Just for the mentally challenged of the group ,delldude said:(1) Paint increases weight which in turn adds to the hourly fuel consumption...fuel consumption is something a floundering "non hedging" airline needs to be mindfull of.
so do we have monies to strip the fleet as opposed to hedging for fuel??duh??
NO I do not advocate stripping the fleet....but the Boeing Fleet seems to be doing a great job of stripping on it's own accord.
I see it as being far cheaper to strip a plane with a failing paint job to bare metal as opposed to taking it out of service for yet another "Shake and Bake" paint job that will ultimately fail...or generally look like hell within months....and still be a fuel consumption issue that the penny wise and dollar foolish can't seem to grasp.
Have another beer Dell....maybe just maybe it will all come into plain view for you by noon tomorrow?
To awnser you question directly...They claim to not have to funds on hand to hedge fuel..yet we have funds to move airplanes to Louisiana for shotty paint jobs on a bi-annual basis as it seems. Sure some of this is warranty work...but is does not compensate for the time out of service , lost revenue potential , fuel and crew costs to fly the Acft to New Iberia La. from PIT or CLT.....and it certainly doesn't hold down the times and cycles that speed up the need for another heavy check.
If you take all these issues into account?...and you multiply those issues times the number of Acft affected....you will clearly see where part of our profit potential is being thrown down a dry hole....the fuel consumption due to added weight is just the icing on the cake that Dave is offering us all to eat.
