Pinnacle, Mesaba, Colgan SLI

[CptMurf]

Just they idea of making one company all jet and one all turboprop is ludicrous if the turboprop is dead. You would be condemning one of your companies from the get go. Be it more Saab flying or more Qs, I think you guys have something here. Although I would doubt it would be a smaller dash.

 

[Kaman]

In 10 years we will be looking at an all Q-400 fleet at Mesaba approx. 100 airframes and on the Pinnacle side an equal number of 900s. The resultant pilot group will be about 2000 pilots. And, for those of you that have any worries about the immediate future, I am thinking that at least HALF or more of the pilots currently at PNCL Holdings 3 companies will have moved onto to better pastures. I don't see the -300 coming to Mesaba, in fact I predict even more consolidation and reduction of airline service to smaller communities. We are already seeing fuel costs rising, in spite of a brief drop due to a lower demand. The same policies, extraction/refining and distribution problems still exist and the airlines know this. Not only is the 35/50 seat jet economically obsolete, so is the smaller turboprops.

 

[GRAAB HIRBOUBI]

In 10 years we will be looking at an all Q-400 fleet at Mesaba approx. 100 airframes and on the Pinnacle side an equal number of 900s. The resultant pilot group will be about 2000 pilots. And, for those of you that have any worries about the immediate future, I am thinking that at least HALF or more of the pilots currently at PNCL Holdings 3 companies will have moved onto to better pastures. I don't see the -300 coming to Mesaba, in fact I predict even more consolidation and reduction of airline service to smaller communities. We are already seeing fuel costs rising, in spite of a brief drop due to a lower demand. The same policies, extraction/refining and distribution problems still exist and the airlines know this. Not only is the 35/50 seat jet economically obsolete, so is the smaller turboprops.

All good points. I have trouble with the 35/50 seat obsolete issue. I think airlines will just stop flying to the small cities rather than fly an aircraft with a lower CASM. If not we'd all be flying 777's to Cedar Rapids cause the CASM is so low. Doesn't matter the seat cost when that same seat is empty.

I only mention the Q300 cause we have a pay rate that it falls into. Q400's make the most sense but I have rarely seen anyone in the airline industry do anything because it made sense.

It might be cheaper to just pay someone to refurbish/reskin/rebuild SAAB's.

As to the 200's disappearing MAYBE. I think once the fleet is right sized the 200's will be around for quite a while yet. No one ever mentions putting more efficient and powerful engines on them. If they could briskly get to the high 30's and burn less fuel while going faster -they'd get a life extension. Just like old Citations, Learjets, and numerous others. Of course it's cheaper to scrap the fleet and get the metal deposits back but if done correctly it could be cost effective.

900's and Q400's - that wouldn't be so bad.

 

[xjhawk]

Just they idea of making one company all jet and one all turboprop is ludicrous if the turboprop is dead. You would be condemning one of your companies from the get go. Be it more Saab flying or more Qs, I think you guys have something here. Although I would doubt it would be a smaller dash.

With continentals scope the Turbo Prop is far from dead. That will be the only way they will be able to touch the markets with a 70 seat AC

 

[Carl_Spackler]

I think the idea that the -200's are obsolete is a fallacy. If they were truly losing money for delta they wouldn't exist. While it may be true that they might lose some money on some certain routes they probably recoup that money and make more when the pax connect to higher yield routes.

 

[Kaman]

I don't think that the 35/50 seat jet is dead, but it's utility in the current marketplace and cost structure of today isn't economically viable for a significant number of routes. As a pilot, I am like a Pentagon General..."I never saw a weapon system, I didn't like", however I might like to fly a particular airplane it has really nothing to do with equation.
The fact, is the CRJ/ERJ do lose money with current fuel prices and every indication that they will continue to rise. So, the solution is to either offer less flights at a higher cost to support the CASM and still have sufficient yields to make a profit or look for other solutions.
The concept of having seemless service by offering jet equipment operated by codeshares was a very good idea from a marketing standpoint. CEOs loved the idea and so did the marketing folks. The pilots were basically buffaloed into thinking that trading in their Shorts, ATP, CV-580, ATR, etc...thought that this was a great idea until they realized that it was actually like cutting off your own nose to spite your face.
Scope was the way the majors at the time felt was the best way to deal with the RJ revolution and didn't realize that a replacement for the DC-9/737 fleet WAS NOT going to be a mainline airplane! Why do you think that the Bedford group is attempting to corner the market in the 175/190(5) market? JO at MAIR GRoup might be a lousy employer, but he isn't a bad businessman and his lean 700/900 fleet is the model for the future. Again, I didn't say I like the place or that I think JO is "great" guy (I don't know him personally), but he IS a shrewd businessman like the guy that runs RyanAir in Ireland. Not a pilot's buddy, but he makes money and offers a product that people want.
Going back to the large turboprop...75-90 seat airplane that has 350 knot TAS at 25K and sips fuel at half the amount of a 50-seater is the PERFECT airplane for the Northeast corridor especially and along the busy SAN-LAX-SFO-PDX-SEA corridor as well. I am not an expert, but I have done quite a bit of reading on this topic and have seen a revival of the large turboprop coming for many years.
We work in a dynamic industry that is ever-changing and volatile for everyone involved. Being flexible is key to survival, and until the current model change mainline is going to continue evolving with even more emphasis on regional airlines. The recent ruling by the court in favor of Continental's scope will serve to put even more turboprops in the mix. History and time will tell if the "large turboprop" revolution will be a success in the way that managers hoped offering "seem-less service" would be when Comair introduced the CRJ in 1992.
in 1992.

 

[suupah]

Going back to the large turboprop...75-90 seat airplane that has 350 knot TAS at 25K and sips fuel at half the amount of a 50-seater is the PERFECT airplane for the Northeast corridor especially and along the busy SAN-LAX-SFO-PDX-SEA corridor as well. I am not an expert, but I have done quite a bit of reading on this topic and have seen a revival of the large turboprop coming for many years.

precisely why I see pncl building a NorthEastern Q empire with domiciles in EWR, IAD, and ORD. It is the perfect mix of high density markets, short stage lengths and route overlap. I think IAH is not the best utilization of the Q and will likely not last long if at all.

 

[CptMurf]

Dredging up an old thread....

An XJ FO proposed this idea to me, it seems to have some potential, but I wanted to throw it to the wolves to pick apart.

What if you separated the 3 companies list by 0%-10%, 10%-20%, 20%-30%, etc. Then take the 3 0%-10% groups and merge them by DOH. And so on, and so on. This guarantees that you would stay in your 10% percentage, but corrects somewhat for DOH. I have not figured out how this would work for my seniority, but I see potential in this idea. It might even be better with 5% breaks.

 

[Jetjockey]

Wow, signs of intelligent life in FI. Good posts Kaman and suppah. I think you guys are going to be proven correct, large turbo-props will see a resurgence in the US airline market.

 

[Flyprdu]

Dredging up an old thread....

An XJ FO proposed this idea to me, it seems to have some potential, but I wanted to throw it to the wolves to pick apart.

What if you separated the 3 companies list by 0%-10%, 10%-20%, 20%-30%, etc. Then take the 3 0%-10% groups and merge them by DOH. And so on, and so on. This guarantees that you would stay in your 10% percentage, but corrects somewhat for DOH. I have not figured out how this would work for my seniority, but I see potential in this idea. It might even be better with 5% breaks.

Nice idea, but the smaller the divisions, the closer it resembles a relative method.

If you got caught on the edge of a cutoff, you could get completely screwed. It was a nice idea, but there are better ones out there.

Wouldn't it be unfortunate if a pilot that got stuck in subgroup E had more longevity than any of the pilots in subgroups C and D combined...