DAL/NWA Combination....should regional guys be worried?

[jke406]

Should the regional guys/gals be worried?

Yes.

Any other questions?

 

[PuffDriver]

OK first of all let me say I was not bragging about any of what you just stated, I was mearly pointing out that it is alot to walk away from to go make less money to fly a bigger airplane with a strong chance of fourlough. Secondly, what are these stats? You talk alot, but you're only burying yourself in bullsh!t.

Mentioning it is indeed bragging. The stats I am referring to are those such as pay stubs, time off, vacation, etc. Mine are better, and I've been here less than 12.

 

[Lear70]

So, I'm going to rehijack this thread again.

Should the regional guys/gals be worried?

Nope. Here's why:

The Legacy carriers' management teams have learned VERY well over the last decade that having multiple regional partners helps keeps costs down, and keeps pilots bickering amongst themselves too much to actually formulate any real solidarity (hence the term "whipsaw") .

Additionally, having multiple regional carriers ensures that if any ONE carrier DOES grow a set, that the impact of a strike, even a prolonged one, is survivable with ADVANCE ramp-up of service by other regional partners then asset shifting if done quickly.

Third, they are NOT going to put a DC-9 or an MD-80 on MSP-GTF or MSP-PIH (Great Falls, MT or Pocatella, ID). You *MIGHT* lose some hub-to-hub routes and flying to larger cities like BOS, etc, but those smaller cities will still require feed and, by and large, that's what the regional carriers do.

Lastly, those service contracts are in effect for a long time to come, and they've signed purchase agreements for a LOT of RJ's they still want to take delivery of.

You might get some re-shuffling and some seniority list stagnation for 6 months or so, but the regional carriers aren't going anywhere...

Unless the mainline guys negotiate STRONGER scope back into their agreements, and they're too focused on recouping wages, retirement, and work rules this time around to worry that much about scope.

 

[motch]

Of course Regionals should be worried...

1) There are probably some city pairings where both Legacy Carriers use regionals to fly inbetween. Between IAD and EWR both CAL and UAL fly RJ's to connect these cities. In a merger, there would be no reason to fly 5 flights by UALX and 4 flights by XJT when it can be accomplished by 6 mainline flights.

2) The 50 seat RJ is a gas hog. I can see the new merged carriers looking at replacing x amount of 50 seat feed with y amount of 70 seat feed. (except at CAL>> we have scope and will fight to the end to protect it!) Compass at NWA will definitely add a new twist in a merger because it would make sense to grow that company to replace city pairs where the above (1) takes place.

While I no longer fly for a regional carrier, I still have friends there and do think it will be alittle tougher for them in the future. Don't see an immeadiate reduction, but would imagine that hiring will slow down due to furture reductions and realignments. Upgrades will hopefully continue cause the Legacy's are still going to be hiring... but that too will end by next year if the mergers come to reality.

Either way, it's gonna be an interesting year in the airline industry!

 

[737 Pylt]

Why are you so focused on my penise? Doctor Freud would like to talk to you and help you come out of the closet.

Becasue jerk406 doesn't get much time off her back!
This is the same girl posting as tanker clown and jmoney! Just put this "jerk" on your ignore list. She adds nothing to the conversation. Kind of like when she's on the job!

737

 

[N2264J]

The 50 seat RJ is a gas hog.

Where did this sillyness come from?

I can get a CRJ down to 2500 pounds per hour total with 50 people and a jumpseater at cruise.

You can hardly attain that on one engine in a 737 or MD-80.

Who are you trying to kid? The CRJ gets great gas mileage.

 

[737 Pylt]

Where did this sillyness come from?

I can get a CRJ down to 2500 pounds per hour total with 50 people and a jumpseater at cruise.

You can hardly attain that on one engine in a 737 or MD-80.

Who are you trying to kid? The CRJ gets great gas mileage.

Lets see which airplane carries more people as a result of the gas its burning..........
Of course the C of CASM wouldn't mean much to you! You are one of the doosh bags who thought he'd be a $$millionaire as a result of the rjdc lawsuit!
How'd that work out for you sparky?:laugh:

737

 

[Lear70]

Where did this sillyness come from?

I can get a CRJ down to 2500 pounds per hour total with 50 people and a jumpseater at cruise.

You can hardly attain that on one engine in a 737 or MD-80.

Who are you trying to kid? The CRJ gets great gas mileage.

You must not fly a 737, sparky.

137 people in a 737-700 easily flowing 2,500 pph per engine in cruise, carrying 37% more yield than the 50-seat RJ.

50-seater CASM is the worst of ANY mainline aircraft, because it includes LEASE payments. Most of those DC-9's and MD-80's are paid off.

There's more to it than just gas flow. And yes, I know EXACTLY what a CRJ costs to run, I have the CRJ financials from Bombardier (working on a project).

 

[jke406]

Where did this sillyness come from?

I can get a CRJ down to 2500 pounds per hour total with 50 people and a jumpseater at cruise.

You can hardly attain that on one engine in a 737 or MD-80.

Who are you trying to kid? The CRJ gets great gas mileage.

I think you're in a little over your head, youngster. If you keep working hard and keep your nose clean, you might be ready for the big time in a few more years.

 

[N2264J]

137 people in a 737-700 easily flowing 2,500 pph per engine in cruise, carrying 37% more yield than the 50-seat RJ.

When I say 2500 pph, I mean the total fuel burn.

Now rethink your numbers where the market is 50ish or so. Remember, a market is not just a city pair, it's also a time of day.

The carrier can drop that market or, if it wants to capture every available revenue dollar, put an RJ on it.

Hint: you can't make money with 50 people in the back of 737.

http://www.rjdefense.com/2003/10_Things_About_Scope.pdf

 

[FDJ2]

Thanks for the info.

That's quite a bit of gas for such a light load. I didn't realize the CRJ burned so much gas/pax.

What a gas hog.

No wonder DAL is parking as many CRJ200s as possible ASAP. We can't afford to keep subsidizing gas hogs like the CRJ200.

 

[FDJ2]

When I say 2500 pph, I mean the total fuel burn.

That's still way too much fuel.

Now rethink your numbers where the market is 50ish or so. Remember, a market is not just a city pair, it's also a time of day.

The carrier can drop that market or, if it wants to capture every available revenue dollar, put an RJ on it.

The carrier can't afford to capture that revenue with those incredibly pricey CRJs. The cost to operate that substandard product is more then the revenue they bring in. No wonder DAL is parking them. I heard 35 of those gas hogs are getting parked 1Q 2008.

Hint: you can't make money with 50 people in the back of 737.

We can't make money on the route with a 50 seat gas hog either. I guess the only thing to do is drop the route or consolidate the passengers and fly them in a much more efficient mainline jet.

 

[Lear70]

When I say 2500 pph, I mean the total fuel burn.

Now rethink your numbers where the market is 50ish or so. Remember, a market is not just a city pair, it's also a time of day.

The carrier can drop that market or, if it wants to capture every available revenue dollar, put an RJ on it.

Hint: you can't make money with 50 people in the back of 737.

http://www.rjdefense.com/2003/10_Things_About_Scope.pdf

OK, thank you for making my argument for me.

I'm well aware of how much the RJ fuel burn is total. I'm also well aware of how much the 737 fuel burn is total, I've flown them. I'm also well aware that you were trying to distinguish total CRJ200 burn compared to just one engine on anything mainline flies.

It was a poor comparison anyway. Not quite following how, in one post, you're talking about how much MORE efficient an RJ is than a mainline aircraft then, in this last post, you're talking about how you can't make money on a 50-seater.

No wonder the RJDC lost.

p.s. I agree about the representation issues with ALPA, but the execution by the RJDC was absolutely p*ss-poor.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Why do you keep saying this? The PID was denied right out of the gate.

It never made it to the point of talking about shared sacrifice and you know it.

Puh-leese! Try to keep it under 200mg a day. You know how anything more destroys your memory!

The PID was a floor vote that never happened. It didn't happen because the RJDC chowderheads weren't willing to discuss anything that had them coughing up a percentage of the cost.

I thought I was quite funny at the mic, hammering the Delta guys about their reluctance to work out a deal. When we finally got them there, the RJDC larva killed it with a "nyet!".

A sad day!

 

[avrorj-85]

children, children...

We can't make money on the route with a 50 seat gas hog either. I guess the only thing to do is drop the route or consolidate the passengers and fly them in a much more efficient mainline jet.

when we are all one big happy family they will just put a saab on that route!!!!

Ciao

 

[OzBushWhacker]

Do they give Delta pilots something in training that makes them think they are superior to any other living organism?

 

[N2264J]

...then, in this last post, you're talking about how you can't make money on a 50-seater.

No, what I said was you can't make money with 50 people in the back of a 737.

So tell me this:

- why doesn't Delta and US Airways take their MD-80s and Airbus 320s off the shuttle every hour between Boston, New York, and Washington and just put a 767 on it four or five times a day?

- why isn't Delta operating a 767 from Cincinnati to Hooterville and back?

- as a matter of fact, why don't all airlines rightsize their fleets and only operate 747s and 777s? Lower seat mile costs, right?

Answer: No, it doesn't work that way if you want to capture every available revenue dollar. The RJ does quite well when deployed on it's niche mission, thank you very much. The airline that doesn't match capacity to demand in every available market, loses market share.

So why do ALPA mainliners take such glee in throttling the RJ and crippling their own airline's ability to draw all available revenue? The CRJ is an airliner like any other airliner. Honestly, ALPA's hatred for all things RJ truly borders on the psychotic.

 

[N2264J]

The PID was a floor vote that never happened.

The PID was shot dead in August of 2000 at a hearing before the Executive Council. The BOD meeting you're referring to was in October 2000. No discussion of shared sacrifice ever happened in October [at least between the MECs] because the PID was dead.

Tell me again about that Marine integrity you try to wear on your sleeve. You're just making this stuff up.

 

[Sedona16]

The RJ does quite well when deployed on it's niche mission, thank you very much. The airline that doesn't match capacity to demand in every available market, loses market share.

I dont think anybody here would dissagree that routes need to be "right sized". Right sizing is normaly a function of demand on a route and therefore higher ticket price/yields combined with frequency that creates more demand over the competition. Now when we talk about 50 seat RJ's and even 70 seat RJ's, $100/barrel oil and a very cost prohibitive CASM all bets are off. There is a threshold where this feed no longer makes sense. Either frequency is decreased and larger airframes are put on the route as is being looked at by DeltaWest on the first post of this thread http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=108922 or you abandon some routes altogether. Whereas RJ's made some sense with oil at $40/barrel to feed (thats what rj's do for mainline....they feed to mainline) on many routes they now make little or no sense. Rj's have also been used by some mainline carriers post 911 as "placeholders" until they were ready to start flying the routes again themselves. They are a utility in the toolbag of mainline, nothing more. That utility is getting too heavy to carry on many jobs.

Ever wonder why Greyhound doesnt use Hummer H1's to transport people to small communities across the country? At some point the cost per what you can charge each person vs cost of gas just wont make any money. Thats the new reality of the 50 seat RJ at current fuel prices. You can wish all day long that it wasn't so and that your regional airline will continue buying RJ's off the shelf like candy but those days are pretty much over with the exeption of trading in some fifties for some seventies.

I can see a day in the not distant future where regionals are asked to bid on more 70 seat turboprop flying on routes 400 miles or less. The economics make alot more sense for feed purposes with this airplane vs an RJ.

 

[N2264J]

This is a function of demand on our route and therefore higher ticket price/yields and frequency that creates the most demand over the competition.

Of course. Yield is key to the success of any airliner/market.

But the mainline scope has prohibited Delta from trading in the CRJs for CL-700s & 900s. It has impeaded the company's flexibility to deploy the right sized, most efficient airliner to a given market. That hurts the whole company.

You can not control the marketplace with a union contract.