Is it time for another "how's Lynx doing?" thread?

[regionaltard]

How many millions have those $50 captains cost by now? Having second thoughts about those giant Dash 8's? Thinking that maybe paying an existing operator the going rate might not have been such a bad idea after all?

 

[labbats]

I had to laugh when a buddy of mine said he and his wife got tickets from DEN to SUX on Frontier. He was all excited to watch Direct TV on the airbus.

Whoops!

That was the first I heard that Lynx was actually flying.

 

[rjacobs]

Lynx is only doing proving runs. They had 2 airplanes in DEN last week when I was there. It is a good looking bird. People are not gonna be super happy to get off our airplanes(XJT) with the free XM onto a prop. Are they getting any kind of inflight entertainment put on them?

 

[Knob]

Lynx is taking longer than expected to get FAA certification and XJET is serving the lynx routes until the Q400 fleet is up & running. I have seen 5 or 6 Q400s at BJC

 

[Grey Ghost]

yeah, because that ERJ is sooooo much more comfortable than a Dash!!!!!:smash:

 

[rjacobs]

yeah, because that ERJ is sooooo much more comfortable than a Dash!!!!!:smash:

Did I say anything about comfort? Nope, I said something about our XM radio and how people are really enjoying it and I dont think the dash is gonna have any inflight entertainment on it.

 

[Oakum_Boy]

Because US Americans need their small brains stimulated with electronic noise 24/7/365.

 

[Sig]

Did I say anything about comfort?

The PROP part was kinda glib.

 

[RemoveB4Flght]

Did I say anything about comfort? Nope, I said something about our XM radio and how people are really enjoying it and I dont think the dash is gonna have any inflight entertainment on it.

Next they are gonna run mirrors down the right side of the cabin to give the illusion you are flying a widebody

 

[Cardinal]

Proud owners of 6 aircraft now. No certificate, obviously, F9 is hoping for December. Lynx management has acted responsibly, it's the Feds that are sucking wind, as their team learns how to certify an airline. $15 million-ish has been burnt to this point. In the meantime, thanks for the help, XJT.

 

[cale42]

Proving runs started Monday before Thanksgiving.. expecting certification Dec 4.. rev flights Dec 6, six airplanes on property now.. 10 by Feb 1 08...

cale

 

[johnsonrod]

Proving runs started Monday before Thanksgiving.. expecting certification Dec 4.. rev flights Dec 6, six airplanes on property now.. 10 by Feb 1 08...

cale

So, what are the initial routes again out of Denver? I thought Wichita and Sioux Falls were at least two of them - right?

 

[cale42]

First 4 are Wichita, Sioux City, Rapid City, and Billings.

Expected to be added by January are Albuquerque, Oklahoma City, El Paso, and Tulsa.

cale

 

[WSurf]

Are they getting any kind of inflight entertainment put on them?

What? Flying in a Large Prop airplane at 350kts at low attitudes isn't entertainment enough????

 

[D-Bo]

Proud owners of 6 aircraft now. No certificate, obviously, F9 is hoping for December. Lynx management has acted responsibly, it's the Feds that are sucking wind, as their team learns how to certify an airline. $15 million-ish has been burnt to this point. In the meantime, thanks for the help, XJT.

Do the other F9 pilots share the same enthusiasm you do? You've got Lynx taking dollars away from the mainline operation and I haven't heard one comment about F9 NOT being in this situation with the Q400s if your management would have just put the things on your F9 certificate in the first Fn place! Can't blame the Feds for dragging their feet. Your management has to take the blame. They wanted to put them on a seperate, brand new, certificate and never gave the pilot group a good reason why it was so essential to do so.
You sound happy. I wouldn't be over this situation.

 

[johnsonrod]

Frontier already contracted with Republic to use E170/175s out of Denver. Why not do the same with Q400s? Why start from scratch?

Also, what sort of overlap will you see between the Q400s and the E170s out of DEN? Why use both aircraft? Will the Q400s be serving airfields that the E170s can't like ASE?

 

[cale42]

Many people have been quick to say why not just contrat the Q400 flying.. well who would fly that contract exactly??

Horizon is the only current US Q400 operator and F9 has made no secret of the fact that they would like to end the Horizon relationship due to the cost. So there was not a practical option to contract them.

F9 management saw a good opportunity to fly large t-props. Keep in mind in this $100/barrel oil environment then Q400 burns something like 30% less gas than a 170/175 with very little time loss over a 350 mile route. It burns something like 60% less than an A318.. (don't quote me on those fuel burns.. but it is significant). Also you are correct that the prop can get into places the jet can't.

In answer to johnsons specific questions, no one knows what sort of overlap there will be, but once Lynx is running, it will be significantly cheaper for F9 to run a Lynx flight than a Republic flight, and I expect to see that reflected in scheduling..

cale

 

[D-Bo]

Frontier already contracted with Republic to use E170/175s out of Denver. Why not do the same with Q400s? Why start from scratch?

Also, what sort of overlap will you see between the Q400s and the E170s out of DEN? Why use both aircraft? Will the Q400s be serving airfields that the E170s can't like ASE?

Or better yet, fly them on their own, original certificate? Too late now but the route they should have gone to begin with. They say they're a low cost carrier right? So why did they feel the need to outsource and wipsaw against their group?

 

[cale42]

Can you imagine the nightmare of trying to have 74 and 132 seat aircraft on the same certificate. The pay, work rules, and advancement opportunities that exist for most 74 seaters are entirely different than that expected for 132 seaters.

Look at all the problems Airways is having even with a 98 seater..

the list of conflicts is long and complicated..

 

[Cardinal]

Do the other F9 pilots share the same enthusiasm you do?

No. Most actually don't mind the principle of the thing, but do fret over the 2-3 million/month (more with all these deliveries) "burn rate" when we are going to extravagant lenghts to control fuel burn and contain costs. I think the execution could have been better, but nobody always gets it right. They would have fit just fine on the Lakes certificate, however Voss would have had to extract his head from his ass, and that wasn't guaranteed. Could have bought GLUX outright for $30 million.

I don't lose any sleep over the Dashes, it's 17 outsourced 170s that creep me out, but the pilot group made that decision before I showed up, so whatever.

 

[D-Bo]

Can you imagine the nightmare of trying to have 74 and 132 seat aircraft on the same certificate. The pay, work rules, and advancement opportunities that exist for most 74 seaters are entirely different than that expected for 132 seaters.

Look at all the problems Airways is having even with a 98 seater..

the list of conflicts is long and complicated..

Get the F outta here. That's the weakest F'n argument I've ever read on this board and that's saying a lot. Your logic is extremely deniable.

 

[Cardinal]

Lmfao

 

[cale42]

Seriously Dbo.. get the F out is your response??

I'm thoroughly looking forward to your explanation of how that would work?

You think its a coincidence that not a single US carrier has a mixed fleet of mainline and regional planes. That is what scope is all about....

How do you think F9 pilots would feel about the possibility of some buses being taken away and the most junior guys go to a Dash....

How about the pay rates.. first year regional pay is around 55 to 60/hr for left seat.... for a "major/national/LCC" it is around 80.. the disparity is even larger for the right seat.

How about recruiting.. you gonna use regional minimums and have guys that have 200 hrs with a chance to bid the bus in 30 months.. or recruit guys to fly a Dash that have 3000TT??

What about work rules? regional standards or major standards...

Once I hear this great business plan you have to work around all these obstacles.. we can nominate you for airline CEO of the year...

You think just about every company out there wouldn't LIKE to run their own regional fleet if the could???

 

[Cardinal]

You think its a coincidence that not a single US carrier has a mixed fleet of mainline and regional planes. That is what scope is all about....

Scope is designed to retain flying for the pilot group - not stratify fleets or keep pilots out of icky turboprops. The proof that scope is necessary is clear - no mainline pilot group has been offered flying not defined in their scope clause. It's a vital defense against management, they think they can do it cheaper, even if they can't.

How do you think F9 pilots would feel about the possibility of some buses being taken away and the most junior guys go to a Dash....

I'd take the Dash in a heartbeat over the street. I was lookin for a job when I found this one. Frontier had a brief window of opportunity to become the new paradigm, a model for the industry. Most or all of the branded flying could have been brought in house. 'Tis a pity.

 

[D-Bo]

Seriously Dbo.. get the F out is your response??

I'm thoroughly looking forward to your explanation of how that would work?

You think its a coincidence that not a single US carrier has a mixed fleet of mainline and regional planes. That is what scope is all about....

How do you think F9 pilots would feel about the possibility of some buses being taken away and the most junior guys go to a Dash....

How about the pay rates.. first year regional pay is around 55 to 60/hr for left seat.... for a "major/national/LCC" it is around 80.. the disparity is even larger for the right seat.

How about recruiting.. you gonna use regional minimums and have guys that have 200 hrs with a chance to bid the bus in 30 months.. or recruit guys to fly a Dash that have 3000TT??

What about work rules? regional standards or major standards...

Once I hear this great business plan you have to work around all these obstacles.. we can nominate you for airline CEO of the year...

You think just about every company out there wouldn't LIKE to run their own regional fleet if the could???

Damn right thats my response. Look. The main reason we're having this discussion is because back in the very early 90s, Delta basically felt like they were above RJs. They basically gave them away for nothing. Next thing you know, every other airline is trying to get their regional partners jets under the assumption that those jets would basically replace turbo props on a one for one basis while only serving the same city pairs. It was everyones weak scope that didn't have an airplane for airplane, N number for N number, city pair for city pair clause in them. That's what allowed all this to get out of control. Along with the fact the major airline management found out how good it was at whipsawing.

Anyway, you've got me arguing your apples to oranges argument. You can't compare F9s situation to mainlines situation. First of all, the major airlines didn't up and start another airline under the same certificate but under the same umbrella then take money from the mainline to buy net planes under the new, separate certificate.

Now as far as recruiting.....why should that be a concern of the pilot group for the purposes of protecting flying. So you're saying in their thought process they should think..."well, we want to control flying and protect jobs but maybe we shouldn't for the sake of recruiting"????? Control the flying. The "regional minimums" are only that because those aircraft are being flown at a regional airline. That's the only reason why.

Work Rules? That's very easy. Why can't they be the same. They should be and would be if the whipsawing weren't allowed in the first place.

And lastly, you speak about regional fleet. These aircraft aren't regional aircraft. They're mainline aircraft being flown at regionals.

The problems you speak about aren't big problems at all. They're weak excuses.

 

[T-prop]

And lastly, you speak about regional fleet. These aircraft aren't regional aircraft. They're mainline aircraft being flown at regionals.

The Q400 is more "regional" than an RJ by definition.
Until you see it run DEN-MIA the Q400 is a "regional" aircraft.

I hope you are enjoying being angry for another pilot group over some "lowly" "outdated" turboprops.

66 pax ATR's were flying at American Eagle and ASA LONG before the first RJ arrived. With little to no complaint from the mainline pilot groups.

 

[T-prop]

Basically, you need to hop in a time machine and take your argument back to 1993 when the first ATR's were delivered.

You may need to go further back to convince the last Legacy carrier that operated turbo-props and tell them not retire it in order to gain some form of precedence for your argument.

Mainline pilots were too good to fly turboprops, many are still too good to this day. The AA flow-through/back agreement reflects that. How many flowbacks ended up as CA on the ATR? Saab? Keep in mind that ATR CA pays better than EMB135/140 CA.

 

[cale42]

Alright D-bo.. you and I agree in theory.. but not so much in the implementation. All those things you speak of sound wonderful.. main line work rules and pay rates for all.

However as you pointed out scope clauses are weak. And regardless of what some may say I don't truly think very many mainline pilots really want 50 seaters in their scope.. they certainly didn't fight very hard for them. So until scope changes it is cheaper to have a regional fly 70-90 seaters and it will continue to be that way.

I'm a youngin.. my whole aviation career has been post 9/11. That means I've never seen the good times.. I've never seen the industry before regionals had 70 seaters... all I've seen is crazy high fuel prices and massive pay cuts. This had made me pessimistic no doubt.. but I don't think I'm going to see a day when the regionals flying decrease again.. I hope so.. I've got a long career in front of me.. but I don't see it. With fuel cost being what it is, and the public accustomed to disturbing low ticket prices, I just don't see it.

I long for the world you describe.. but to have expected an airline that was already losing money to step up and implement that seems unrealistic...

cale

 

[D-Bo]

The Q400 is more "regional" than an RJ by definition.
Until you see it run DEN-MIA the Q400 is a "regional" aircraft.

I hope you are enjoying being angry for another pilot group over some "lowly" "outdated" turboprops.

66 pax ATR's were flying at American Eagle and ASA LONG before the first RJ arrived. With little to no complaint from the mainline pilot groups.

Were the ATRs a threat to mainline? Did they have the almost same performance capability of the mainline aircraft? I'm glad you brought that up though. My point is you have F9 mainline flying Airbuses at sub 7 cents per available seat mile. They say they're a low cost carrier. So with that being said, if their cost are so low, comparatively, why buy a brand new airplane and operate it under a brand new certificate? There is something big behind that.

You used AMR in your example. In those days, even with fuel less than half of what it is today, they're CASM was way above 10 cents per mile. If I remember correctly it was about 15 or 16 cents per mile. So if F9 is able to keep it's cost so low, why whipsaw against the mainline pilots? And why shouldn't those pilots be pissed about that? Yeah....that makes me mad. Because they had a chance to stop it. But I'm not just pissed at them. I'm pissed at every other airline that has giving flying away and used two pilot groups against each other. We thought it would stop at 50 seat jets. Now we shake our head at the 90s. It's got to stop. We do it to ourselves.

 

[D-Bo]

However as you pointed out scope clauses are weak. And regardless of what some may say I don't truly think very many mainline pilots really want 50 seaters in their scope.. they certainly didn't fight very hard for them. So until scope changes it is cheaper to have a regional fly 70-90 seaters and it will continue to be that way.


cale

I'm sure the group at F9 would want them on their certificate and on their list. Same with every other mainline with the exception of Delta. These days mainlines have to fight to just keep the flying they have. Not only from RJs but from code share partners too. I think most folks realize it would be in their best interest to gain and control that flying. For those back in the day like Delta who thought that having RJs on the property would just drag their pay rates down.......not having them on the property has done more damage.

If mainlines don't fight for and command as much of the flying as possible these days...they're kicking yourself in the teeth.
I'm not making this a mainline v. regional thing either. I think we all have seen even regionals get played against each other too.