How Will Bankrupcy Affect Mda Classes

[Phoenix]

No. It sounds like a losers strategy. ...

[post="179774"][/post]​

It doesn't have as much to do with the planes as it does the mgt that is resposable for employing the planes.

Southwest flys 737s and not rat jets. They have made a profit because they treat their employees well and utilize the planes properly.

Rat Jets at USAir is not a ploy to use planes more properly, it is about making a profit by instituting slave labor camps to conduct fleecing of customers. Sounds like Trans State and Mesa to me. If they are the real competition, then USAir will give them a run for their money, as long as the A$$ Colwns remain on the BOD.

 

[FM2436]

Isn't jetBlue buying something like 200 E-190's? First delivery is, I think, scheduled for the 1st q of 2005.

 

[Rico]

Yea, 100 firm, and 100 options.

They have a nice new muti-million dollar simulator built already (sitting in YUL) for the E-190 with "JetBlue" painted on the side too.

But then again, what do they know about operating economics, right...?

 

[luvn737s]

So the answer is "None".

If MDA was such a good idea they should be making money hand over fist. Are they? Why hide financial results? Why not tout the profitablity of these miracle jets. Because there is none.
Jet Blue is a maybe with it's RJ's and they are as apt to make a mistake as anyone (git outta Atlanta and STAY OUT!") and the most profitable airline in the US, Southwest is unwilling to go down that RJ road, yet it remains profitable. Winglets are a no-brainer, yet these RJ's are a harder sell.

Most of the RJ are utilized in a parasitic relationship with an otherwise healthy major who is forced to subsidize a subcontractor. But the ancillary benefits of bludgeoning labor are worth every penny, evidently.

Your comparison of 767's to narrowbodies is ludicrous. The narrowbody jet has a well established economy of scale. The RJ can only be profitable if it has unrealistically low wages and/or unsustainably high load factors. Add on that the large RJ's are not competitvely priced and may have no residual secondary market value (once the rest of the industry sees how unprofitable they are) and you are stuck with a pig (can you say F100) in a poke.

I'll stick around and if you come up with someone who can profitably operate these things, let me know.

 

[Light Years]

Lets keep in mind that B6 will be operating a 100 seat jet, not anything resembling an "RJ". If we were to call it an RJ, then we have to call 717s, A318s and smaller 737s RJs.

B6 will also be operating it by themselves, no outside airlines are involved nor are there any divisions or subsidiaries. They are simply adding a second, smaller aircraft type.

So I'm not sure if you can really compare JetBlue's addition of E190s to a major airline/regional jet operator relationship... Not only is the set-up completely different of who operates them and what they are for, but theres a huge difference between a 50 seatetr and a 100 seater.

Airlines have been able to profitably fly 100 seaters throughout airline history. In fact, old USAir/Allegheny, Piedmont Airlines and PSA used to do very well flying planes in the 70-100 seat range.... hmmmmmmmm

 

[oldbscaler]

Gee it seems to me that to get to a 90 seat average of a 135 seat airplane, Some planes go out completely full (135) and some go out half full to get the average. If the airplane was smaller sat 100 seats, then 75% load factor would be only 75 seats not 90. I guess I just don't get it

 

[luvn737s]

Airlines have been able to profitably fly 100 seaters throughout airline history. In fact, old USAir/Allegheny, Piedmont Airlines and PSA used to do very well flying planes in the 70-100 seat range.... hmmmmmmmm

[post="180128"][/post]​

At $59 fares?

 

[Air conditioned]

Is the addition of the E-190s to MAA a definite thing now or still speculation?
If so, when is this expected to occur? :unsure:

 

[BoeingBoy]

Both sides of this argument have some valid arguments - and some invalid ones, too.

B6 has indeed ordered E-190's - don't know what seating configuration they'll have but figure about 100 seats. But they also admit that these will have a higher CASM than their A320's.

I-Air is attempting to be a stand-alone LCC, but has effectively admitted that it is necessary to have larger aircraft to average down their CASM.

The key is using the smaller aircraft where they make sense and not using them where they don't make sense. Use the aircraft that fits the market and not try to make the market fit the airplane.

Using someone's "90 average passengers" model, a 70-seater gives away 20 paying passengers to a competitor, unless you add frequency. Is it smart to operate 2 70-seaters to service that market (and average a 64% LF) or does it make sense to use a 120-seater and capture all that revenue at less total trip cost than the 2 smaller planes - and try to grow the market?

Jim

ps - FWIW, an initial look at the 2nd quarter BTS numbers on a/c operating costs shows that an E-170's flight hour costs are over half that of an A320. Without going back and checking, I think it's about 60%.

 

[Light Years]

At $59 fares?

[post="180140"][/post]​

Good point.

 

[Rico]

Ahhh, where to start...


Did I say RJ...? Ummm, nope.

You said RJ's, the EMB-170 and E-190 are airliners, as much as the F-28 and F-100 were, and the B717 is. Let's get that strait from the start. It is not nice to muddle this debate with erroneous comparisons. Let's just stick to the E-Jets and MDA.

Lemmie correct you on a few things. jetBlue is not a "maybey" with the EJets, they are a 100 firm order positive on the EJet, and like I mentioned, already have a E190 Simulator built by CAE sitting in YUL. That is no small gesture, it is a multi-million dollar commitment to flying the EJets.

Oh, and BTW, Southwest has also been seriously studying the EJet as well for their operations. But then you would rather believe that they are "unwilling", right? OK, I will leave you to your little fantasy. and not link you to the article and digital image of a SWA E-190, lol.

Both of these airlines are smart, yet are willing to divert from their single fleet type operation in order to take advantage of the increased revenue and market opportunities that the EJets present.

Do you know more than both JB and SWA...? Just curious.

Like I said, it makes more sense to fly a full 70 or 90 seater than a 3/4ths (or less) 737 or A319. If you need another example that does not involve "ludicrous widebodies", then once again I will try and explain this to you.

Why did the US Airways Shuttle (and DAL Shuttle) shift from larger aircraft into smaller aircraft? (US A320 to A319) Because the average load factors did not justify the larger aircraft all day long, did they?

It made more sense to fly a smaller aircraft full than to spend the extra costs in fuel, labor, and support to fly the A320. Once freed up from the shuttle routes, the A320 could be utilized in market segments with a higher average load factor.

Now, why would that make sense to you, but the EJet thing not, ahhh, right, emotion not reason, gotcha...

Well, I will leave ya an interesting link, if you ever get over your feelings. Enjoy

The Rule of 70 to 100

 

[Rico]

Jim,

You know as well as I do, that on most market segments that different load factors occur at different times of the day. To fully serve and exploit a market, we need decent frequency, but flying a half full Airbus during midday is not a profitable way to do that.

Flying a full 70 seater that costs 40% less to operate on that same route makes much more sense. If the "break even" point on a flight is about half the load, then Airways would be lucky to make anything off of the midday flight in a larger jet with the same amount of passengers that would fill a 170 (and have 35 profitable passengers).

I cannot deny that average seat costs favor the larger jets, that is why there is such a thing as larger jets. But that is just an average cost, if you had to exclude the seats that on average fly empty in the larger jets, then they no longer have an advantage.

It it stands to reason that certain routes are best suited for different sized aircraft. Thus the use of a 757 rather than a 737. But if the average mainline load factor now stands at 75%, it stands to reason that there are quite a few market segments that could be better served by even smaller aircraft. Not all, but quite a few.

Also, remember that the EJets are about as expensive as they are ever going to be right now. With larger numbers, economy of scale comes into play, and division costs are spread over a larger operation.

The point is that it is best to have a wide choice of fleet types, allowing the best sized aircraft to be used on each market segment. But in the past that meant buying half a dozen fleet types and the caosts associated with that. Now, you can have just E-Jets and Airbuses, and pretty much cover all your bases.

Flexibility means you can out perform your competition, who is either forced to use a larger aircraft than necessary (and lose revenue), or use a smaller aircraft than needed (and lose revenue).

If Airways is gong to move towards more point to point routes, then the smaller aircraft will become even more important as these routes will have to rely upon O+D to fill the aircraft, and not connecting traffic. The "focus" cities are smart choices, all of which can easily produce the 35+ passengers needed to make an E-170 flight profitable on dozens of new routes. (like from DCA)


Go thru the Embraer presentation, it makes sense.

 

[N628AU]

No. It sounds like a losers strategy. If you invest in an airplane that cannot grow a market all you are doing is trying to win by not losing. I'm still waiting for the list of airlines who have seen the expensive little jet pay off.

[post="179774"][/post]​

I disagree. The B767 is a valid comparison in this situation. If you want to compare everything on aircraft CASM, look at National. They flew 757s, the lowest CASM of any narrowbody aircraft. They flew in and out of LAS to big markets like LAX, SFO, JFK and the like. They could not make money on that route.

Look at the Florida Shuttle with PI. They flew a 70-100 seat jet in the F28 all over the state and made money. The problem was a bunch of guys from PIT came in and changed the way everything ran and killed it.

 

[Air conditioned]

US Airways' latest proposal to ALPA is to add EMB-190/195 and CRJ-900 aircraft to MDA and PSA, respectivley. In my opinion, with a competitive cost structure US Airways will regain access to the capital markets.
Regards,
USA320Pilot

[post="179654"][/post]​

Is the addition of the E-190s to MAA a definite thing now or still speculation?
If so, when is this expected to occur? :unsure:

[post="180142"][/post]​

Looks like my question had already been answered, sorry about that USA320Pilot. So if this is just a proposal, is it expected to pass? :huh:

 

[700UW]

Look at the Florida Shuttle with PI. They flew a 70-100 seat jet in the F28 all over the state and made money. The problem was a bunch of guys from PIT came in and changed the way everything ran and killed it.

[post="180204"][/post]​

The F28-1000 sat 63 and the F28-4000 sat 68.

Don't know where you get 70-100.