Delta's Grinstein May Change USE of Small Regional Jets - Bloomberg Article...

[bvt1151]

Why did the new CEO at Southwest state that if the Majors got their costs in line with respect to the hubs--since they are money makers--that even Southwest could be in trouble? He seems to think hubs could be huge profit makers.

Better yet, why would the new CEO at Southwest reveal their weakness? Sounds more pheasible to me that they would tell the Majors what they wanted to hear to keep them going down the wrong path. Its what I would do.

If the CEO of Southwest really thought fortress Hub and Spoke could run him out of business, he would be doing it. But there are no fortress hubs planned for Southwest, are there?

The problem with the hub is you have to hire enough staff and acquire enough gates to run your operation at the busiest time, leaving gates and personnel highly innefficient. Southwest does not run "banks" as does a traditional hub and spoke, so they greatly reduce their "footprint" at an airport respective to their flight load.

 

[General Lee]

BVT1151,


Maybe you haven't been to ATL yet (??), but we are busy there all of the time. No inneficiences here on the ground people, just the ridiculous 3 hour sits for pilots, which Grinstein said he may change to a rolling hub---which would make it even more efficient. As far as us falling for a "dastardly plan" set up by the Southwest CEO---I doubt that. Come on man, you are grasping for straws here. We know at Mainline that we are due for pay cuts, and we also know that we have too many 50 seat RJs. There will be a compromise. Less pay, but more larger aircraft. (100 seater and up) That is the only way to fight the LCCs---more seats.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Heavy Set]

Don't underestimate the comfort factor...

bvt,

Wow - you're an airline genius. If given a choice, would passengers fly on an ASA/Comair CRJ between ATL and Rochester or an AirTran 717 given the same price? Airline economics don't work the same way in a low-cost/low-fare environment - I think that's On Your Six's point. Most passengers are much more cost-conscious now than before. If fares drop, you can't cover the costs as well if you only have 50 seats - you need high-frequency like Indy Air is proposing. Most regionals don't operate in a high-frequency mode...

Regardless of the economics debate - one fact remains constant. RJs are not viewed as comfortable. Every time I fly on an ERJ, I watch as the onboarding passengers GASP in dismay when they see how narrow and small the cabin is - I have seen it many, many times. The CRJ is slightly better in terms of roominess, but the bins are way too small (especially for business travelers who might want to use their laptops in flight) and the windows are oddly low causing back and neck pain. I am not the only one who believes this - it is a popular view... Comfort counts and both AirTran and Grinstein know it.

 

[lowecur]

Lowecur,


A friend out there told me that the SLC Chief Pilot said that a 100 seater would be perfect for them in SLC because there are a lot of markets that might not be able to sustain a 737-300, but are too small for a Skywest 50 seat RJ. (Like Missoula and Kalispell in the Summertime....) Can you rebutt that theory?

I have no idea what you are trying to say. You say that Missoula & Kalispell could not sustain a 733, but that they are also too small to support a 50 seat RJ. So a 100 seater would do the trick? Knock, knock - Hello McFly, is anyone home?

If what you're proposing is to replace Skywest's CL65's with 100 seaters, then you guys better be prepared to take all the CL65's back from Skywest. On a previous thread, it was verified that DL would be stuck with those leases if the contract was broken.

 

[sweptback]

If given a choice, would passengers fly on an ASA/Comair CRJ between ATL and Rochester or an AirTran 717 given the same price?

Given the same price, there's many factors that go into it. Which airline gets them there at the time they need to be there? How about frequent flier allegiance? There's a lot of perceived benefits in frequent flier programs even if a customer only has a few miles banked and has no chance of redeeming a frequent flier ticket anytime soon. You see where I'm going with this. I'd venture to say that most passengers don't care one bit which airplane they are booked on. Most online booking sites don't even say what airplane type is operating the service until you have nearly booked it, and even then hide it on another page! Only the seasoned travelers will actually know or care that a regional jet is operating the flight, and for every one of those people, there's four more that don't care one bit as long as they get there on time.

 

[General Lee]

Lowecur,


Well, your picture (probably is a portrait) looks a lot like McFly. You obviously don't know much about our SLC hub, and since I fly in there quite often and talk to the Chief pilot and assistant chief--I will fill you in. A lot of the reorganization in SLC was due to the parking of the L1011s, 727s, etc----and a lot of the lift used at SLC was transferrred to cover the parked airplanes. Only the fullest of flights were kept, and the rest given to RJs. Now, with the resurgance of passengers, the SLC hub could use new 100 seaters to fill in the gaps----like Summertime flying to Montana, and Wintertime flying to AZ and California. These are people (Chief pilot types) who talk with managment types---and they decide on probable airplanes to buy. Skywest would just transfer their 50 seaters to other markets, and 100 seaters would go back and return to places that are usually full. The 50 seat RJs this Summer will be full to Kalispell and Missoula---but they could easily use 738s and 733s---but they are already used on other routes--like the additional flights to MSP, DTW, and ORD this Summer. It was fun schooling you AGAIN. Ta ta.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[MedFlyer]

One major problem we have is that we (at ATL and CVG) have more planes that are too small and can't bring in extra revenue. We have replaced all of our larger airplanes with smaller RJs since 9-11, and now we lack the right number of seats to bring in meaningful revenue. When the fares are lower, the need for more passengers to make up the difference is apparent.


Bye Bye--General Lee

What a load of BS! Do you even fly for DL? DL has the largest fleet of domestic widebodies in the US and the largest fleet of domestic 757's in the country. On many routes, DL has too many seats to fill...so they have to trash the yields to fill the plane. DL has the lowest yield among all the network carriers and part of the reason is that DL tries to fill too many big planes.

Compare Continental to Delta....they fly much smaller planes domestically despite having hubs in two major markets (Houston and NYC). Continental has better yields than DL and has lost far less money because of it. They don't have to have desperate fire sales every week to fill their planes like DL does.

 

[NEDude]

It seems to me that the hub system CAN survive under certain situations. Continental seems to have the right idea by hubbing in cities with large O&D traffic, reducing the number of connections people make. New york and Houston are the leargest and fourth largest markets in the country. Under this model, large hubs in VERY big cities such as Los Angeles and Chicago would work using larger airplanes. However putting mega hubs in smaller to mid-sized cities such as Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and Salt Lake City, where a higher percentage of traffic is connecting, would not work as well with larger mainline type aircraft.

 

[General Lee]

Medflyer,


What? Delta probably does charge less on certain flights---but that is due to Marketing---not the pilots. We carry more passengers domestically than anyone else---400,000 more than Southwest per month. You would think that our Marketing department would know that and control yields. That isn't my deal----I drive the plane. How do you know we have too many seats to fill? You must be tight with our Marketing people.....We also oversell more seats than anyone, and then hand them off to other airlines but keep 3/4s of the fare. That is the way it works....

And, have you been watching the news about Continental? They aren't as in as great of shape as you might think. They have had to slash their yields on their transcon flights to combat Jetblue---and that is hurting them big time. We don't have as many transcons from JFK---and our Song flights are doing great against Jetblue.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[bvt1151]

bvt,

Wow - you're an airline genius.

Thanks. Wish I could return the compliment

If given a choice, would passengers fly on an ASA/Comair CRJ between ATL and Rochester or an AirTran 717 given the same price? Airline economics don't work the same way in a low-cost/low-fare environment - I think that's On Your Six's point. Most passengers are much more cost-conscious now than before.

Where have I heard this before? Oh yeah, the Southwest Critics in the early 80's. It can and will be done. Like sweptback said, there are many other factors besides which aircraft you're flying on. Besides, there are plenty of people who prefer the RJ over the 717. Did you know the RJ's seats are bigger? Bet not. Read this on the ALPA board the other day. www.seatguru.com check it out. So your argument there is moot, but lets take it a step further into reality. If there was a market large enough to support a 717, then a 717 should be on it, assuming you can maintain the frequency required to accomidate the S-Curve. ROC-ATL is a route well served by a 717, but remember, many of those 717 passengers are connecting to other cities, which automatically halves your yield. However, the RJ is built for routes too small for a 717, like say, ROC-JAX. I'll bet there are plenty of people each day that would rather go nonstop to JAX than connect on a 717 through ATL...or anywhere for that matter. A 50-seat RJ would be pheasible on double the routes a 100-seat 717 would be, just because there are more smaller city pairs than large ones.. Not to mention a nonstop RJ flight is cheaper than a connecting 717 flight, so you could offer lower fares. So lets recap. You're going to offer a nonstop flight at a lower fare compared to a connecting flight (through delayed city) at a higher fare. Sounds like you've just filled an RJ. Well...not you.

If fares drop, you can't cover the costs as well if you only have 50 seats - you need high-frequency like Indy Air is proposing. Most regionals don't operate in a high-frequency mode...

You're kidding, right? RJ's invented high-frequency mode. Read above paragraph about point to point RJ's and low fares.

Regardless of the economics debate - one fact remains constant. RJs are not viewed as comfortable. Every time I fly on an ERJ, I watch as the onboarding passengers GASP in dismay when they see how narrow and small the cabin is - I have seen it many, many times. The CRJ is slightly better in terms of roominess, but the bins are way too small (especially for business travelers who might want to use their laptops in flight) and the windows are oddly low causing back and neck pain. I am not the only one who believes this - it is a popular view... Comfort counts and both AirTran and Grinstein know it.

Just like nobody will pay to be crammed into a Southwest airplane with no seat assignment? I sure hope they make it, what with their no frills and all.

NEDude is on the right track. Fact is, Southwest is really a hub-and-spoke operator, just with a whole lotta hubs. Continental is closer to that route structure than Delta is, and good for them. EWR is an outstanding O&D hub. Remember an O&D passenger on a non-stop flight brings twice the yield as the connecter sitting next to him. That's why all the analysts give Continental one hell of a better chance a survival than Delta.

 

[General Lee]

BVT1151,


Continental also doesn't own anything--except a 1/3 share in COEX. That is why they are freaking out over there and constantly trying to get fuel surcharges. Delta still owns assets---like ASA/Comair---which could be sold for some cash. And, as far as the analysts go---they are agreeing with this original article---50 seat RJs are on the way out. RJ seats are bigger, huh? How about climbing into them bent over after climbing up stairs? I have non-revved on many---and it is fun sitting next to a sweaty "super sized" dude. Re-read the article---it describes what people feel like when subjected to longer flights on these planes. Why would Grinstein say anything about 2 or 2 1/2 flights on them? He did say that. Was it just for us? Obviously others have picked up on it---the article is a prime example. Quit being so defensive. I have tried to quit being defensive when it comes to pay cuts---because I know we need them. You need to do the same about 50 seaters and their eventual demise. Maybe that will mean a 70 seater in your future.....

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[chperplt]

---it describes what people feel like when subjected to longer flights on these planes.

Climb in the back of your 75 and most people will say the same thing. Other than the short cabin, the RJ is just as (un) comfortable as any other coach seat in any other airplane.

 

[lowecur]

Now, with the resurgance of passengers, the SLC hub could use new 100 seaters to fill in the gaps----like Summertime flying to Montana, and Wintertime flying to AZ and California. These are people (Chief pilot types) who talk with managment types---and they decide on probable airplanes to buy. Skywest would just transfer their 50 seaters to other markets, and 100 seaters would go back and return to places that are usually full. The 50 seat RJs this Summer will be full to Kalispell and Missoula---but they could easily use 738s and 733s---but they are already used on other routes--like the additional flights to MSP, DTW, and ORD this Summer.

I knew there had to be a rational way of expressing yourself. You must have taken your Aricept.

I don't buy the "50 seaters to other markets" logic. Just what markets are you talking about, and how many a/c would they be moving? I assume you mean other DCI markets, cuz I doubt they could find other carriers that would be interested in picking up the slack for all those leased CL65's. My guess is that DL is in a quandry with Skywest, and the fleets of Comair & ASA will have to absorb these planes if you try and move the CL65's out.

Incidently, on my Song flight from JFK - it was half full. Must have been the time of day.

 

[General Lee]

Lowecur,


They used to have 733s, 738s, and 727s flying to a lot of those cities, and now they have moved the 733s and 738s to larger cities. They could easily fly 100 seaters to the original cities--like Missoula, Kalispell, probably Calgary, Pasco, maybe Great Falls......I don't think Skywest would be pushed out of SLC---the reason they have more RJs available is because they have withdrawn some services out of DFW(not all). Potential RJ cities from SLC are numerous--Like Burbank (they used to fly there from SLC on RJs), Eugene, Redmond/Bend, maybe Laughlin(?)----you are making me do Marketings job--which they need to start doing.....

Not all of the Song flights are full---but I flew 2 last weekend--from TPA to LGA and down to PBI, and they were fairly full---maybe 170 or 175 out of 199 seats....I will be flying thru LGA again this weekend, and the bookings look pretty full(I usually check beforehand). Maybe that is just a weekend thing--I am not that senior and tend to fly weekends....But, thanks again for flying Song...

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[bvt1151]

BVT1151,


Continental also doesn't own anything--except a 1/3 share in COEX. That is why they are freaking out over there and constantly trying to get fuel surcharges. Delta still owns assets---like ASA/Comair---which could be sold for some cash. And, as far as the analysts go---they are agreeing with this original article---50 seat RJs are on the way out. RJ seats are bigger, huh? How about climbing into them bent over after climbing up stairs? I have non-revved on many---and it is fun sitting next to a sweaty "super sized" dude. Re-read the article---it describes what people feel like when subjected to longer flights on these planes. Why would Grinstein say anything about 2 or 2 1/2 flights on them? He did say that. Was it just for us? Obviously others have picked up on it---the article is a prime example. Quit being so defensive. I have tried to quit being defensive when it comes to pay cuts---because I know we need them. You need to do the same about 50 seaters and their eventual demise. Maybe that will mean a 70 seater in your future.....

Bye Bye--General Lee

My point was that Continental is in a much better situation than Delta. I think you're agreeing with me.

And yes, RJ seats are bigger. You just get the perception that their smaller because the aircraft is smaller, but what you don't hear is passengers complaining about being sandwiched between two passengers. Sure, the RJ's have their comfort issues, but it is nowhere near where people are making it out to be. I have more compliments on our aircraft and how comfortable they are compared to complaints at least two-fold. But if 10% are crying foul, guess who the media interviews.

...and I'm defensive. Perhaps it was the link I provided to the website that proves RJ seats are larger than AirTran's 717 seats? I didn't mean to be so gosh darn defensive.
I wish I were being defensive, though, because that would mean I was trying to protect the current situation. Rather I'm on the offense calling for changes, such as better utilization of the RJ fleet. I'd love to see point to point 767 routes too, but lets face it, they are just too big. I'm not arguing who should fly what, I'm just explaining how smaller aircraft can be used to generate higher yields at lower costs. I could make the same argument with the 7E7, and have on several occassions.

The 50-seater has no demise. When the airframes get old, there will be a new, and more economical airframe to replace them. That's like saying the 100-seater died with the DC-9 series. Somebody better tell Embraer before they waste all that mo...too late.