Latest ASA INFO????

[michael707767]

To apply Delta's current MD-80 rates to the 70-seater (take current rates divided by 2, which obviously wouldn't be the case, but once again in my attempt to not skew the numbers in my favor, I'll be conservative) would increase the 70-seater's total CASM by over 20%...and thats conservative!

First of all, it is obvious that Delta's current rates are not going to survive. So cut the 88 rate by 30%, then divide by two. Second, even that formula is pure speculation. None of us have any idea what DALPA would fly a 70 for. It could be that we would agree to fly it cheaper than ASA or CMR...ala MAA. It won't happen, but to say a 70 seater would not be profitable at the mainline is nothing more than a guess, until we know what the pilots and F/As would be paid. And given the current situation, if it did happen, that pay would not be much.

 

[FDJ2]

You're kidding, right? First of all, I spent about 20 minutes explaining how ACA's CASM was, in fact, not 22 cents. Secondly, crew costs are a very integral part of total CASMS. You can make any aircraft unprofitable by paying the pilots outlandish amounts...kinda like the DAL payscales. To apply Delta's current MD-80 rates to the 70-seater (take current rates divided by 2, which obviously wouldn't be the case, but once again in my attempt to not skew the numbers in my favor, I'll be conservative) would increase the 70-seater's total CASM by over 20%...and thats conservative!

I guess you had to explain that ACA's CASM wasn't 22 cents, instead of just posting their actual CASM which is, surprise 22 cents. I just didn't realize that the RJs profit margins were so razor thin, that a Delta pilot flying it at, let's say $100/hr (since there is no 70 seat rate we would have to guess) for who knows what work rules, would suddenly make a 70 seat RJ unprofitable. But you can, with all authority claim that it would raise the CASM 20% even though you have no clue what the payrates or work rules would be. That's amazing.

 

[~~~^~~~]

First of all, it is obvious that Delta's current rates are not going to survive.

None of us have any idea what DALPA would fly a 70 for. It could be that we would agree to fly it cheaper than ASA or CMR...ala MAA...

My educated guess is that Delta pilots will fly at Connection, using Connection pay scales, but, using second year longevity. This is less than DCI pilots currently earn, since 70 Captains at ASA must have an average longevity somewhere between five and eighteen years.

This is the model used at other jets for jobs carriers, like MAA. There is no reason why we can expect Delta to be different and mainline will have to undercut DCI to give the Company an incentive to use their services in a role currently staffed by DCI pilots.

~~~^~~~

 

[bvt1151]

I guess you had to explain that ACA's CASM wasn't 22 cents, instead of just posting their actual CASM which is, surprise 22 cents. I just didn't realize that the RJs profit margins were so razor thin, that a Delta pilot flying it at, let's say $100/hr (since there is no 70 seat rate we would have to guess) for who knows what work rules, would suddenly make a 70 seat RJ unprofitable. But you can, with all authority claim that it would raise the CASM 20% even though you have no clue what the payrates or work rules would be. That's amazing.

Perhaps you're not understanding exactly what one-time fees are. If ACA want's to send a 50-seater on a flight, the cost of that flight will not include the cost of retiring other aircraft. This is the difference in operating and non-operating cost. If you want a true indicator of what an airlines operating expenses are, you don't factor in one-time expenses. If you used one-time fees to indicate an airlines long-term profitability, Delta would be losing 1.4 billion every quarter. I guess you don't include one-time fees when it suits your argument.

Delta does not have any pilots flying 70's on their current pay scale. If they did, that is what it would be. The concessionary pay scales aren't even in effect yet. How can you argue a 70-seater would be launched with DAL pilots at a new payrate that hasn't been set yet. If we are talking about why a 50-seater is currently being launched full, then we will be comparing current pay rates. Hence the large difference in crew pay.

 

[AFELLOWAVIATOR]

All this talk about the 50 seat jet being scorned because of it's size is stupid. If it were true then I know of a few thousand corporate jets that would be parked in the desert because the millionairs are scared of them because they are too small.

You people crack me up. As I have said I have two million milers on my block and they both love my airplane for four reasons. Shedule, no middle seats, quick deplaning, and pink tagging their carry on.

If the small jet was hated by pax, I doubt very seriously that the Airlines would still be buying them.

 

[On Your Six]

All this talk about the 50 seat jet being scorned because of it's size is stupid. If it were true then I know of a few thousand corporate jets that would be parked in the desert because the millionairs are scared of them because they are too small.

You people crack me up. As I have said I have two million milers on my block and they both love my airplane for four reasons. Shedule, no middle seats, quick deplaning, and pink tagging their carry on.

If the small jet was hated by pax, I doubt very seriously that the Airlines would still be buying them.

Denial ain't a river... Difference between a corporate jet and a CRJ/ERJ is that you actually have more room on the corporate jet seats to actually do some work. Most business travelers despise CRJs/ERJs because of their limited room to work, lack of bin space and crowded conditions and clausterphobia after 2+ hours of flying. Sure, the CRJ has more room than a Lear, but you don't have people crammed into a Lear in most cases - you can spread out a bit... Rarely do you find more than 3-4 people sitting in a corporate jet (unless you fly the Wal-Mart Learjet shuttle service)...

Having flown on the E170 as a pax recently, I now fully endorse replacing as many CRJs and ERJs as possible with the E170 - it has the "big airplane feel" that all CRJs (including the CRJ900 that I have flown on too) and ERJs completely lack... CRJs will always be financially viable on the non-competitive thin routes where there is no other option (e.g., Salt Lake to Pasco), but, as AirTran recently decided, the 50-seat RJ just doesn't work very well economically or from a comfort perspective over shorter and more competitive routes. Just ask the folks at Midway Airlines...

You don't see people getting super-emotional (like what I witnessed recently on an RJ) about the size of their aircraft on a 717 or 737. And that's a fact! The size argument is real for a lot of people - RJs seem to have the same impact on some people as the turboprops used to (prop aversion was the rationale used to order a lot of RJs back in the day...). If you sit in an RJ, watch as peoples' eyeballs bulge from the skulls as they board the airplanes - I have seen it myself many times on repositioning flights... Seems like GG has the same opinion about RJs when he talks about RJs adversely impacting DAL's most loyal customers - premium businss travelers (I can't remember his exact words). Sad but true...

 

[sweptback]

Having flown on the E170 as a pax recently, I now fully endorse replacing as many CRJs and ERJs as possible with the E170 - it has the "big airplane feel" that all CRJs (including the CRJ900 that I have flown on too) and ERJs completely lack...

So where do you propose the majors get the money to replace their almost-new CRJs and ERJs with the 170? And if suddenly every regional in the US flew the 170 exclusively would you still be so anti-regional?

 

[FDJ2]

Perhaps you're not understanding exactly what one-time fees are.

Oh believe me I understand what one time fees are. It's all part of being an independent carrier. When was the last time ASA/CMR had a one time fee put on their useless DOT numbers? DAL has used them extensively to post losses. Yet despite these one time fees, our CASM is about 10.32, including a onetime fee of $1.65B as opposed to Indy's 22cents and we were opertaionally profitable last quarter. I guess paying these one time fees is the responsibility of the mainline at DAL. We wouldn't want to burden ASA/CMR with the actual costs of doing business. As the former DAL CFO said, CMR only pays for their operational costs, DAL pays everything else.

 

[FDJ2]

All this talk about the 50 seat jet being scorned because of it's size is stupid. If it were true then I know of a few thousand corporate jets that would be parked in the desert because the millionairs are scared of them because they are too small.

Of course those corporate jets aren't crammed with 50 seats now are they.

 

[DLslug]

Afellowaviator don't know Diddy

The only millionares that fly with 50 people in a jet are the ones who own those nudie mags, like Playboy. Where is that Playboy DC-9? Oh yeah, Sleepy is flying it.


All for now,

DLslug

 

[bvt1151]

Oh believe me I understand what one time fees are. It's all part of being an independent carrier. When was the last time ASA/CMR had a one time fee put on their useless DOT numbers? DAL has used them extensively to post losses. Yet despite these one time fees, our CASM is about 10.32, including a onetime fee of $1.65B as opposed to Indy's 22cents and we were opertaionally profitable last quarter. I guess paying these one time fees is the responsibility of the mainline at DAL. We wouldn't want to burden ASA/CMR with the actual costs of doing business. As the former DAL CFO said, CMR only pays for their operational costs, DAL pays everything else.

Actually Delta did not include the one-time fee into their casm calculations like Indy did. With Q2 operating costs of $4.202 billion and ASM's of 38.620 billion, Delta operated with a system-wide casm of 10.88 cents. When you include the one-time payment of $1.534 billion, Delta's casm suddenly becomes 14.85 cents. Now see the difference?

 

[737 Pylt]

Why does the RJ become immediately unprofitable the moment a mainline pilots flies it? Are RJs very profitable or not?

Because it makes a nice spin, rjdc style! Besides, didn't you know mainline pilots are the antichrist?!? We are the problem with the industry.
737