There's always a lot of talk that RJ's take away mainline jobs. Isn't the use of an RJ more the function of market demand and mainline vs. regional costs? Take CVG for example. There are a lot of wingtip flights. The costs of operating a single mainline flight were too high to make a single M80 flight profitable while two RJ's could be operated profitable. Now, many of these CRJ900s will replace some of those wingtip flights which is a great thing. How is it presumed that mainline flights are losing?
Bombardier Gets 1.1 Billion Bid For Delta
- Thread starter WSurf
- Start date
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #17
Don't assume that market demand and loss of jobs are related. Market demand affects the size of aircraft operated, while jobs are affected by who flys that size aircraft.
Nothing has ever prevented DL, UA, AA, NW, CO, or US from operating RJ's with mainline employees. It is just slightly less costly to fly them with "outsourced" employees, whether that "outsourcing" is to an owned subsidary like Comair or a contractor like Mesa.
Jim
Nothing has ever prevented DL, UA, AA, NW, CO, or US from operating RJ's with mainline employees. It is just slightly less costly to fly them with "outsourced" employees, whether that "outsourcing" is to an owned subsidary like Comair or a contractor like Mesa.
Jim
"slightly less costly"??? Far from it. Total trip cost is far less on an RJ than on an M80 which is pretty much the next step up for a DL or AA. For CO/UA, it's a 735. However, with any of those aircraft you're looking at much higher cockpit costs, 2 additional F/A's (when looking at a 50 seater, and much higher ownership (lease payment is considered in this portion of the equation). NW is the only carrier who has something close (D9s)...but even that is more expensive. Often, I see the CASM comparisson...that's a very flawed method to consider as the RASM on the 50 seater is typically higher as well.
Add to that the cost of gate personnel and maintenance and it's quite obvious to see that it is not merely a marginal cost difference but a profit vs loss equation. Last time I checked, they are in business to make a profit.
Add to that the cost of gate personnel and maintenance and it's quite obvious to see that it is not merely a marginal cost difference but a profit vs loss equation. Last time I checked, they are in business to make a profit.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #19
A completely different discussion than your original question....
Yes, the segment cost is higher on a larger airplane than a smaller airplane. The magnatude of the difference depends on the size difference. So operating an airplane that's significantly larger than the market needs is a waste of money and assets. I said nothing contrary to that.
You originally said "There's always a lot of talk that RJ's take away mainline jobs. Isn't the use of an RJ more the function of market demand and mainline vs. regional costs?"
You seem to be mired in the "Mainline = only big airplanes, small airplanes = only non-mainline" mindset. While that is the situation that does exist, nothing dictates that it must exist.
What I said was that nothing prevents DL or any other network carrier from operating RJ's with mainline employees. If the carriers did this, the right aircraft could be used for a market without any talk of RJ's replacing mainline jobs.
What I also said was that the cost increase of operating RJ's with mainline employees would be minimal - on the order of 0.1-0.2 cents CASM for an RJ that already costs 12-25 cents CASM depending on specific RJ and route.
Because DL and the others choose not to operate RJ's with mainline employees, there is always talk of RJ's replacing mainline jobs. But this talk is caused by who operates the RJ's, not by market demand only justifying the use of RJ's.
Jim
wings396
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,672
- 1,122
As much as I wish that the company would have retained Mainline employees to handle all of these RJ's, they didn't. As I have said MANY times before, these Mini-Jets were an optimal tool for the airlines to eliminate mainline flying and stations. They were able to "Slap" the
Express label on the aircaraft, as well as the station employees while still being able to offer "Jet" service to the passengers. The Express operation and low wages go hand in hand. In the past an Express flight was anything from a 19 seat B-1900 to a 37 seat DH-8. The airlines had to give much more thought about pulling a 737 or DC-9 out of a market in favor of a prop A/C that could only carry 1/3 of the capacity of a Mainline A/C. I know that many stations did lose mainline service in favor of Express, but the passenger loads were usually very weak in these stations. Today the Airlines can pull Mainline jets, and replace them with anything from a 50-76 seat RJ. The Express flights operated with RJ's today are damn near what 737's, DC-9's, F-100's, and F-28's were as far as passenger capacity.
Just think how many DL empoyees alone would still have jobs in the outstations if it were not for Comair and ASA.
In my view, DL was the trendsetter with all of these RJ's in the first place.
Delta was a trendsetter because they had to be. They were serving a ton of unprofitable markets with mainline jets. As mainline employee wages rose, margins shrank and subsequently became negative...you can't run a business in the negative unless you're the US Gov't. Of the aircraft wings mentioned in their email, do the simple math. Each of them required maintenance, F/A's, agents, pilots and fleet service people from the mainline staff. While some would argue that took jobs away by sending them to Comair/ASA, think about the opposite. It is more likely those flights just go away. CO had to increase capacity on 735's just to make them financially viable. They've pretty much got some of the lowest costs out there...and the most efficient fleeting. The ability of a mainline carrier to generate a profit on mainline metal is increasingly based on bulk. You can't have capacity equal to minimum f/a staffing and expect profit. That's the kind of margins you're looking at in this business. That's simply not sustainable. DL did the opposite. In order to make 738's profitable, they took two rows of seats out to make a dance floor.
Reality is that by being able to use 50-70 seaters, they maintained the most amount of mainline jobs they could. By continuing to have the feed from the Monroe, Louisianna's of the world, connecting flights continued to make money. The jobs that were lost weren't sustainable to begin with. The demand didn't justify them.
Reality is that by being able to use 50-70 seaters, they maintained the most amount of mainline jobs they could. By continuing to have the feed from the Monroe, Louisianna's of the world, connecting flights continued to make money. The jobs that were lost weren't sustainable to begin with. The demand didn't justify them.
From my point of view as a mechanic in BOS, any aircraft flown in a non mainline name takes work away from me. Sure we do some work on Comair CRJ's but not much. If those were mainline jets parked over at gates 7-12 the Delta maintenance program would require us to do a overnight check on every one. Since they are Comair aircraft we don't touch them unless CVG gives us a call.
I personally think all "commuter/connection/express" operations should be operated under mainline. Everyone always brings up the pay scale issue in this argument. I don't think it makes good sence to pay gate agents and flight attendents less just because they work these flights. They are frontline point of contact personnel. They may be the only contact a customer has with the airline. I think all of our customers need to be served by personnel on the same payscales. The only ajustment to those payscales should be due to regional cost of living, not size of plane flying into the station. I short, if you want quality you have to pay for it.
I personally think all "commuter/connection/express" operations should be operated under mainline. Everyone always brings up the pay scale issue in this argument. I don't think it makes good sence to pay gate agents and flight attendents less just because they work these flights. They are frontline point of contact personnel. They may be the only contact a customer has with the airline. I think all of our customers need to be served by personnel on the same payscales. The only ajustment to those payscales should be due to regional cost of living, not size of plane flying into the station. I short, if you want quality you have to pay for it.
...and there's a much larger list of airports Southwest doesn't, can't and won't serve that AA, UA, DL, CO, NW, US serve do because they fly 50-100 seat RJ's that meet the market demand. Southwest does get some drive divert to the Providence & Manchesters of the world by not serving Boston. However, while I think it is largely because Virigin America didn't launch and they want to kill their funding, you may have noticed that they are returning to SFO. Also, instead of going to much cheaper COS, they went back to Denver.
As for the scale issue pay...would you equally support pilots moving to a single pay as well. Pilots still go by the size of the aircraft? The idea that commuter employees are not of the same quality is a joke as well. I've met countless good and bad for mainline and regionals. I don't think you'd actually find a correlation with the pay except MAYBE in hubs where they are together. Outstations typically don't have the same problems. I think you need to deal with demand and market economics not emotion and socialist we're all equal ideas that don't turn profits out. Without those, nobody has a job.
As for the scale issue pay...would you equally support pilots moving to a single pay as well. Pilots still go by the size of the aircraft? The idea that commuter employees are not of the same quality is a joke as well. I've met countless good and bad for mainline and regionals. I don't think you'd actually find a correlation with the pay except MAYBE in hubs where they are together. Outstations typically don't have the same problems. I think you need to deal with demand and market economics not emotion and socialist we're all equal ideas that don't turn profits out. Without those, nobody has a job.
aquagreen73s
Veteran
- Aug 22, 2005
- 1,979
- 1,877
Consider for a moment how much it costs to fly an RJ with outsourced employees that might save a tenth or two cents on the casm, but you also have two airlines trying to make a profit on the same passenger. DL + SW or US + Mesa. That second airline profit has to be way beyond one or two tenths of a cent. More like a half a cent or more. It makes no sense and the only justification I can think of as to why mainline managements outsourced was for leverage against labor. That was back in the days where 777 DL captains made 300 an hour. Now, obviously, things are different and that leverage premium has become very expensive for mainline managements. Perhaps that's why Doug Parker can't wait to get rid of the Canadairs. Then I read about DL's deal with Canadair for CRJ900s. What the heck is Grinstein thinking? Or is he thinking at all? Or does he even care? Now that Parker's out of the picture, emerging from BK is not far off and then off he goes with his golden parachute intact.
wings396
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,672
- 1,122
While it is a given fact that Pilots are paid by the type of equipment they fly, that has never been the case for ramp or C/S employees. Can you imagine paying some ramp agents more for working a few 757's that a group of guys that just handled an MD-80, and a few 737's??? This wouldn't go over very well, would it???
longing4piedmont
Veteran
- May 19, 2003
- 1,291
- 6
FWIW as a pax I agree with you a 100%. I avoid the Barbie Jets at all cost and still manage to fly them 6 to 10 segments a year out of a total of about 250. Hope they park em all.....
Wings, that's why I specifically said pilots in my question. I realize they are the only group paid that way. They are also a large part of the cost equation. Brief aside, it would be interesting to see what different mechanics prefer. If the most senior guys got to choose their work at the beginning of a shift. hmm...
Anyway, as for Boeingboys' assertion that the cost difference is as small as he suggests, I don't know an airline where that is the case. I've worked in and with route planning groups at three major carriers and haven't seen this to be true anywhere.
Anyway, as for Boeingboys' assertion that the cost difference is as small as he suggests, I don't know an airline where that is the case. I've worked in and with route planning groups at three major carriers and haven't seen this to be true anywhere.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #30
Since you still seem to be stuck in the "Mainline can't fly anything but big airplanes" mindset, I'm not sure what specific cost difference you're talking about.
If you mean that flying a mainline aircraft (110+ seats) is more expensive (segment cost) than flying an RJ, I've never said different. I suspect that this is the "cost difference" you're talking about, since route planning would entail matching the size of the airplane with demand given current operating models. That analysis will always favor the RJ in markets where demand doesn't justify operating a larger aircraft.
On the other hand, if you're attmepting to justify a belief that operating RJ's with mainline employees is cost prohibitive I'd just invite you to analyze the BTS operating cost data substituting mainlime employee costs for those of the company's that currently operate RJ's. You'll find, like I have, that RJ operations with mainline employees carries only a very small cost penalty.
I suspect that you're saying that the system that currently exists makes it cost prohibitive to use mainline employees in smaller markets because that would mean using mainline airplanes.
Meanwhile, I'm saying that mainline employees could operate RJ's in these smaller markets with very little cost penalty.
Jim
