Delta replacing 50 seater RJs with MD90s

[COOPERVANE]

I really don't see him insulting anybody.

Are you talking about this thread?

 

[IBNAV8R]

I know DC9 pilots and A320 guys that now have layovers in FAY and GPT. Those used to be Brasilia and RJ routes, exclusively. Also, We used to fly 737-200s to both GNV and TRI. We used to fly DC8s to CHA----DC-8s!!! Flying A320s or DC9s to FAY is a good thing, meaning we can fill them and maybe as people retire you will have the option of doing that if you want, or bid bigger and fly across the pond. It's all up to you.


Bye Bye---General Lee

DC-8s to CHA? 73s to GNV, TRI, etc.? Was that c.1978 and prior? Pre RJs? Even as late as the mid-90s, the break-even load factor was around 45%. Nowadays, not so much.

If you can charge enough to make money with a half-full 320, good on you. Better still if you can fill it up. But the economics of a full RJ v. a half empty 320/MD/73 will never change.

What you seem to be wishing, is that 2 pilots should be flying one round-trip per day and pax should have no choice in WHEN they get to go - as opposed to 6 pilots doing the job and giving pax a choice.

 

[General Lee]

DC-8s to CHA? 73s to GNV, TRI, etc.? Was that c.1978 and prior? Pre RJs? Even as late as the mid-90s, the break-even load factor was around 45%. Nowadays, not so much.

If you can charge enough to make money with a half-full 320, good on you. Better still if you can fill it up. But the economics of a full RJ v. a half empty 320/MD/73 will never change.

What you seem to be wishing, is that 2 pilots should be flying one round-trip per day and pax should have no choice in WHEN they get to go - as opposed to 6 pilots doing the job and giving pax a choice.

Sure, the DC-8s were a long time ago, but the 737-200s to GNV and TRI were after I was hired in 96. The problem was back when oil was cheap (after 9-11), some management types saw the cheap costs with RJs. They thought business people wanted "frequency" over "comfort." That turned out to be completely wrong, and the guy who decided this for this legacy went on to found Virgin America, WITHOUT RJs. Hmmmmmm. Maybe he learned something. The RJs were also never intended to fly 10 legs per day. They originally were corporate jets (CL-601 Challenger---just stretched), and now that they are up to their cycle limits (landings), they would have to go through very expensive checks, that probably would cost more than most of them are worth currently. High gas has made them very inefficient, and it looks like high gas may be here to stay for a while. It would be nice for pax to have a choice in departure times, but not at the expense of profits. This isn't Amtrak.

So, DC9s and A320s are going back to cities that once were flown exclusively by mainline, and then went to exclusively RJ. That is a huge shift in thinking, and one I think is better. People like the mainline planes better, the extra space, and the airline can spread out the costs and try to make a profit. That's good.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[180ToTheMarker]

Sure, the DC-8s were a long time ago, but the 737-200s to GNV and TRI were after I was hired in 96. The problem was back when oil was cheap (after 9-11), some management types saw the cheap costs with RJs. They thought business people wanted "frequency" over "comfort." That turned out to be completely wrong, and the guy who decided this for this legacy went on to found Virgin America, WITHOUT RJs. Hmmmmmm. Maybe he learned something. The RJs were also never intended to fly 10 legs per day. They originally were corporate jets (CL-601 Challenger---just stretched), and now that they are up to their cycle limits (landings), they would have to go through very expensive checks, that probably would cost more than most of them are worth currently. High gas has made them very inefficient, and it looks like high gas may be here to stay for a while. It would be nice for pax to have a choice in departure times, but not at the expense of profits. This isn't Amtrak.

So, DC9s and A320s are going back to cities that once were flown exclusively by mainline, and then went to exclusively RJ. That is a huge shift in thinking, and one I think is better. People like the mainline planes better, the extra space, and the airline can spread out the costs and try to make a profit. That's good.


Bye Bye---General Lee

Nail meet head. Good post GL.

 

[airplane wizard]

I remember the good old days when you would be on a 727 MKE-ORD or a DC-9 MKE-ATW, or a DC_10 MSP-MKE

 

[flyboyike]

I remember the good old days when you would be on a 727 MKE-ORD or a DC-9 MKE-ATW, or a DC_10 MSP-MKE

And a 747-8 MSP-STC.

 

[ASApuppy]

Frequency is still key for the business traveler. My wife travels every week for business. This week, 3 times. She has paid a dollar a mile to fly round trip on ASA recently (ATL-JAN-ATL, $947). She will pick schedule over price 9 out of 10 times. She would rather pay $1000 for a flight that works with the business schedule versus $300 for a once a day flight. And she actually likes the RJ's for their quick load and offload times. She also sees no better service on mainline vs DCI (with the exception of Pinnacle, whom she trys to avoid).

Believe it or not, most of our pax in the back have no idea what company is flying the plane or who made it. They are quite simply in the groove for what they are travelling for.

Aside from far off destinations, 3 times a day service should be the minimum for business travels. I agree that taking a CRJ 8 times a day is not good, unless you've got quite a few $1k fares onboard. Personally, I think we need "wide-body" turboprops for routes under a couple of hours. Take a 5 or 6 across tube with huge carry-on room and mate it with a straight wing. Under 500 miles, it would burn 60% of what a 737NG does.

 

[Freebrd]

And a 747-8 MSP-STC.

and ATLMCO using L1011s.....:erm:

 

[Sig]

Frequency is still key for the business traveler. My wife travels every week for business. This week, 3 times. She has paid a dollar a mile to fly round trip on ASA recently (ATL-JAN-ATL, $947). She will pick schedule over price 9 out of 10 times. She would rather pay $1000 for a flight that works with the business schedule versus $300 for a once a day flight. And she actually likes the RJ's for their quick load and offload times. She also sees no better service on mainline vs DCI (with the exception of Pinnacle, whom she trys to avoid).

This is fascinating to me- actual, bona fide proof of how a business traveler thinks.

I've maintained for years that airline MGT listened to the general public, catering to their wishes and whims and assuming the clamor for supposed options (frequency) was necessary and a good idea.

The GENERAL PUBLIC, not their true market which would be people who pay fares, but the group of mouthbreathing trogs that want airline service options that they will never, ever utilize.

I live near an airport that just got Allegiant service of 2 flights a week. I listen endlessly to how great it is to have another airline for service because- without fail- "I like options." Nevermind the fact that they'll rant and rave about the cost, fees, and lack of frequency later- they just have another option to fantasize about actually flying on.

It's pretty cool to see someone out there actually doing business with the airlines on a business level. Thanks for the story.

 

[ASA_Aviator]

And thats not a deuce I left in your flight kit either...

Nice. All I'm saying is if you want people to take you seriously and think you are educated, you might want to fix that sort of thing. If you want to appear ignorant, that's your call.

BTW, the little gem quoted above doesn't help your image.

 

[ASA_Aviator]

Believe it or not, most of our pax in the back have no idea what company is flying the plane or who made it. They are quite simply in the groove for what they are travelling for.

That's because the service is "seemless." Just ask Kaman.

 

[ex j-41]

Sure, the DC-8s were a long time ago, but the 737-200s to GNV and TRI were after I was hired in 96. The problem was back when oil was cheap (after 9-11), some management types saw the cheap costs with RJs. They thought business people wanted "frequency" over "comfort." That turned out to be completely wrong, and the guy who decided this for this legacy went on to found Virgin America, WITHOUT RJs. Hmmmmmm. Maybe he learned something. The RJs were also never intended to fly 10 legs per day. They originally were corporate jets (CL-601 Challenger---just stretched), and now that they are up to their cycle limits (landings), they would have to go through very expensive checks, that probably would cost more than most of them are worth currently. High gas has made them very inefficient, and it looks like high gas may be here to stay for a while. It would be nice for pax to have a choice in departure times, but not at the expense of profits. This isn't Amtrak.

So, DC9s and A320s are going back to cities that once were flown exclusively by mainline, and then went to exclusively RJ. That is a huge shift in thinking, and one I think is better. People like the mainline planes better, the extra space, and the airline can spread out the costs and try to make a profit. That's good.


Bye Bye---General Lee

The RJ's of today are a heck of a lot more efficient than that of the DC9/727 era.
Cost for a CRJ 200 is about $18/pax/hr in Gas.
A CRJ 700 is about $16/pax/hr in gas. Yes the difference adds up. But it also hurts when a 70 seater has 10 empty seats.
I will not buy into the myth that the regional jets are inefficient. They offer just what the customer ordered. Frequency and a Jet.
Also keep in mind that the routes that the regional jets cover are usually limited in choice of service. Meaning that a customer will have only 1 maybe 2 options of airlines to choose from. This gives the airlines ability to modify prices easier than a mainline flight into a large city. There is so much competition that an ASA flight from BTR to ATL will make more profit than the ATL - LAS mainline.

 

[ohplease!]

I remember the good old days when you would be on a 727 MKE-ORD or a DC-9 MKE-ATW, or a DC_10 MSP-MKE

yeah but, back then the flights were not "hub & spoke" as they are now. They were point to point (almost like "flag stops") people stayed on the plane as a few got on/off to go on to the next stop.....different animal....oh yeah, I seem to remember some little thing called "regulation" too.....

different times, different animals...

 

[Fltlvls]

No, that is wrong. I just posted that there are more MD90s out there, but those last Saudia ones probably won't be going to Delta because they have the "MD11 Cockpit" and they may only be used for spare parts. Where did you get "I want to shove it in your faces?" You interpret it that way, but I never said that. I actually want less RJs, but more of YOU guys to come to mainline if you want. With huge retirements coming up, I hope that is the case. I have always thanked ASA guys for helping our furloughed pilots out after 9-11, and a lot of the pilots hired in 07 were ASA pilots. That's good. Overall though, I don't think RJs have helped this industry as a whole, and I hope the trend reverses itself and there are more mainline planes and mainline jobs in the future, which generally pay more and have better benefits. That's all. You can continue to hate me, but that's my opionion.


Bye Bye---General Lee

So who do you blame for the RJs hurting the industry?..The flying public, management, or mainline pilots allowing the regionals to fly them?

 

[filejw]

Frequency is still key for the business traveler. My wife travels every week for business. This week, 3 times. She has paid a dollar a mile to fly round trip on ASA recently (ATL-JAN-ATL, $947). She will pick schedule over price 9 out of 10 times. She would rather pay $1000 for a flight that works with the business schedule versus $300 for a once a day flight. And she actually likes the RJ's for their quick load and offload times. She also sees no better service on mainline vs DCI (with the exception of Pinnacle, whom she trys to avoid).

Believe it or not, most of our pax in the back have no idea what company is flying the plane or who made it. They are quite simply in the groove for what they are travelling for.

Aside from far off destinations, 3 times a day service should be the minimum for business travels. I agree that taking a CRJ 8 times a day is not good, unless you've got quite a few $1k fares onboard. Personally, I think we need "wide-body" turboprops for routes under a couple of hours. Take a 5 or 6 across tube with huge carry-on room and mate it with a straight wing. Under 500 miles, it would burn 60% of what a 737NG does.

I have sis and her husband both are high mucky mucks for somebody and they tell corporate travel no RJ's over an hr , been doing it for 30 plus yrs...