Interesting RJ article............

[On Your Six]

I thought Song was a refreshing change of pace myself. The TV system is actually better than JetBlue's by a big margin. Good job Song - I think everyone should check it out...

 

[ASAFOE120]

Fancy 75's with tv and new paint may be comfy for pax, but that still doesnt pay the bills for Big D. It may be a long ride to my overnights this month (RDU, MSP, BNA) out of Dallas, but we never had less than 39 people on those flights. Looks like we made money to me. I heard no complaints from the deplaning (or boarding for that matter) pax. In fact, many of the pax were glad they didnt have to deal with a stop in ATL or CVG.

I dealt with a commute in the back of a 73 or A319 for 2 1/2 yrs to SYR (out of DFW). Most of the time I was seated in the middle seat (sometimes at the bulkhead which everyone knows doesnt recline). No entertainment and NO meals either. At least on the RJ I know i get a window or isle, and I wont be surrounded by some "Big Bubbas" on both sides to fight over the armrest with and get stuck in some "whats your job like" type conversation.

Just my thoughts,

ASAFO

 

[Palerider957]

.......This whole issue has been beaten to death on these boards.


As long as RJ's make money, and PAX won't pay more then $179 for a ticket, then RJ's will be the order of the day......whether they like it or not. As for making RJ's "more comfortable," there's absolutely no incentive to do this. If you remove seats, you remove poetential revenue. ASA/CMR are already restricted from their true potential by scope, if you take seats out, it's that much more money down the drain. Didn't American try this whole comfort gig (by removing seats), and failed miserably......people will NOT pay more for a plane with two more inches of leg room.

If anyone is interested, check out www.embraer.com and the link to the "rule of 70-110," it's a pretty interesting market study done by Embraer.

 

[General Lee]

RJs have their purpose, and this is changing. When the LCCs compete directly with them---the Major partners lose because of the lower fares. (you can't make money with 50 seats and $50 fares etc....) But, the LCCs will not fly to every city--and those city pairs without LCC competition can make more money because they can keep the higher fares. A friend of mine had to fly for business from EWR to STL via CVG on Comair last week, and the next day fly back to DCA via CVG on Comair again. The bill was $1400. He called me first to ask if he should pay that much(via his company)---and I said "Heck yeah----that will help the bottom line...." He did it.

There also seems to be another emerging market for RJs-----allnighters. Yes, allnighters. COEX is starting ONT to IAH on E145s leaving ONT at 12:50am and arriving IAH at 6AM. Allowing the planes to fly more can help pay off the daily lease rates--rather than leaving them at the gate overnight. There are probably plenty of cities that can support extra allnighters to get businessmen on their way. I do allnighters all of the time, and I think those RJ pilots want to join in! You get direct routings routinely.


ASAFOE120,

All of my flights have been full also lately--on Song and Mainline---and we have had to increase the size of aircraft (from a 757 to a 767-300 etc) to add room for extra passengers a lot lately too. You would think a full 767-300 could make money, right? The CASM is lower, no doubt.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[belchfire]

"I don't know why AMR doesn't spin off Eagle"

Neither do I. They had something profitable...
and killed it. 2nd quarter of 2002 was profitable
for TWA LLC. In July 02 they announced the first
of a series of drastic cuts in the STL system,
violating what AMR had assured the FTC in order
to be allowed to purchas TWA. Instead of
incorporating profiles that were working to make
TWA more efficient than AA, they goose-stepped
right over the top of it.

IMHO, AMR never should have merged the two
operations. They should have (after sucessfully
renegotiating the leases on the TW Aircraft) left it
alone as a LCC. Really, the other "suitor" should
have been allowed to buy TW.

But as I am frequently reminded, I don't see the
big picture...
which (unlike Don Carty) is why noone has
ever given me $82M to not let the door hit me
in the a$$ on the way out.

 

[Otto]

It's funny how the General posts every RJ bashing article he can find, avoiding the equal number of articles predicting their growth. I guess he only finds the negative ones "interesting" (interesting = fits mainline pilots agenda). Hey General, too bad your audience here is a bunch of RJ drivers instead of Delta execs.

 

[General Lee]

Otto,


I titled the thread and "interesting" RJ article, which some people on this board may find "interesting." This article was critical of certain airlines, and people looking for jobs on this board may find that useful. I really didn't even have an opinion on it--especially in the first thread. As far as the Delta execs "knowing" about the RJ and it's fit into the Delta family---the main RJ proponent---"RJ" Fred Reid, is GONE. So is Leo----who pushed for Frequency over comfort. Our new leader--Gerry Grinstein--just stated at a SLC "town hall" meeting that our loyal passengers shouldn't fly on an RJ for more than two hours at a time and that we have too many of them. I personally believe that there are certain markets that are great for RJs--like explorer markets to test whether or not a mainline sized aircraft should eventually be put on there, and markets that have NO LCC COMPETITION and can bring in enough feed, but can't be justified with a mainline aircraft. There are plenty of those, and the RJs are a lot better than props too. Have a great day.

Bye Bye--General Lee


PS---Please find me a current RJ article that praises them.

 

[FurloughedAgain]

Dash 8 Q400

Not to change the subject but, General said, "They're better than props..."

I still believe that in MANY short-haul markets from Atlanta, Cincinnati, LaGuardia etc. the Dash 8 Q-400 would be a far superior airplane. On trips of less than 500 miles there is virtually no difference in flight time between the Q-400 and the CRJ. The cabin on the Q-400 is significantly larger and, of course, the Q-400 holds 70 passengers. The Q stands for "quiet" and Bombardier touts their noise and vibration cancellation system which makes the airplane significantly quieter than the CRJ throughout the flight envelope. The airplane burns a fraction of the fuel of a pure-jet at low altitudes which would make it far more efficient (important with todays fuel prices) on short segments...

• From CVG: DAY, SDF, LEX, TYS, TOL, IND, CAK, and many more...
• From ATL: TYS, CHA, CLT, HSV, PNS, and many more...
• From LGA: RIC, MHT, BTV, ORF, PWM, and many more....

Horizon has been successfully flying the airplane for some time and is having tremendous luck with the Cat IIIA capability of the aircraft. Its technology is vastly superior to that of the CRJ.

Air travelers in the United States are some of the only in the WORLD that expect a 757 on every leg. In Europe and Asia high-speed turboprops are still a mainstay on many short-haul markets. But here in the US, where every home has an SUV, bigger is better and props are "scary". In April's "Airways" magazine, Comair CEO Randy Rodemacher said he believed that they could create a passenger friendly product with the 70 passenger Q-400.

I dont know what Delta's scope language has to say about turboprops but I believe that Comair and ASA would do wonderfully with this machine.In fact, i'd add the return of the turboprop to my (opinion) list of "things this company needs to do to survive" right along side:

• Jetways in CVG,
• ground air conditioning at every gate,
• IFE and food purchase opportunities onboard,
• no more than 2 hours on any aircraft that holds less than 50 pax.

Anyhow, just wanted to disagree with the General. I believe that there are turboprops on the market which are exceptional and Delta would be foolish to not look at this type when considering fleet replacement and expansion for Comair/ASA and the entire DCI family.

http://www.alaskaair.com/www2/company/fleet/images/Q400_photo.jpg

 

[General Lee]

Furloughed again,


I am glad that you want to disagree with me. My statement about props may have been ambiguous, since I was referring to smaller props--and the Dash 8-400 is a tad bit larger and more advanced. I agree that it would be nice to get some of the larger props--like the Dash 8-400---because the more seats you have--the better the CASM. Those Dash 8-400s are nice, and I see them all of the time when I pass through SEA or PDX. They are advanced and fast--two things that give them an advantage over the older ATR-72. But, in reality, the next phase that we (the Delta family) should be looking at is the 100 seater market. After our pilot pay cuts and creditor cuts---we hopefully will be able to finance some new aircraft--but I doubt the Dash 8-400 will be on the radar, unfortunately.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[belchfire]

General Lee brings a different viewpoint
to a forum often preoccupied with
bashing Mesa crewmembers rather than
Lowerenstien himself or the parent
companies that contract his airlines to
take flying away from their subsidiaries.

Why do you think that one of the few
profitable airlines would "quietly end"
their RJ agreement, or that there is
no place for them in SWA's sucessful
business plan?

In many cases I think that RJ's are being
used not to generate profit but instead
to maintain market share and decrease
losses in markets that for whatever
reason the mainline employing the RJ's
are unwilling to abandon.

But as I said earlier, I don't see the big
picture...the jball's windows are too
small.