ASA Bad news is out.

[johnpeace]

Which has been proven to not be a winning strategy. Not to mention taking higher paying jobs and making them lower paying jobs.

I'd rather have a lower paying job for a company that isn't being liquidated than a higher paying job with a company that can't survive the next $4 increase in the barrel price of oil.

That's just me though...YMMV.

 

[wmuflyguy]

I'd rather have a lower paying job for a company that isn't being liquidated than a higher paying job with a company that can't survive the next $4 increase in the barrel price of oil.

That's just me though...YMMV.

Just disregard the first part of my post why don't you.....The losing strategy of replacing all domestic flying with CRJ's and ERJ's as they have been proven to be money losers (especially if oil goes up).

Who do you think is going to pay you to fly those CRJ's? Oh...thats right that same company that can't survive the next 4 dollar increase in gas (Since they are paying for your gas....there is a reason why companies can't dump RJ's fast enough). So if they liquidate, who is going to pay for your company to fly that jet? No one, and well no flying, no pilots.

 

[johnpeace]

Who do you think is going to pay you to fly those CRJ's? Oh...thats right that same company that can't survive the next 4 dollar increase in gas (Since they are paying for your gas....there is a reason why companies can't dump RJ's fast enough). So if they liquidate, who is going to pay for your company to fly that jet? No one, and well no flying, no pilots.

I don't know that it's been 'proven' to be a losing strategy.

It's a lot cheaper to run a CRJ900 from ATL-ABQ than it is a MD80.

Anyway, I expect 'RJs' will be getting bigger in the next 3-5 years or so.

 

[Superpilot92]

I don't know that it's been 'proven' to be a losing strategy.

It's a lot cheaper to run a CRJ900 from ATL-ABQ than it is a MD80.

Anyway, I expect 'RJs' will be getting bigger in the next 3-5 years or so.

Feel free to back up your statement with factual data, thanks.

 

[wmuflyguy]

I don't know that it's been 'proven' to be a losing strategy.

It's a lot cheaper to run a CRJ900 from ATL-ABQ than it is a MD80.

Anyway, I expect 'RJs' will be getting bigger in the next 3-5 years or so.

Independence Air comes to mind and the majors retreat from it seems to provide some evidence,

God I hope RJ's don't get bigger, lets hope they get smaller and they are flown by the company whose name they bear. Better paying jobs for all

As for the cheapness of operating an MD-80 as opposed to a 76 seat CRJ. Depends what your looking at. Not if you compare CASM...total cost, sure. Then again you need to make two trips to carry what one md-80 does. They are running 2 757's and 1 md-80 out of atl to abq...so your point is moot.

 

[10nCLR]

Whereas my question pertains to the freeloading nature of Skywest pilots, and your question pertains to management actions...answer mine first!!!!

NANNER NANNER BOO BOO!!!

NOPE! Answer mine first.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Delta have to maintain a set number of block hours for Skywest Airlines. So when Delta reduces these block times during schedule changes don't they have to make up those hours somewhere else. So lets say, Mesaba takes over some crj900 flying from SkyWest out of SLC, in return, Delta then gives SkyWest some flying out of CVG or ATL, guaranteed hours, right? I don't know all the deets on the contracts so fire away. Anyway, SkyWest only has one crj2 going into atl for flts to STL, CMH and YYZ. The CVG flts, well, the majority of them are flown by Chautauqua, Shuttle America, Comair then Freedom in that order. So why not the whining game about those carriers?
Most of those OO routes if not all are only for the summer months and will end in Sep anyway. Delta makes the schedules and the Delta connection system has alot more players now for Delta to decide on where to best utilize the aircraft types etc.
So give up your b!tching and whining about how SkyWest is purposely taking over the flying to prevent furloughs and how you generalize the non union group of pilots as a whole as being feeloaders. Unfortunately for you, its a different culture over at OO, there's more flexibility without the unions. Good management/employee relations=better morale.
By the way, OO is utilizing crews to fly more pro-rate with the jets something Jerry had mentioned might be coming to ASA for a trial run. Also there's always ongoing efforts to fly charters. So Blah, blah, blah. Take a look at the BIG PICTURE and don't get me started on onions with regards to ALPO. I'd rather eat dog food out of a can with meine Kool-aid.

Assalaam-O-Alaikum

 

[buscap]

I asked my question first!!!

Nanner nanner again!!!

By the way, the answer is one word: Less

 

[B.T.Justice]

Skywest isn't steeling flying from ASA. ASA is flying record block hours with minimum spares. If Delta is offering SKYW INC more flying, and ASA is too busy to cover it, what are they supposed to do? Well sorry Delta our ASA division handels the east coast ops, and they are booked full, so please give that flying to Pinnacle.

I don't think so.....they figure out a way to cover it. I think thats what your seeing now. ASA has 1000 departures a day, and struggling with minimum spares, how much more flying can we take?

 

[Nevets]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Delta have to maintain a set number of block hours for Skywest Airlines. So when Delta reduces these block times during schedule changes don't they have to make up those hours somewhere else. So lets say, Mesaba takes over some crj900 flying from SkyWest out of SLC, in return, Delta then gives SkyWest some flying out of CVG or ATL, guaranteed hours, right? I don't know all the deets on the contracts so fire away.

I thought that SKW had to do a certain percentage of the DCI flying.

Anyway, SkyWest only has one crj2 going into atl for flts to STL, CMH and YYZ. The CVG flts, well, the majority of them are flown by Chautauqua, Shuttle America, Comair then Freedom in that order. So why not the whining game about those carriers?

Probably because SKW has no control over those other carriers.

...you generalize the non union group of pilots as a whole as being feeloaders.

Well, its true.

Unfortunately for you, its a different culture over at OO, there's more flexibility without the unions. Good management/employee relations=better morale.

Just because there is a union does NOT mean there is no flexibility or good morale.

 

[Erlanger]

Feel free to back up your statement with factual data, thanks.

If there is anyone in the business who knows what they're doing it's Jerry Atkin of Skywest, Inc. He says the CRJ700s and 900s are money makers but the 200s are not anymore.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

I don't know that it's been 'proven' to be a losing strategy.

It's a lot cheaper to run a CRJ900 from ATL-ABQ than it is a MD80.

Anyway, I expect 'RJs' will be getting bigger in the next 3-5 years or so.

Cheaper in total cost, but not in CSAM. These 88's have the lowest lease rates of everything on property. ( 9's are paid for)

 

[Speedtape]

Cheaper in total cost, but not in CSAM. These 88's have the lowest lease rates of everything on property. ( 9's are paid for)

There is no simple answer and I think you meant, CASM!

A 747 has a lower CASM than an 88! However, that means little if the seats can't be filled with passengers purchasing tickets with a good average yield. The 747 has the "potential" to make more money than an 88, but it also has the potential to lose more money.

The example holds true for a 70/90 versus an 88. There is "potential" to make more money with the 88, but also there is a potential to lose more money in an 88. But, there is also the "potential" to make more money with a 70/90, than with an 88. There are many factors that can determine which airframe is the best match for a given market. Each type aircraft is a tool and the idea is to right-size the tool for the job. This goes to prove that size does matter--the right size!

 

[buscap]

And I do have the nads to answer your question.

We would be screwed!!!

But that has squat to do with the Skywest pilots.

Now...and your answer is????

 

[ACL65PILOT]

There is no simple answer and I think you meant, CASM!

A 747 has a lower CASM than an 88! However, that means little if the seats can't be filled with passengers purchasing tickets with a good average yield. The 747 has the "potential" to make more money than an 88, but it also has the potential to lose more money.

The example holds true for a 70/90 versus an 88. There is "potential" to make more money with the 88, but also there is a potential to lose more money in an 88. But, there is also the "potential" to make more money with a 70/90, than with an 88. There are many factors that can determine which airframe is the best match for a given market. Each type aircraft is a tool and the idea is to right-size the tool for the job. This goes to prove that size does matter--the right size!

You are correct, but there is something that need to be discussed. The 70/90 seat platforms have other issues that just money. DAL knows that. That is why they have started to put limits on them. Three hrs in an RJ is just too long. This management team knows it.

Also yes, an RJ could make more money if they could actually charge more given the fact that we offer fewer seats, but they don't.
We compete with other airlines, and if they do not do exactly what we do, there is no way to employ that strategy. DAL is stuck pricing tickets with the market.
Fact is that with that market they will actually have a better yeild on the lower priced tickets with a larger jet. The RJ's are very costly per seat mile, where as the larger jets are not.

I will grant you that there are a few markets that will see a bump in RJ service due to the netting effect that we will employ with our many hubs. It will not be as great as you think. Moreover, the merger will in effect keep the RJ's that were there, where there was an actual business case to bring in a large jet. For example places like PIA.

When the 100 seat jet actually arrives in a platform that DAL is willing to sign on to, yes, you will see DAL take 40 or seats off a flight in favor of that.
One thing DAL will never admit publically and almost never personally, is that they have seen travelers actually book away from RJ's even if the price is more. That right there is proof in the pudding.

Also the 76 seat jet is not necessrarly a money maker. What it does, is allowes DAL to offer a "preimum" product to medium markets. That is the sole purpose behind it. Not to make more money.

 

[10nCLR]

And I do have the nads to answer your question.

We would be screwed!!!

But that has squat to do with the Skywest pilots.

Now...and your answer is????

I don't know, I'm not a SkyWest pilot. lol. but come check out the next SAPA meeting.