ExpressJet goes to the "land down under!"

[Cardinal]

I guess you've got it all figured out huh? A$$!
Truth is a full rj makes more money on thin routes than a airbus with 35 pax and $90 a barrel oil. Dip $hit!

...While a full Airbus puts uber pwnage on the RJ at two-thirds or even half the CASM. It's all relative.

 

[ratherbeflyen]

...While a full Airbus puts uber pwnage on the RJ at two-thirds or even half the CASM. It's all relative.

...While a full 747 puts uber pwnage on the Airbus at two-thirds or even half the CASM. It's all relative. Good luck getting 250-500 people to go from JAX to MSY twice a day. You have to be able to sell the seats to make any money.

 

[I_Love_Lamp]

I guess you've got it all figured out huh? A$$!

Uh I don't, but the XJT scope clause seemingly does.

Someone pee in your cornflakes this morning, Francis?

Truth is a full rj makes more money on thin routes than a airbus with 35 pax and $90 a barrel oil. Dip $hit!

Uh... okay? I don't think I said anything to the contrary, did I?

 

[Cardinal]

...While a full 747 puts uber pwnage on the Airbus at two-thirds or even half the CASM. It's all relative. Good luck getting 250-500 people to go from JAX to MSY twice a day. You have to be able to sell the seats to make any money.

So how'd that work out for Indy?

 

[ATRCA]

Give it a rest girls! XJT is simply taking a look around for potential opportunities. There is no major plan at this point for a new airline. Just exploring the possibilites of future ventures. Thats what every airline mgt team gets paid to do, feel things out.

Just like China and Mexico. Nothing more than feelers at this point.

 

[Hypoxik]

Mesa is doing it in China. If it has an N # reg. our pilots fly it.

 

[EMB170Pilot]

Nothing more than feelers at this point.

uhhhhhhhh huh huh huh huh huh huh huh huh huh huh huh

 

[BigShotXJTdrvr]

XJT scope allows dry leasing of XJT aircraft without XJT pilots. Therefore not likely to be XJT pilots. They had a tentative plan to do this with Aviasca in Mexico, but it never happened. It's an interesting idea because usually only banks and leasing companies do dry leasing. Maybe XJT will be the next ILFC

It would make sense to lease out aircraft instead of returning them to CAL (if that were the only other option) because even though XJT would not be using them in revenue service, we could still use the asset depreciation as a tax deduction, thus lowering our corporate taxes and improving the bottom line.

 

[OzBushWhacker]

$$$$$

Gonna be interesting to see if this gets off the ground....

Market rates for a saab f/o in Oz are circa 45k and they are having a tough time finding bums on seats on that pay. I personally hope they don't infiltrate the market and fark it up like they have here (regionals in generally bringing down the occupation).

 

[ratherbeflyen]

So how'd that work out for Indy?

I didn't know Indy was even flying 747's much less between JAX and MSY..... or maybe you just missed the point entirely.

 

[Cardinal]

I didn't know Indy was even flying 747's much less between JAX and MSY..... or maybe you just missed the point entirely.

Nor is XJT. Could you be more condescending? I think we both agree that aircraft both large and small can lose bucketloads of money, full or empty. Thus far RJs have made money under very specific circumstances, independently branded flying not being one of them.

 

[Superpilot92]

Nor is XJT. Could you be more condescending? I think we both agree that aircraft both large and small can lose bucketloads of money, full or empty. Thus far RJs have made money under very specific circumstances, independently branded flying not being one of them.

And you care because.....???? If it works it works if it doesnt it doesnt. My last 4 day pairing only had one flight with less than 40 pax. Oh well i guess it wont work because because you said soo...

 

[Cardinal]

And you care because.....???? If it works it works if it doesnt it doesnt. My last 4 day pairing only had one flight with less than 40 pax. Oh well i guess it wont work because because you said soo...

Welcome to flightinfo. We bullsh!t about all manner of things. This thread is in harmony with that policy. I don't have a clue whether the ExpressJet concept or an Australian venture will prove successful, nor whether you can turn a profit flying jets point-to-point between Barrow and Whitehorse. Historic precedent, however, speaks against the concept.

I really wouldn't give a flying kcuf, but for the sake of my friends there I hope things work out. Some seem to be getting awful defensive about it, however. Don't worry, most airlines, mine included, don't consistently make money. Join the club.

 

[Pocono Pilot]

ExpressJet will soon be taking over Austrailia, just like we took over the 'ol US of A.

I love it!

 

[ratherbeflyen]

Nor is XJT. Could you be more condescending? I think we both agree that aircraft both large and small can lose bucketloads of money, full or empty. Thus far RJs have made money under very specific circumstances, independently branded flying not being one of them.

You did miss the point entirely.

...While a full Airbus puts uber pwnage on the RJ at two-thirds or even half the CASM. It's all relative.

Let me try to elaborate for you. What airplane has the lowest CASM? I guess the A380 but no one is flying that here, so I guess the 747 is the next lowest cost that flies in this country. So if a 747 has the lowest CASM why isn't F9 using those instead of A318-320's? I'm guessing because there aren't 500 people who want to fly from DEN - any of your destinations. So say you did have an all 747 fleet how much money would you make if you flew at 35% LF? CASM only matters if you can fill the seats. If theres only 25-75 people a day that want to fly from city A to city B, then CASM DOESN'T MATTER. What matters is can you put a plane on that route that can make money selling 35 tickets. I say yes, so does the management at Xjet.

I dont know how you think thats anything like what Indy tried to do. If there are 500+ people a day that want to fly from city A to city B. Then CASM would matter and theres no way a 50 seater can compete with almost anything else. Along those same lines theres no way an A319 can compete with a 747 or even 757. So how is it that F9 can make money with none of those lower CASM airplanes?

As far as Xjet and 50 seaters wont make it. They said the same thing about flying cargo in Falcon 20's. They said the same thing about only flying 737's in Dallas. They said the same thing about deregulation. I bet they said the same thing about a LCC going head to head with United in DEN too...

That was my point.

Could you be more condescending?

Not really trying to be condescending,

Welcome to flightinfo. We bullsh!t about all manner of things. This thread is in harmony with that policy.