Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Flying Gets Rough on Regional Airlines

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

GVFlyer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Posts
1,461
From today's Wallstreet Journal.


[FONT=times new roman,times,arial] January 2, 2007 [/FONT]
THE MIDDLE SEAT
By SCOTT MCCARTNEY




Flying Gets Rough on Regional Airlines

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Serif]Smaller Affiliates of the Major Carriers
Are Topping the Lists for Cancellations,
Late Arrivals and Baggage Mishaps
January 2, 2007; Page D1

[/FONT]

Operations at several big regional airlines -- the carriers that feed millions of passengers to mainline airlines -- deteriorated sharply last year, with late flights, lost baggage and cancellations soaring.


The slipping service at some regionals is the result of explosive growth and cost cutting. Some airlines have found themselves with schedules too tight to load and unload planes without delays, and with no cushion to catch up. Since mainline airlines typically control the scheduling of their regional partners, the small-jet airlines have been whacked with flight cancellations at hub airports to make room for the mainline airlines' bigger planes when bad weather or construction slow traffic.


TURBULENCE

Regional airlines have been plagued by service troubles recently, including an uptick in delays and lost luggage. Here's what you can do:
• Consider driving, especially if you're within 200 miles of your destination or connecting airport.

• Book longer connection times to make sure you -- and your bags -- make the next flight.

• Avoid regionals altogether and book mainline flights only.


Over the past 10 years, as financially strapped big airlines have turned over more flying to cheaper partners and small jets have become a mainstay for travelers, regional airlines have doubled in size, making them an increasingly important part of travel in the U.S. Many don't just fly to small towns; they fill in airline schedules on routes as big as New York-Chicago and Boston-Washington. But they are increasingly dragging down the nation's air travel.
"It never goes good. They are useless," said traveler Willy Schmieder, who arrived at the Atlanta airport for a 9 a.m. Atlantic Southeast flight to Wisconsin to visit his parents at the holidays. His flight was delayed multiple times by morning fog, then canceled by a mechanical breakdown. At 5 p.m., he was told to come back the next day. He did, and his flight was only an hour late.


In the third quarter last year, four of the six airlines with the worst on-time records were regionals. In October, the most recent month reported by the Department of Transportation, the six worst carriers in baggage were all regionals, and six of the seven airlines that canceled flights most frequently were regionals. Comair, owned by Delta Air Lines Inc., dropped to 64.9% on-time from 84.9% a year earlier. American Eagle, owned by AMR Corp.'s American Airlines, canceled flights three times as frequently as its parent airline in October.


SkyWest Inc.'s Atlantic Southeast Airlines, another Delta feeder, was the worst airline in on-time performance in the third quarter, with only 57% of its flights arriving within 15 minutes of schedule, compared with 66.8% a year earlier.

Some problems have resulted from unexpected changes -- a faster passenger train at the Dallas airport means passengers can now make connections faster than their bags, resulting in more mishandled baggage for American Eagle, a spokesman said. Also, higher passenger loads and longer flights in small jets mean baggage is more frequently left behind, so the planes, loaded with fuel, aren't overweight.


Regional airlines say they are scrambling to fix the problems by spreading out schedules and increasing the weight small jets can carry.


Though operations last year were worse than historical averages, regional carriers say structural differences mean they are unlikely to perform as well as bigger airlines. While bigger airlines fly across the country, regionals are usually confined geographically, operating out of one or two hubs. When bad weather strikes, the carrier's entire operations can be affected.


In addition, being subservient to a larger airline can hurt. The major carrier can force cancellations at the regional to open takeoff and landing slots for bigger airplanes, so the most passengers get moved. The main airline can also force regional flights to wait for passengers.
In Atlanta in October, 63.2% of Delta flights arrived on time, but only 52.7% of Atlantic Southeast flights did. In Washington, 83.9% of UAL Corp.'s United Airlines flights arrived on time, but only 71.6% of the flights of its partner, Mesa Airlines Inc., did. Same for American in Chicago, where 62.2% of mainline American flights arrived on time in October, compared with only 57% of Eagle flights.


Comair, which historically has ranked well in DOT standings, says its problems began last summer with Delta's major expansion at New York's Kennedy Airport. Dropping lots of new Comair flights into JFK, an airport already jammed with JetBlue Airways Corp., a major American operation and the afternoon and evening rush of European flights, meant the time airplanes spent taxiing in a conga line to takeoff increased 50%, said Don Stephens, Comair's vice president of system planning.


For now, Comair has convinced Delta to space out regional flights more at JFK and add minutes to schedules to more accurately reflect trip times. Comair has also bulked up its crew base at JFK to have more pilots and flight attendants available.


Atlantic Southeast, at the bottom of on-time performance, says it, too, is increasing staffing to try to improve. It also says it's making cockpit modifications that allow for landing in lower visibility, expanding gate areas, and investing in better hand-held radios and clocks that make it clear how close a flight is to departure for ramp workers. "We are starting to turn the corner," said Anthony DiNota, vice president of Atlantic Southeast's Atlanta operation.


American Eagle says it tried to cram more flights into its schedule in 2006 so it could grow without buying new aircraft. That meant flying planes more each day and turning them around more quickly between flights. "In some cases, we stretched too far," said spokesman Dave Jackson.


The airline also ran into a problem with its Embraer 145 jets, which carry 50 passengers. The airplane, one-third of the Eagle fleet, often was overweight. Taking baggage off meant lots of mishandled bags for customers -- Eagle's mishandled baggage rate was up 68% in October from a year earlier. To help, the airline has been modifying its E145 jets so they can carry an additional 1,300 pounds, Mr. Jackson said.


Write to Scott McCartney at [email protected]1
 
What kind of cockpit mod is ASA doing to land in lower visibility? Did we order those HUD's without telling me?
 
You get what you pay for.......................

Yep. Although I have to say this. I have been booking a lot of commercial tickets lately to deadhead for work and this is what I found. If you go from a big city to big city in a Boeing or Airbus, the tickets are $100-$200. If you go from small city to anywhere in an RJ or turboprop, the tickets are $400-$500. So theoretically, the regionals are more expensive from what I can see. I have not bought tickets in 9 years, has it always been like this?
 
Correct megadeath, regionals cost about 50%-100% more to operate than if the jets were at mainline.
 
Then why operate RJ's in the first place???
 
Staffing is one of the biggest problems. Poor ramp, mx, pilot, etc staffing. Also paying min wage to the rampers makes things bad as well.
 
Last edited:
What kind of cockpit mod is ASA doing to land in lower visibility? Did we order those HUD's without telling me?

I guess they're referring to all crews being CAT II qual'd now. But that's just our wonderful Management putting spin on something that's been around for nearly a year now, and has virtually no effect on On-Time Performance and baggage handling.

We shot a CAT II the other night but we still arrived SEVEN (count 'em 7) hours LATE.
 
Yep. Although I have to say this. I have been booking a lot of commercial tickets lately to deadhead for work and this is what I found. If you go from a big city to big city in a Boeing or Airbus, the tickets are $100-$200. If you go from small city to anywhere in an RJ or turboprop, the tickets are $400-$500. So theoretically, the regionals are more expensive from what I can see. I have not bought tickets in 9 years, has it always been like this?

Per leg regional jets are cheaper than the next size aircraft (MD-88/A-320). Cost per passenger mile, however, is higher on the RJ. Thus, it if you only have on average 40-100 passengers at a time slot it is cheaper to run an RJ (or ERJ). As the number of passengers increase it becomes more cost effective to add a larger aircraft. Thus some cities will start with RJ traffic, then increase to MD-88s (or something similar), if traffic increases. Not sure of the exact numbers, but you get the point.
The actual cost spread has been narrowing recently. Mainline labor costs have been cut, regional costs have only recently been cut (in some cases).
Yes, it is normally like this. As the loads increase and the size of the aircraft increases, the costs or spread out among more passengers. Also, you normally get more competition for the passengers.
 
Huh, so ticket prices are based on the cost to run the flight? I always thought it was supply and demand. Stupid me.
 
Huh, so ticket prices are based on the cost to run the flight? I always thought it was supply and demand. Stupid me.

I was responding to a question about cost to the airline, not supply and demand.
Fairs between large cities... say ATL and JFK are normally cheaper. Great amount of demand, but great supply as well. Large number of seats spread among a large number of "bidders". Fairs between smaller cities... say ATL and MYR will be more. Less supply. So if you want to fly, you will pay more for the seat since there are fewer seats.
 
Sounds like you agree: supply and demand set fares. ATL to MYR costs a lot because supply is tight compared to demand.

I'm not just responding to you. YPF was the first to mention that regional sized airplanes cost more operate than larger aircraft. He was grinding his axe by making the faulty argument that because regional aircraft cost more to operate, then the fares (which are set by the mainline partner) must be higher.
 
Last edited:
I talked to a pax doing a short notice business trip from ATL to JAN. DAL wanted $1600 direct on an RJ. He ended up on USAir through CLT for $900. Unbelievable.
 
Huh, so ticket prices are based on the cost to run the flight? I always thought it was supply and demand. Stupid me.

I was beginning to think fares were based on what kind of deal expedia was running that day.
 
Sounds like you agree: supply and demand set fares. ATL to MYR costs a lot because supply is tight compared to demand.

I'm not just responding to you. YPF was the first to mention that regional sized airplanes cost more operate than larger aircraft. He was grinding his axe by making the faulty argument that because regional aircraft cost more to operate, then the fares (which are set by the mainline partner) must be higher.
Huh???? The actual jet itself costs more to operate at a regional than it does to operate the EXACT SAME airplane at mainline.
 
I talked to a pax doing a short notice business trip from ATL to JAN. DAL wanted $1600 direct on an RJ. He ended up on USAir through CLT for $900. Unbelievable.


Not really -- a nonstop flight has intrinsically more value than one that makes a connection. Is your time worth that price difference?

For a businessman closing a deal, absolutely. For an underpaid pilot taking a vacation, no. That $700 is worth a lot more to me than a few hours in Charlotte, so the latter is what I'd book. But it makes perfect sense for a nonstop to be priced higher than a connection.
 
Not really -- a nonstop flight has intrinsically more value than one that makes a connection. Is your time worth that price difference?

For a businessman closing a deal, absolutely. For an underpaid pilot taking a vacation, no. That $700 is worth a lot more to me than a few hours in Charlotte, so the latter is what I'd book. But it makes perfect sense for a nonstop to be priced higher than a connection.

The jokes on the businessman anyways. In the end, that RJ flight (hmmm, wonder what airline?) for an extra $700 probably arrived 4 hours late, thus he could have saved that money and arrived at the same time as the CLT connection.;)
 
Huh???? The actual jet itself costs more to operate at a regional than it does to operate the EXACT SAME airplane at mainline.

Not meant as flame (honestly) but where are you getting that info? I've never heard that before.
 
Even if it's true, that has NO bearing on ticket prices. Strickly supply and demand.
 
Even if it's true, that has NO bearing on ticket prices. Strickly supply and demand.

Well if lower operating costs don't mean lower ticket prices, then flying airplanes where it's cheaper (which would be mainline according to YPF), at the same ticket prices at before would mean an increased profit margin for the airline. Or, if operating costs do mean lower ticket prices, then flying them at mainline would mean lower fares and most likely increased passenger loads. Either of those scenarios would be good for the airline.

I'm not really disagreeing with you, I just think lowering your operating costs is a good thing no matter if ticket prices change or not (as long as it isn't done by throwing out labor contracts the company agreed to).

I'm still curious what was used to determine that mainline is cheaper than the regionals.
 
Last edited:
I'm still curious what was used to determine that mainline is cheaper than the regionals.
Your kidding right......do you have any idea how much overhead there is at a regional. They are also guaranteed a fixed profit margin. Skywest has made $300 million in operational profit last year. So that's - $300 million + $500 million in other overhead(overinflated rental fee's), including management(which is a big one). In other words if the regionals didn't exist, this career wouldn't be in the toilet. Management just redistributed the cash flows into their pockets instead of your's. If you don't believe me, come be a top manager at NWA; your bonus check has pinnacle airlines printed on the top of it.
 
Your kidding right......do you have any idea how much overhead there is at a regional. They are also guaranteed a fixed profit margin. Skywest has made $300 million in operational profit last year. So that's - $300 million + $500 million in other overhead(overinflated rental fee's), including management(which is a big one). In other words if the regionals didn't exist, this career wouldn't be in the toilet. Management just redistributed the cash flows into their pockets instead of your's. If you don't believe me, come be a top manager at NWA; your bonus check has pinnacle airlines printed on the top of it.

Yes I know all about guaranteed profit margins and that regionals waste a lot of money. I was just curious where you were getting your numbers from, no need to go biting my head off.
 
Last edited:
And while you're at it, YPF, maybe you can explain why the mainline pilots threw away scope. The regional industry wouldn't exist if mainline pilots of the past had shown a little backbone.
 
Not really -- a nonstop flight has intrinsically more value than one that makes a connection. Is your time worth that price difference?

For a businessman closing a deal, absolutely. For an underpaid pilot taking a vacation, no. That $700 is worth a lot more to me than a few hours in Charlotte, so the latter is what I'd book. But it makes perfect sense for a nonstop to be priced higher than a connection.

I know the price for non-stop is more than a connection. My amazment is the cost of getting from ATL to JAN. Yet, you can go to LA or even Europe for less. In fact, we were running late into CLT and his connection was at risk. It's not a better deal if you don't make it.
 
I know the price for non-stop is more than a connection. My amazment is the cost of getting from ATL to JAN. Yet, you can go to LA or even Europe for less. In fact, we were running late into CLT and his connection was at risk. It's not a better deal if you don't make it.


Don't try to apply normal logic and business practices to airline pricing or scheduling. You'll just drive yourself mad!

As for the flight in question, I think you'd have to pay me $1600 to go to Jackson, Mississippi!
 
There was a special about AA on CNBC a while back. A former CEO was explaining how a posted price is the competitive price for that seat on that flight at that time. They gave some real-world examples of flights to illustrate it. Very interesting. Overall prices have been climbing alot, yet the airlines are not profitable enough to pass it on to the employees. The magic of numbers.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom