The future of Comair? Shut down???

[IronCityBlue]

Delta has wasted millions on airplanes they don't need and never really wanted in the first place.

While this is true, I blame that on horrible, disgusting, unskilled and untalented management at the time. If Delta truly needed 70 or 90 seaters and not 50 seaters, they could have always flown as many as they wanted. They still can.

 

[On Your Six]

The fact remains that 50-seat jets won't work with high oil prices on competitive routes. That's a fact and we all need to accept it... 70+ seaters are the future for RJs. Unfortunately, the writing is on the wall...

 

[IronCityBlue]

The fact remains that 50-seat jets won't work with high oil prices on competitive routes. That's a fact and we all need to accept it... 70+ seaters are the future for RJs. Unfortunately, the writing is on the wall...

All the more reason for mainline pilots to fly them then.

 

[Beetle007]

I'm not entirely sure that Comair would be dead though. Comair is still the leanest DCI carrier.

Comairs cost per seat mile is 18.1
ASAs cost per seat mils is 14.1
Sky West's cost per seat mile is 12.0
Pinnacle's cost per seat mile is 8.6

Why is comairs costs so high? How are they more than double the cost of Pinnacle? They are the highest cost regional according to the most recent statistics http://www.dot.gov/affairs/bts5807.htm

 

[MINIME]

Even if CVG goes out the window as a hub for DAL, I don't see Comair closing doors. Remember what happened in STL when AA bought TWA? After 911 they pulled 80% of mainline traffic out of STL, making it the ghost town that it still is. The biggest carrier out of STL was Trans States. And I believe it still is.

Yes, 50 seat RJs aren't economical but DAL will want to maintain a presence there. I doubt they want to just give up Comair and not get anything in return. In some cases the other Regional partners may not be in a position to fill the gap either. Heck, I wouldn't doubt DAL giving or returning Comair its 70 seaters to be able to better compete. The overall flying might be reduced but I doubt they will close the doors.

 

[JoeMerchant]

Comairs cost per seat mile is 18.1
ASAs cost per seat mils is 14.1
Sky West's cost per seat mile is 12.0
Pinnacle's cost per seat mile is 8.6

Why is comairs costs so high? How are they more than double the cost of Pinnacle? They are the highest cost regional according to the most recent statistics http://www.dot.gov/affairs/bts5807.htm

.....Longevity....This why regionals fight pay increases.....Longevity is more of a factor than the actual payrates themselves.....

This is why the Compass/MidAtlantics are popular.... They start the longevity clock back at year one....

Comair is a far more senior group than Pinnacle.....

 

[1013dot25hPa]

I agree with JoeMerchant.

CMR is not expensive because of a lack of efficiency, etc. Our cost per seat mile is high due to the fact that nearly 1/3rd of our captains have been here 20+ years and are getting max pay.

We are more "top heavy" then any other regional carrier out there today.

 

[KingAirKiddo]

Yeah, and it's kind of hard to get the "juniority" effect when we keep losing airplanes. Stagnation/shrinking with a senior labor group is not real conducive to sustained profitability.

174 jets pre-bankruptcy down to 115-ish today and every other DCI carrier growing or at least stable. F'cking disgusting.

 

[John Pennekamp]

The fact remains that 50-seat jets won't work with high oil prices on competitive routes. That's a fact and we all need to accept it... 70+ seaters are the future for RJs. Unfortunately, the writing is on the wall...

What's better: 50 people on a CRJ or 50 people on a Mad dog/737/DC-9?

There are still a lot of routes flown by DCI that can't support mainline equipment with acceptable frequency. Shall we drop to 1 or 2 flights a day? Not good for connecting with mainline.

Unless Delta wants to abandon these markets and lose the feed to Airtran, they were going to have to maintain the lift and frequency. 50 seaters aren't going anywhere, they will just be returning to a commuter role on long thin routes... as they were built to do.

 

[FDJ2]

50 seaters aren't going anywhere, they will just be returning to a commuter role on long thin routes... as they were built to do.

You just go on and keep telling yourself that.

 

[John Pennekamp]

You just go on and keep telling yourself that.

Were you going to argue against the points I made or just say "nyah nyah, you're wrong"?

Just answer the question: What's better, 50 people on a CRJ or 50 people on a Mad dog. Because you can't reduce frequency. We await your answer smart guy.

 

[FDJ2]

Were you going to argue against the points I made or just say "nyah nyah, you're wrong"?

I was just saying that you can go on and keep telling yourself that fairy tale.

Just answer the question: What's better, 50 people on a CRJ or 50 people on a Mad dog. Because you can't reduce frequency. We await your answer smart guy.

Neither if it's losing money. The problem is that the 50 seaters are the biggest gas hogs out there on a per passenger basis and have the highest CASM. This isn't the 1990s and $30/bbl oil. At $90/bbl oil fewer and fewer of the 50 seater city pairs are making money and more and more are losing money.

 

[John Pennekamp]

Neither if it's losing money. The problem is that the 50 seaters are the biggest gas hogs out there on a per passenger basis and have the highest CASM. This isn't the 1990s and $30/bbl oil. At $90/bbl oil fewer and fewer of the 50 seater city pairs are making money and more and more are losing money.

Ok, let me get this straight. A MD-88 carrying 50 people and burning 5500#/hour is better than a CRJ-200 carrying 50 people burning 3000# per hour. Because of the "highest CASM" (though you didn't give us the actual CASM numbers, let's see them for proof) and $90 barrel oil.

And which planet is your logic based on?

So let's see the numbers, since you mentioned it. Give us the actual CASMs for the airplanes, divided by the number of passengers, times the fuel price. Oh, and how many gallons of Jet A can be made from a barrel of crude, and what percentage of the Jet A price is affected by the price of crude? Thanks for playing.

 

[FDJ2]

Ok, let me get this straight.

I doubt you have it straight, but go ahead.

A MD-88 carrying 50 people and burning 5500#/hour is better than a CRJ-200 carrying 50 people burning 3000# per hour. Because of the "highest CASM" (though you didn't give us the actual CASM numbers, let's see them for proof) and $90 barrel oil.

I didn't say that. Nice try.

I said neither. Mainline can no longer afford to subsidize the CRJ200.

It just so happens that the CRJ200 burns the most/pax and also has the highest CASM. It is the least economical plane, particularly at higher fuel costs. Domestic capacity will be cut from routes that are not profitable. The reality, whether you choose to ignore it or not, is that the largest cuts will be from the routes flown by the CRJ200.

I believe at least 35 50 seaters are scheduled to be taken out of service in 2008. Probably at least that many next year. Meanwhile, the mainline will receive 7 B737-700s, 4 B757ERs, and 3 B777s in 2008.

However, if you choose to live in your own reality and believe that the CRJ200 is here to stay, go right ahead.

 

[John Pennekamp]

Ok, let me get this straight.

I doubt you have it straight, but go ahead.

A MD-88 carrying 50 people and burning 5500#/hour is better than a CRJ-200 carrying 50 people burning 3000# per hour. Because of the "highest CASM" (though you didn't give us the actual CASM numbers, let's see them for proof) and $90 barrel oil.

I didn't say that. Nice try.

I said neither. Mainline can no longer afford to subsidize the CRJ200.

It just so happens that the CRJ200 burns the most/pax and also has the highest CASM. It is the least economical plane, particularly at higher fuel costs. Domestic capacity will be cut from routes that are not profitable. The reality, whether you choose to ignore it or not, is that the largest cuts will be from the routes flown by the CRJ200.

I believe at least 35 50 seaters are scheduled to be taken out of service in 2008. Probably at least that many next year. Meanwhile, the mainline will receive 7 B737-700s, 4 B757ERs, and 3 B777s in 2008.

However, if you choose to live in your own reality and believe that the CRJ200 is here to stay, go right ahead.

That's all fine and dandy, but you still haven't PROVEN your statement that the CRJ 200 is the least economical compared to comparable mainline narrowbody equipment on a given route.

And are CASMs everything? If it was that easy, then why bother getting an MBA?!! Hey everyone, FDJ the pilot has it all figured out! Put THIS guy on the fast track to upper management!

So before we go any further, let's see the numbers. Otherwise, all this is is FDJ's OPINION on what it will be. Of which I couldn't care less.

And when you provide the cost analysis, be sure to factor in lost business opportunity by decreasing frequency on the routes when you cut the RJs out, losses from breaking contracts with airlines and airports outside of bankruptcy, and increased labor costs by moving to mainline crews. Also the lost customers to Airtran feeding them out of ATL to these destinations.

We'll be waiting. Please don't cop out again. Put your money where your mouth is by backing your inflammatory statements or go home, FDJ.

 

[FDJ2]

We'll be waiting. Please don't cop out again. Put your money where your mouth is by backing your inflammatory statements or go home, FDJ.

Read it and weep

Independence was bragging about 15.8 cents in 2004 at $40/bbl oil compared to UAL's RJ costs of 22 cents per seat mile. Any guess on whether those numbers are higher or lower at $90/bbl oil?

http://loudoun.vhost.vipnet.org/edc/packets/3-5-04/IndependenceAir.pdf


Here's some more from a Morgan Stanley Conference presentation by Morten Beyer and Agnew Inc.

http://www.mba.aero/presentations/040301_regional_jet_market_update.pdf


Looking at DAL's 4Q CASM breakout, mainline CASM was 10.79, when you add in the RJ factor, which accounts for only 18% of ASMs, consolidated CASM skyrockets to 12.19.

Last quarter alone DAL sold 7 CRJs and is expected to get rid of 35 50 seaters in 2008.

Like I said before, you can believe any fairy tale you want John, but there is a glut of 50 seaters and DAL will be parking quite a few 50 seat gas hogs. Unfortunately the revenue doesn't justify the high operating cost of many of the 50 seater routes. There will still be 50 seaters, just a lot fewer of them. Them the facts.

 

[John Pennekamp]

Read it and weep

Independence was bragging about 15.8 cents in 2004 at $40/bbl oil compared to UAL's RJ costs of 22 cents per seat mile. Any guess on whether those numbers are higher or lower at $90/bbl oil?

http://loudoun.vhost.vipnet.org/edc/packets/3-5-04/IndependenceAir.pdf


Here's some more from a Morgan Stanley Conference presentation by Morten Beyer and Agnew Inc.

http://www.mba.aero/presentations/040301_regional_jet_market_update.pdf


Looking at DAL's 4Q CASM breakout, mainline CASM was 10.79, when you add in the RJ factor, which accounts for only 18% of ASMs, consolidated CASM skyrockets to 12.19.

Last quarter alone DAL sold 7 CRJs and is expected to get rid of 35 50 seaters in 2008.

Like I said before, you can believe any fairy tale you want John, but there is a glut of 50 seaters and DAL will be parking quite a few 50 seat gas hogs. Unfortunately the revenue doesn't justify the high operating cost of many of the 50 seater routes. There will still be 50 seaters, just a lot fewer of them. Them the facts.

No, you dodged the question again. Indy air was on their own. I want to see DELTA'S numbers, since Delta absorbs all of the costs of our operation. Prove that the RJ costs DELTA more under it's operations structure. (Hint: you can't).

And CASM isn't the whole picture, it's just the tip of the iceberg. You have to factor in app of the incidental costs like lost market share, contracts, ground servicing, etc. But nice try. Look, you're just a pilot. Quit pretending you're an MBA. I know you Delta boys think you could run the company IF THEY WOULD JUST LISTEN TO YOU, but come on! Talk about fairy tales...

 

[FDJ2]

No, you dodged the question again. Indy air was on their own.

You failed again John. Indy air was comparing their RJ Casm of 15.8 cents to UAL's RJ CASM of over 22 cents. I'll remind you that was when oil was at $40/Bbl.

You also failed to research the Morgan Stanley Power Points I provided, which also shows the high CASM of a 50 seat RJ.

You also failed to address why DAL's CASM goes from over 10 cents when only the mainline is considered to over 12 cents when the RJ factor is included in the consolidated statement.

It just goes to show you that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. I can provide you with the facts, but if you continue to ignore them, that's your problem. There will be fewer 50 seaters by the end of 2008 and even fewer each year going forward.

As much as you want to pretend that the 50 seater is a low CASM aircraft, the facts don't support it.

DAL mainline can no longer afford to subsidize the high cost and high fuel consumption of the 50 seaters. Fewer and fewer 50 seat routes are profitable at $90 oil. The revenue just isn't there to support the high cost of many 50 seat routes. You will see fewer 50s in the future. DAL is already parking them. 7 in 4Q 2007 and at least 35 in 2008.

 

[Caveman]

You're both right. There will be fewer 50 seat RJs in the future and the 50 seat RJ does make more sense than a mainline aircraft on some routes despite being less efficient per seat. Next topic please.

 

[John Pennekamp]

You failed again John. Indy air was comparing their RJ Casm of 15.8 cents to UAL's RJ CASM of over 22 cents. I'll remind you that was when oil was at $40/Bbl.

You also failed to research the Morgan Stanley Power Points I provided, which also shows the high CASM of a 50 seat RJ.

You also failed to address why DAL's CASM goes from over 10 cents when only the mainline is considered to over 12 cents when the RJ factor is included in the consolidated statement.

It just goes to show you that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. I can provide you with the facts, but if you continue to ignore them, that's your problem. There will be fewer 50 seaters by the end of 2008 and even fewer each year going forward.

As much as you want to pretend that the 50 seater is a low CASM aircraft, the facts don't support it.

DAL mainline can no longer afford to subsidize the high cost and high fuel consumption of the 50 seaters. Fewer and fewer 50 seat routes are profitable at $90 oil. The revenue just isn't there to support the high cost of many 50 seat routes. You will see fewer 50s in the future. DAL is already parking them. 7 in 4Q 2007 and at least 35 in 2008.

No, you don't get it. You threw up a bunch of numbers, which I read, but you're still comparing apples to oranges. I want to see numbers for Delta and ASA. See, you're too bent on saying I'm wrong and how I failed to objectively prove your point. Typical Delta egomaniac. You keep making subjective statements, then using numbers with no relation to back them up. You, Fly Delta Jets 2, are a egomanicial moron.

Now, one more time. Put up a cost comparison of a Delta mainline airplane on a long thin route to an RJ. Or give up.