly longer. Getting as many fresh loads of pax in the plane is more important than keeping the aircraft in the air as long as possible.