High oil and RJs do not mix well.....

[John Pennekamp]

In theory you may be correct but there comes a point where the cost of operating an rj is not worth the "feed". With fuel prices this high, airlines are just about this breaking point.

After 9/11 Southwest did not furlough any pilot, had no rj feed. Granted they had a different business model but rj feed is not the answer, raising fares to cover the cost of the flight might be a good place to start.

So what's the answer? Abandon domestic feed? A little company called Pam Am tried that. It didn't work so well.

 

[Jmoney]

I agree....

So what's the answer? Abandon domestic feed? A little company called Pam Am tried that. It didn't work so well.

The General doesn't care about making statements which make business sense, he just cares about self-justification and more importantly about trying to insult and belittle everyone else in a pathetic attempt to make himself feel good.

-What a sad little man you are, General....

 

[MJ42]

So what's the answer? Abandon domestic feed? A little company called Pam Am tried that. It didn't work so well.

I guess you missed the part where I said a good start would be RAISE FARES. I never said abandon domestic feed, so don't put words in my mouth.

 

[John Pennekamp]

I guess you missed the part where I said a good start would be RAISE FARES. I never said abandon domestic feed, so don't put words in my mouth.

OK, which costs more to operate on a flight to Des Moines or any other typical "feeder" route? And RJ or a "traditional" mainline feeder airplane like a 737 or a Maddog? You ready know the answer.

Despite the rising cost of fuel, the RJ will always be cheaper because of its lower operating and labor costs. While high jet fuel prices look bad on paper when spread out over 50 passengers (versus the 128 on a Maddog) the fact remains that the RJ still burns less fuel for a given route.

This being the case, the airlines need to raise fares to account for the rise in fuel, but KEEP the RJs. This would make better economic sense, because it would result in less of a fare increase as opposed to eliminating the RJ (and its crew) then replacing them with a much more expenive mainline aircraft, then making a higher fare adjustment to pay for it.

Don't you agree?

 

[AceCrackshot]

Or unless you are the guy that is furloughed or downgraded to FO, and you have to sell your house, car, etc.

If you're a pilot without a "Plan B," you're swinging without a net, my friend.

 

[AceCrackshot]

So what's the answer? Abandon domestic feed? A little company called Pam Am tried that. It didn't work so well.

Not exactly correct.

The .gov forced PA to buy the airplanes it had, because the .gov told PA what routes to operate.

When deregulation occured, the pilots of UA, DL, and AA were estatic because their route structure under Regulation gave them a much better fleet composition.

Everyone knew this in 1978...it wasn't a state secret.
So, the UA, DL, and AA guys threw the PA, Eastern, Braniff and TW guys under the bus, mostly for their career progression.

Then, joined by the WN guys, they threw the rest of us under the bus by Age 60.

Some things never change...and now you know the rest of the story.

 

[V-1]

Additionally, which makes more money (or loses less)?

30 passengers on a 50-seat Regional Jet.

30 passengers on a 100+ seat mainline jet.

Perhaps CFO Bastian is ahead of his time...an airline that deals with high fuel costs by not flying airplanes...it's an interesting concept. I wonder how much money an airline can make doing that?

Perhaps in the future all airlines should just shut down from Jan 7 - March 14, and September 7 - November 15, since demand is historically lower during those periods.

 

[AceCrackshot]

The only solution is allowing airlines to fail and/or consolidate.

The whole RJ vs. Mainline Jet fight (what a bogus argument!) is nothing more than rearraiging deck chairs on the Titantic.

The industry is going to fail. The only thing propping it up is the lessors and the banks.

But look at the subprime mess. Band-aids and temporary fixes are just that. The systemic problems of the inability of the airlines to price their product to match the market forces remains. You can burn your furniture to heat your home, but when you start ripping off the siding, well...

 

[MJ42]

This being the case, the airlines need to raise fares to account for the rise in fuel, but KEEP the RJs. This would make better economic sense, because it would result in less of a fare increase as opposed to eliminating the RJ (and its crew) then replacing them with a much more expenive mainline aircraft, then making a higher fare adjustment to pay for it.

Don't you agree?

Sort of, but maybe Delta is finally realizing that RJ's don't belong on routes like SLC-BHM. That route, and similar ones, are not what the RJ was intended for. I also never said get rid of the RJ's, but I am saying utilize them as they were intended.

 

[MJ42]

The only solution is allowing airlines to fail and/or consolidate.

The whole RJ vs. Mainline Jet fight (what a bogus argument!) is nothing more than rearraiging deck chairs on the Titantic.

The industry is going to fail. The only thing propping it up is the lessors and the banks.

But look at the subprime mess. Band-aids and temporary fixes are just that. The systemic problems of the inability of the airlines to price their product to match the market forces remains. You can burn your furniture to heat your home, but when you start ripping off the siding, well...

Agreed!

 

[John Pennekamp]

Sort of, but maybe Delta is finally realizing that RJ's don't belong on routes like SLC-BHM. That route, and similar ones, are not what the RJ was intended for. I also never said get rid of the RJ's, but I am saying utilize them as they were intended.

Now THAT statement I agree with! These are the routes they should be abandoning altogether.

Delta, being the "marketing driven airline" that it is still cares more about its image than its actual profits. They used to brag (the Leo Mullin/Vicki Escarra/Michelle Burns era) about flying "from anywhere to everywhere". This is when the asinine long thin RJ routes began, but gas was cheap, so what the hell?

Well now that gas is expensive and profits are "suddenly" important, they need to transform the RJ operators back into a traditional "commuter" role of moving passengers into the hub and connecting them to the high yield transcon and Int'l mainline flights. The best way to do this (from an efficiency standpoint) is with large turboprops. The next best way is to fill large RJs. But if a market can only support a 50 seat aircraft, they need to decide to use it or abandon the market. Not upgrade it. I still see a demand for 50 seat RJs, but they will (and only should) exist in markets that can reliably fill them.

 

[John Pennekamp]

The only solution is allowing airlines to fail and/or consolidate.

The whole RJ vs. Mainline Jet fight (what a bogus argument!) is nothing more than rearraiging deck chairs on the Titantic.

The industry is going to fail. The only thing propping it up is the lessors and the banks.

But look at the subprime mess. Band-aids and temporary fixes are just that. The systemic problems of the inability of the airlines to price their product to match the market forces remains. You can burn your furniture to heat your home, but when you start ripping off the siding, well...

You have a point, but the same can be said for the entire US economy. If nothing else, the subprime scandals have proven that our entire economy is a house of cards. That's what happens when your country no longer makes anything and shifts to a consumer spending-driven retail and service based economy. Courtesy of a president and congress that ignored the workers and allowed corporations to transfer most of the manufacturing jobs overseas. The damage the Bush administration has done to our economy is only beginning to show, and it will get much worse before it gets better.

 

[wms]

The usefulness of the RJs will be just what it was in the last recession. RJs are not as cost effective as ml airplanes, but if demand drops it's more effective to fly 50 pax on a 50-seater. One of the mistakes DAL made in the past was as pax counts increased on city pairs they increased the number of RJ flights rather than shift to ml equipment.

 

[John Pennekamp]

The usefulness of the RJs will be just what it was in the last recession. RJs are not as cost effective as ml airplanes, but if demand drops it's more effective to fly 50 pax on a 50-seater. One of the mistakes DAL made in the past was as pax counts increased on city pairs they increased the number of RJ flights rather than shift to ml equipment.

Agreed. The RJs will not be going away, they will just move to a more traditional commuter role.

 

[AceCrackshot]

The utility of the RJ (to management) was primarily as a whipsaw. The RJ revolution essentially deprofessionalized the airline industry. Period.

The DL MEC was too stupid to realize that there was no functional difference between a MD88 and RJ. RJs should have been on ML senority lists from day 1. Instead, once that camel's nose was in the tent, a forklift wasn't going to get him out. But, for the DL MEC since 1978, their only strategy was trying to throw someone else under the bus. Every gain they made was temporary, and every thing they gave away (like following flying during a merger, RJs, contract flying in the US 121 world, etc.) will take years to get back, if we ever have the leverage to do so. If anyone has got an issue with General Lee, or DL pilots as a group, that should be it.

Commuter lift and mainline lift, in a perfect world, work hand-in-glove. To say that long haul is the high yield isn't always correct. For example, the pax going LGA-DEN-ASE or DEN-CLT-HXD is paying through the nose for the last leg, and is getting a screaming good deal on the first. USAir lived off its commuter lift and Shuttle operations for years. WN and other LCCs made sure that the high-density to high-density city pairs would eventually be competed down to subsistance level yields, or the case of Florida, worse.

Look at F9, they've been successful to this point, but they just staked their claim that the only new revenue streams that will be available are shortrange commuter and long range int'l.

I think they're right, for what its worth.

Its somewhat academic, at this point. The RJ created the situation where this has happened...

1997. 22 year TW 72 captains make 100k/year, decent retirement, great work rules, decent benes, good work atmosphere.

2007. 22 year AA 76 captains make 160k/year, middling retirement, middling work rules, benes middling, hostile work environment.

 

[AceCrackshot]

You have a point, but the same can be said for the entire US economy. If nothing else, the subprime scandals have proven that our entire economy is a house of cards. That's what happens when your country no longer makes anything and shifts to a consumer spending-driven retail and service based economy. Courtesy of a president and congress that ignored the workers and allowed corporations to transfer most of the manufacturing jobs overseas. The damage the Bush administration has done to our economy is only beginning to show, and it will get much worse before it gets better.

To blame Bush for this is like blaming the firemen who break the windows of out of your house while it's on fire.

He shares the blame, to be sure. But remember when deregulation started (ans. Carter.) Remember who signed NAFTA (ans. Clinton.)

The American middle class has been sold out by both political parties since the early 70s. Remember, at the top of the income pyramid, both political parties meet.

 

[John Pennekamp]

To blame Bush for this is like blaming the firemen who break the windows of out of your house while it's on fire.

He shares the blame, to be sure. But remember when deregulation started (ans. Carter.) Remember who signed NAFTA (ans. Clinton.)

The American middle class has been sold out by both political parties since the early 70s. Remember, at the top of the income pyramid, both political parties meet.

I don't disagree.

 

[General Lee]

Wow guys, I really had a ball reading all of these responses. So much HATE for me, and all I did was post an article and didn't even give an opinion. The truth hurts sometimes I guess...

One guy asked if it would be better to have 30 people on a 76 seat RJ, or 30 people on a mainline plane. How about get rid of RJs (and frequency of flights that Fred Reid wanted so badly for business people who now hate RJs) and instead of 8 flights a day with 4 mainline and 4 RJs, just have 5 flights a day with 1 RJ and 4 mainline? Tighter supply will raise fares, and the mainline planes will be more profitable. Sounds great.

Have a great one Fellas!

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[rumrnr78]

To blame Bush for this is like blaming the firemen who break the windows of out of your house while it's on fire.

He shares the blame, to be sure. But remember when deregulation started (ans. Carter.) Remember who signed NAFTA (ans. Clinton.)

The American middle class has been sold out by both political parties since the early 70s. Remember, at the top of the income pyramid, both political parties meet.

Very true!

 

[IronCityBlue]

Well if the general is right, now's the perfect time to get RJ scope back, or at the very least reinstate massive restrictions. Heck, since the RJ is pretty much doomed, just tell magement its not only cost neutral, its revenue positive! They can't afford not to do it!