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

[737 Pylt]

I am definitely No General Lee. I don't go to people's houses just to insult him. That's all he's doing when he comes to the regional board and brags about how we're all going to lose our jobs, and how great HIS CAPTAIN'S big ass 767 is.

Oh this is rich, coming from you!

How about your famous quote from the Gulfstream thread!

Jackass? Who's the jackass? Um, you walked away from jet PIC and $65K a year to fly a 1900 at a PFT airline with a bunch of kids, pal. Just pointing out that your decision wasn't for everyone, as you seemed to promote. You didn't even make a lateral move, you moved down. Good luck getting hired anywhere but a regional with all that 1900 pic time.

Nothing like being a hypocrite, eh johnny boy?
You don't even need to leave the regionals to try and make yourself feel superior!
What a tool!
And yes, you are a JACKASS!

737

 

[time builder]

Call me crazy. I enjoy the General. If you have the time to drop the torches and pitch forks you may learn something.

I hate to be inflamatory, but I'm with you. Why do people take him so personally? They say they ignore him but it's obvious that they don't.

BTW, regardless of the General's personal take on this issue, it is a key issue in our industry. If you've got a personal stake in the success of your regional airline, so be it, but it doesn't change the facts or the way Major airline managements operate.

If anything, regional guys should really be concerned with this. There is a significant fuel efficiency factor that favors going with the majors. Don't believe me? Let me show you an example (if the figures are slightly off forgive me, but I'll try to be as accurate as possible):

CRJ-200: roughly 3000 lbs per hour, about 50 seats
737-800: say 5500 lbs per hour and 150 seats.

9 CRJS on a 1 hour leg: 24,000 pounds burned
3 737s on the same leg: 16,500 pounds burned.
Same number of seats in either case.

7,500 pounds is about 1100 gallons ($2.50 per gallon)
Total Savings: $2750

You can argue as much as you want about the loss of revenue (as if they're having a hard time breaking 80% on the majority of flights now days), and the cost of labor (the gap between Majors and Regionals has seriously shrunk in the last few years, want examples? Maybe you can provide them on your own). These things are no longer compensating for the fuel savings of going large, and thus things are changing, starting with Delta.

You can get in a yuh huh, nuh uh, style argument for 10 pages, but if you want to counter this, please prove me wrong with relevant evidence, and we can have a productive discussion, I'm up for learning something new.

Bear in mind, I fly cargo, so I'm somewhat of an unbiased outsider here, but I'm still part of the industry so I'm very interested in what is going to happen.

 

[John Pennekamp]

General Lee/737 Pylt (since we all know you're the same person), it's not that I can't debate you about Ed Bastian or whatever you're babbling about, it's that I won't. I have no value of your opinion nor "knowledge" of the industry, and you have no value in mine. No matter what, we will never agree. A debate is pointless, it only fans the flames and stokes your ego. I won't do it. If you want to take my silence that you "won" go for it. You win. You clearly need that more than I do.

 

[General Lee]

General Lee/737 Pylt (since we all know you're the same person), it's not that I can't debate you about Ed Bastian or whatever you're babbling about, it's that I won't. I have no value of your opinion nor "knowledge" of the industry, and you have no value in mine. No matter what, we will never agree. A debate is pointless, it only fans the flames and stokes your ego. I won't do it. If you want to take my silence that you "won" go for it. You win. You clearly need that more than I do.

Ok John, if that is the way you want it. I was just really interested in what YOU THOUGHT about this issue. See, I can LISTEN. If you don't want to give your opinion on what Ed Bastain or Delta could do differently, then don't do it. You are right, I may have an answer to yours, but that's all good in the world of debate. If you don't know what to do or what to say, then I can understand that too, although I always have something to say regardless.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[JustaNumber]

If anything, regional guys should really be concerned with this. There is a significant fuel efficiency factor that favors going with the majors. Don't believe me? Let me show you an example (if the figures are slightly off forgive me, but I'll try to be as accurate as possible):

CRJ-200: roughly 3000 lbs per hour, about 50 seats
737-800: say 5500 lbs per hour and 150 seats.

9 CRJS on a 1 hour leg: 24,000 pounds burned
3 737s on the same leg: 16,500 pounds burned.
Same number of seats in either case.

7,500 pounds is about 1100 gallons ($2.50 per gallon)
Total Savings: $2750

You're logic is correct in your direct comparison, but unfortunately the industry is much more complicated. It's all about matching capacity with demand.

Let's say you have 50 people per day who want to fly from Dothan to Moscow. (Hey, you never know). If you're the only game in town that can offer that city pair, you stand to make a nice profit. But you don't put a 767 on that direct route, you put a 50 seat RJ from Dothan to Atlanta, and a 767 from Atlanta to Moscow (along with other pax from other parts of the country). Both flights are full, and the airline makes money.

 

[time builder]

You're logic is correct in your direct comparison, but unfortunately the industry is much more complicated. It's all about matching capacity with demand.

Let's say you have 50 people per day who want to fly from Dothan to Moscow. (Hey, you never know). If you're the only game in town that can offer that city pair, you stand to make a nice profit. But you don't put a 767 on that direct route, you put a 50 seat RJ from Dothan to Atlanta, and a 767 from Atlanta to Moscow (along with other pax from other parts of the country). Both flights are full, and the airline makes money.

Oh, no, I'm not refering to those, more the SLC-PHX or any other Skywest route to large cities. Don't mean to pick on them in particular, but I know they're taking a hit right now on the Delta side.

 

[79%N1]

Delta = Rudderless ship.

 

[fam62c]

I think that the real issue is that AIRLINES and high oil prices don't mix, especially in a slowing economy. The problem is not unique to small jets. If things continue to detiorate capacity will be cut, airplanes will be parked, and employees will be laid off. This has happened in every recession even without sky-high fuel costs and this one won't be any different.

 

[N2264J]

Let's say you have 50 people per day who want to fly from Dothan to Moscow...

And that's only part of it. Say you have 50 people per day that want to fly from Columbus, Ohio to Myrtle Beach. Add a premium to the price for by-passing a connection at the hub and going direct.

If you put a 737 on it, 50 people wouldn't break even. So when Generally tries to peddle this crap about CRJs being gas guzzlers, you are permitted to roll your eyeballs. They're parking mainline aircraft too.

 

[time builder]

And that's only part of it. Say you have 50 people per day that want to fly from Columbus, Ohio to Myrtle Beach. Add a premium to the price for by-passing a connection at the hub and going direct.

If you put a 737 on it, 50 people wouldn't break even. So when Generally tries to peddle this crap about CRJs being gas guzzlers, you are permitted to roll your eyeballs. They're parking mainline aircraft too.

Good point. Point to point flexibility is another advantage of RJs, kind of like SLC to PIT, they skip a hub and thus attract more customers. Again, the RJ excels with small load factors, and there will always be a need to feed the hubs.

Still, I see plenty of RJs out of SLC going to places like PHX, DEN, SFO, LAX etc. 8 years ago you might have one Skywest flight to SFO out of SLC, the others were strictly mainline. What happened? Well, for one thing, Delta parked their whole fleet of 727s and made up the difference in RJs.

Seriously, it used to be a ratio of 3 to 2 Delta to Skywest out of SLC before 2001, now its more like 4 to 1 Skywest to Delta. The market has been saturated with RJs and there's plenty of room to consolidate.

 

[General Lee]

Delta = Rudderless ship.

No, they are parking RJs. That is good. Ship is getting back on track. A good merger (not a bad one) will make it even better. There is one area that will take a large hit unfortunately, and that is the regional partner area. Sad but true.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[General Lee]

And that's only part of it. Say you have 50 people per day that want to fly from Columbus, Ohio to Myrtle Beach. Add a premium to the price for by-passing a connection at the hub and going direct.

If you put a 737 on it, 50 people wouldn't break even. So when Generally tries to peddle this crap about CRJs being gas guzzlers, you are permitted to roll your eyeballs. They're parking mainline aircraft too.

Why is Ed Bastain doing what he is doing? Do you think he has the numbers in front of him? He is the CFO/President. Tell me what you would do with 50 seat RJs or any sized RJs during high oil and the slow season? I am waiting. Johnny Pennekamp couldn't answer this question, and I can't wait to hear what you would tell ED.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[General Lee]

Good point. Point to point flexibility is another advantage of RJs, kind of like SLC to PIT, they skip a hub and thus attract more customers. Again, the RJ excels with small load factors, and there will always be a need to feed the hubs.

Still, I see plenty of RJs out of SLC going to places like PHX, DEN, SFO, LAX etc. 8 years ago you might have one Skywest flight to SFO out of SLC, the others were strictly mainline. What happened? Well, for one thing, Delta parked their whole fleet of 727s and made up the difference in RJs.

Seriously, it used to be a ratio of 3 to 2 Delta to Skywest out of SLC before 2001, now its more like 4 to 1 Skywest to Delta. The market has been saturated with RJs and there's plenty of room to consolidate.

That is not a good thing with high oil. We would make more money spreading out the costs on 3 mainline flights a day instead of 6 RJs. That is something Ed Bastain is trying to fix, like the SLC to BHM flight. It is gone until the Summer. You just can't make enough money to cover the fixed costs of each flight on a 50 seater, and even a 76 seater on that BHM flight.

By the way, we were going to get a bunch of MD90s from China and Japan and we were going to replace many RJ flights out of SLC, until the merger talk started up again. We may still get them anyway after the fact. Supposedly we are a signature away, and they are fairly cheap ($9 million with engines supposedly). We have a sim for them, and mechanics who can fix them. We shall see....


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[FishandFly]

General,

That is good news about the MD-90's. They were the original RJ anyway correct?

 

[IronCityBlue]

And that's only part of it. Say you have 50 people per day that want to fly from Columbus, Ohio to Myrtle Beach. Add a premium to the price for by-passing a connection at the hub and going direct.

If you put a 737 on it, 50 people wouldn't break even. So when Generally tries to peddle this crap about CRJs being gas guzzlers, you are permitted to roll your eyeballs. They're parking mainline aircraft too.

Good points, there is definately, and always be, a need for RJ's. But not 49% of an airline's block hours just because a concessionary pilot contract says its allowed. Not RJ's trying to serve every domestic market including hub to hub etc. Every legacy system out there has a large glut of RJ's. They will always be around, regardless of being brought back in house by scope or not, because their will always be a market for 50 and 70 seat aircraft. The main point here is that there are way more RJ's now than any legacy system needs so they will be reduced significantly.

The only question remains will mainline pilot groups further erode their scope language to allow more 70 and 90+ (and larger) planes to be outsourced as this next market wave favors larger aircraft for fuel economies. That's the wildcard. CAL is holding fast at 50 seats (thank God!) and AA is talking about 100% in house scope (thank God!) so maybe others will follow instead of simply incrimentally accomodating management's domestic outsourcing business plan while at the same time bragging about the restrictions they haven't gotten rid of today, yet.