American Shuttle

[chperplt]

The Today show just talked about the new American Shuttle flying between BOS-LGA-DCA in the beautiful ERJ. The reporter was asking people what they thought, and one lady said "claustrophobic." I don't think AMR will use that interview as a selling point.

 

[PassingThru]

claustrophobic

That's just one person's opinion. From what I've heard, most passengers like the ERJ much better than the props. Did they have any positive comments on the jets?

Thanks

--

 

[chperplt]

The only other passenger they interviewed said she is flying Eagle because she used her frequent flyer points

I can't imagine the cost will be that much less than what Delta and US Air charge for their shuttles. I wish them luck!

 

[AAflyer]

You guys are both right. This seems to be a big debate over here in property. Not that AA mainline wants to fly it, but that currently the market is not making money with mainline jets. When asked why we would compete with Rjs, AMRs response was there are enough members of the AA Advantage propgram(frquent fliers, etc) in the NE that would use the Eagle shuttle or like to accrue more miles on us, or connect to us later. They figured the low cost of flying the eagle vs A319/A320 and B737-800 would make us competitive. From the sounds of what the lady said, she is doing what they expected.

AAflyer

 

[Jeff G]

They figured the low cost of flying the eagle vs A319/A320 and B737-800 would make us competitive.

The cost may be lower in absolute terms, but an RJ's unit costs are higher. On a 200 mile route, it might cost 15 cents per seat mile on mainline equipment, but 25 cents on the RJ. So American's move here never made much sense to me. I suppose it's a matter of "right-sizing" the route, rather than fly a F-100 or B-737 two-thirds empty, but that doesn't improve yields. There are already too many empty seats on the shuttle circuit. It's likely AMR will lose money on these routes. Good luck.

 

[AAflyer]

The F-100 is going away, the 737-800 like you mentioned is direct competitve suicide with Delta. I guess I did mis-phrase that. The RJ is much better suited for the loads on the route, however what they charge, and what it costs them to break even (seats being filled on the RJ) makes them competitve. One must only look all over the country to see the explosive growth ofthe profitable and well suited RJ to certain markets.

AMR has made mistakes (I have seen a few, and probably could buy you a few beers and talk your ears off with crap I don't like), but they have made strategic moves that have worked in the past. I will wait and see.

AAflyer,

If it does fail, I am sure it will some how be the mail-line pilots' fault.

 

[General Lee]

The loads haven't been that great on the 738 (and Yes, I know that Sep and Oct are usually a slow time anyways). Maybe we need a different aircraft---like our 9 737-300's parked out in the desert. Hey, it's not my decission.

Bye Bye------General Lee

 

[nimtz]

American has tried several times to fly the shuttle over its many years. They usually end up getting there butts kicked, whether it be Eastern or Capitol. They even tried one time to run BAC-111's against Eastern's electras, but still got booted out.

 

[AAflyer]

Newsflash!!!!!, EVERYONE flying that route is getting the you know what kicked out of them.

AAflyer

 

[PassingThru]

Confused????

Jeff G. you said,

On a 200 mile route, it might cost 15 cents per seat mile on mainline equipment, but 25 cents on the RJ.

Don't you have your figures backward?

RJ are cheaper to operate that mainline equipment according to everything I read.

What am I missing here?????


----

 

[Jeff G]

Passing thru,

The key phrase is "per seat mile". I don't know what actual costs are; I was just guesstimating. But it's a fact that RJ unit costs are higher than mainline equipment. Why? Fewer seats to spread costs across. Sure the aircraft are smaller, don't burn as much fuel, and the crew is paid less, but they also have one third the number of seats as, say, a shuttle configured A-320. So the A320 could cost twice as much to operate, but since it carries three times the number of seats, unit costs will still be a third lower than those of the RJ. That means that either load factor doesn't need to be as high, or fares don't need to be as high to break even as opposed to doing the same flight on the RJ.

Here's an example, for a fictional 200 mi flight flight:
ERJ-145: $1500 total cost / 50 seats = ($30/seat) / 200 mi = 0.15 per seat mile (CASM)
A-320: $3000 total cost / 150 seats = ($20/seat) / 200 mi = 0.10 CASM

So you can actually spend less money to operate a flight on an RJ, but still make less money than if you use a larger airplane, all because the unit costs are higher.

In a market like the shuttle, maybe it makes sense to use a smaller airplane, since the loads are pretty pathetic. But it would make even more sense to use the airplanes where there is actually a demand for the product. There is no demand for more seats on the shuttle routes, so if you are ever much less than about 90% full, you're losing money. The other guy at the same time can be 60% full and making money. They have more seats to spread costs across. Do you see?

I can understand your confusion, since the conventional wisdom is that the RJ is the end-all, be-all perfect cheap jet that lays waste to all competitors. It is an important part of a full-service airline's fleet, but only within its own niche. It is not cheaper in all things, or in all situations, otherwise you'd just replace mainline aircraft with the equivalent number of seats worth of RJ's. That's not happening, and never will.