Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

"Litters of kittens that nobody wants"

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
How long has Boyd been saying this? Ten years? Yes the cost per seat mile is higher, but a full RJ makes money, a half full Boeing doesn't. It's all about inventory control, the number of seats in a market at a price that pays. Being able to adjust your inventory in 50 to 70 seat increments has big advantages over 137 seat increments. Any successful business person will tell you that to make money supply must equal demand. Too much inventory (especially if it is perishable) and you lose money, not enough and you can always add more. Big planes are big money makers with lower costs, if you can fill them. If not you lose money that much faster.

Cheers.
 
How long has Boyd been saying this? Ten years? Yes the cost per seat mile is higher, but a full RJ makes money, a half full Boeing doesn't. It's all about inventory control, the number of seats in a market at a price that pays. Being able to adjust your inventory in 50 to 70 seat increments has big advantages over 137 seat increments. Any successful business person will tell you that to make money supply must equal demand. Too much inventory (especially if it is perishable) and you lose money, not enough and you can always add more. Big planes are big money makers with lower costs, if you can fill them. If not you lose money that much faster.

Cheers.
Spot on.

The business seems to move like a school of fish. Everybody seems to go the same direction for awhile, and then for no reason move abruptly en masse in another direction.

The problem with the AVL-ATL example is that while the CASM for a 737 (or an A380, for that matter) will be lower, but can only be supported at lower frequencies.

So delta puts a 737 on AVLATL on Mo-We-Fr and fills each plane to 70%. Sooner or later someone is going to figure out that there are pax that would have flown on the other days. They come in with the right sized equipment and start picking off market share. Next thing ya know, 80% of the traffic from AVL is going to Charlotte. The consolation prize to the bean counters at Delta is that the CASM for a 737 looks good on paper.
 
If they are selling for $3M, you could convert them to business jets. The whole package would be what? $10M total. Somebody started doing that but I think it went bust. Now, looking at the price, I kinda wonder why it did not fly.
 
Just raise the god**mn ticket prices already!!

The airlines had rather refleet 40% of their domestic capacity rather than raise ticket prices to compensate for higher fuel costs? Yeah, that makes total sense!!!

We just can't charge Bubba and Lerlene more than $99 to go on their honeymoon in niagra falls!
 
Last edited:
Good riddance to 50 seaters. Let the hangar door hit them in the ass on the way out!
 
Aren't some companies also converting the early versions of the CRJ to freighters? Could that happen to these airframes?
 

Latest resources

Back
Top