Trans States to Fly as UAX in ORD & IAD

[DaveyDave]

Here's the latest in the United Express saga. Any of you ACA guys heard what the "backup plan" is if no UAX? Maybe AirTran or JetBlue feeder?

Dave

 

[Tug Driver]

"Speaking of Trans-States, the 25 (or more) 50-seat jets they're moving into United colors are said to be replacing CRJs now operated by Atlantic Coast, an SJP (small jet provider) that has not been successful yet in re-negotiating an Express agreement with United. That means there's a possibility that over the next year ACA could have 25 jets sitting idle on a ramp somewhere. There's a message here - the US fleet of <51 seat jets may be reaching market saturation sooner than expected.

The cold fact is that the number of RJs that the US transportation system can economically use is finite, as is the case with any aircraft category. The pull-down of AA at STL will affect that number. Looking at the dance cards of the mega-carrier systems, it's beginning to appear that with the existing fleet and the existing firm orders (forget options), the ultimate demand for RJ's may have been already reached. It's even possible that in the next 18 months we could see some RJ's sunning themselves in the desert. "

-Michael Boyd http://www.aviationplanning.com/

 

[WhiteCloud]

[B That means there's a possibility that over the next year ACA could have 25 jets sitting idle on a ramp somewhere.
-Michael Boyd http://www.aviationplanning.com/ [/B]

Are you assuming ACA isn't going to pick up work elsewhere?

 

[jtf]

I would bet that even if ACA had no place to fly their jets, they would have plenty of other airlines that would love to buy them up. USAirways plans on growing it's Express side by hundreds of small jets. United is growing it's Express side with small jets- even if TSA just replaces ACA, Mesa and Skywest have contracts to grow with more jets and AirWhiskey will most likely have a good deal of growth in their new contract (assuming United doesn't do a big bellyflop). Nobody is sure what will happen with American and Eagle and Connection in respect to small jet growth. There are a lot of rumors that St. Louis will fill up with small jets to replace the mainline hub. Pretty much every major carrier is continuing to grow it's express carrier's 50 seaters. Alot of the new jets that are going to all of the various express carriers are going to be 70 seaters, but more of the growth will remain at 50 seats. I guess I'm trying to say that I don't agree that we are anywhere near parking 50 seaters in the dessert. With small jets ability to fly into markets that cannot sustain larger jets and to open up new markets, I would guess that the only thing putting 50 seaters in the dessert would be wearing out- none of them are built like a Boeing. I highly doubt we'll be seeing the current ERJs and CRJs living for 30 to 40 years like some 72s, 73s, and 74s.

 

[avrodriver]

I agree.......just look at the announcement from CO today.........deferring orders for 737's and 757's, but I sure didn't hear anything about stopping all of the ERJ's that are headed for CoEx. AD

 

[Marko Ramius]

I agree.......just look at the announcement from CO today.........deferring orders for 737's and 757's, but I sure didn't hear anything about stopping all of the ERJ's that are headed for CoEx. AD

CoEx people correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't X-Jet already defer a bunch of ERJ deliveries earlier this year until around 2006-2007?

 

[avrodriver]

He.ll I'm sure I'm wrong then...........either way, having a surplus of regional jets in the near future is a crock of sh.it. AD

 

[merikeyegro]

...

Couldn't disagree more...These jets are slowly becoming obselete as even the SJ carriers are moving toward 70- to 90-seat jets. The majors are not "growing," either. There has been a decline in pax since the beginning of 2001 and it hasn't rebounded. I believe the DOT substantiates that. The majors are still laying off workers. They are being REPLACED by the smaller jets. This is not growth. This is substitution. As well, the 50-seat jets just aren't that economical.

Michael Boyd is typically right and doesn't drink the Kool-Aid. I would bet anyone here $10 in useless ALPA dues that he's 90% right with that prediction. Any takers? RJs may look pretty, but they just aren't what they are touted to be...

 

[avrodriver]

I agree that I think the major are going overboard with putting all of thier eggs in the regional jet.....all of the flights I've been doing whether on the AirTran or United side have been full. Saying to me there is the potential to be making more money out there. What I disagree with is the statement that in the next year we could see ACA's regional jets sitting idle on a ramp somewhere and that proves that the 50 seat market has reached saturation "sooner than later", which I take as meaning "now". Northwest is waaaay behind the regional jet trend, they'd be game. Delta snapped up CHQ's EMB's the same fricken week that AWA dropped them.USAir, United, both seem to be in a race to add as many as they can get as fast as they can. He may be right later...but I think he's wrong about what's happening right now, I don't see any trends yet....... AD

 

[JJJ]

the 50-seat jets just aren't that economical.

Why do you say that? 50 seat RJ's (CRJ/ERJ) are cash cows. Why do you think the majors want so many of them? Comair has been using CRJ's for what 10 years? I'm pretty sure that they have made a ton of money for Delta.

 

[Tug Driver]

"It's even possible that in the next 18 months we could see some RJ's sunning themselves in the desert. "

-Michael Boyd http://www.aviationplanning.com/

so we have from now, until 18 months from now to prove him wrong.

 

[ElecJet]

This is all about labor on the cheap. Mainline contracts with decent scope language prohibited the larger jets. So add as many small ones as possible. When everyone gets used to seeing them and a bankruptcy judge allows, bring in the large ones. This has been evolving for quite some time. The 50 seaters will be around but what management has wanted all along is the 70/90+ seat airframes being operated by someone else. Now they don't have to pay for the airplanes or the high priced labor. As long as there is someone willing to do it cheaper there will be a demand. As long as there are pilots willing to fly them at substandard rates there will be a demand for them. Fire away.

 

[phishn@daves]

I hope you are not insinuating that Trans States pilots will be flying at substandard rates. We are one of the only airlines that did not take concessions, we extended our current contract by two years instead, plus 2.5% cost of living increases yearly.

Now as far as compensation from UAL for flying their colors, that's all management bullsh!t. I know we don't get a flat rate per leg flown and/or completed, not sure what the details are there, will find out soon.

Let me assure you and everyone else, we do not and will not fly at SUBSTANDARD rates. Our Union and pilots would never allow it! As far as ACA goes, UAL is just trying to find better deals, the pilots don't do it cheaper, the company may, who knows!

 

[WIDEBODY ATR]

Yeah, you just keep thinking that phishin@daves. I'm sure that could NEVER happen. Someday, when you grow up, you'll see what I mean.

 

[Cardinal]

Why do you say that? 50 seat RJ's (CRJ/ERJ) are cash cows. Why do you think the majors want so many of them? Comair has been using CRJ's for what 10 years? I'm pretty sure that they have made a ton of money for Delta.

Look at the aircraft the way an accountant does - how much does it cost me to move a seat one mile, CASM. Most RJ operators see CASMs in the 13-15 cent range, whereas mainline aircraft are more like 10 cents. Thus your SJ also has to command a 30-50% revenue premium on it's routes. This works if you're expanding the network, adding spokes, and you can get 50 people to pay through the nose to get there. It is not economical to replace a full, profitable 737 with wingtip RJ flights, regardless of labor costs. It wil still cost the airline more per seat. If you can't fly your 737 at a breakeven revenue, however, only then does it make sense to move to the smaller aircraft and skim off the highest paying passengers on the route. No aircraft type is simply a "cash cow." It's all about effective utilization. Labor costs are merely a footnote. "It's in the way that you use it."

 

[j41driver]

I hope you are not insinuating that Trans States pilots will be flying at substandard rates. We are one of the only airlines that did not take concessions, we extended our current contract by two years instead, plus 2.5% cost of living increases yearly.

You wouldn't mind letting us have a look at your payscale would you? 50 seat RJ CA and FO at, say, years 1, 5, and 10 would be great. Thanks.

 

[phishn@daves]

1st year: CA 52.50 FO 21.22

5th Year: CA 60.76 FO 32.90

10th YR: CA 72.80 FO no 10 yr. rates

 

[Marko Ramius]

Another signal Boyd et al had it right

so we have from now, until 18 months from now to prove him wrong.

While it's certainly not final until the customers (airlines) say so, this latest quote on Boyd's website from Bombardier lends a bunch of credence to his views:

<<"The 50-seat jet has likely peaked and is probably in decline..."
Steve Ridolfi, President of Regional Aircraft, Bombardier. Aviation Daily, 6/19/03>>

Outside of the carriers that were way behind in the first place (UsAirways, UA, and maybe Northwest), I think the 50 has seen it's sales heyday. I doubt if we'll see many new 50 seat orders/options. It wouldn't surprise me if many remaining 50 seat orders get converted to 70's if respective scope issues can be resolved. Any wonder why there's been so much pressure on so many airlines on their 50+ seat compensation?