767:
Your fixation on the pay issue is perplexing.....all airlines sans LUV have different aircraft that they pay different rates on.
Really?
ALL airlines, huh? Well at UA we don't. Neither at TWA, USAirways, Northwest, Continental, Frontier, and many others. Sorry, but you are just daed wrong on that statement. I am not fixated on the pay issue. Only that as the second highest cost behind fuel, it is a very major consideration. Beyond the initial investment, the savings in pay by selecting the E190 over the A318 is significant and continues to grow year over year well into the future.
I do agree that if there were 318's on the property, they would pay a SIMILAR rate.
Good. Then you see my point that even IF they paid slightly less for flying the A318, they pay MUCH less (40% less to be exact) for the E190.
Your assumption is that JB management decided to buy an aircraft STRICTLY based on what they could pay the pilots. This is an absurd assumption.
Once again you are off base. I never said it was STRICTLY the reason they selected the E190. I assert that it is a very major consideration. I assert that there is FAR more precident in the industry that supports equal pay for the A318/A320 than a separate pay scale for the same type rating.("sans" American Airlines). I also assert that JB pilots are only playing into the hands of their management by not negotiating better payrates for themselves and not reversing the trend of lower employee pay to support lower fares.
...this aircraft is going to be used in markets that wouldn't support an airbus profitably, at least initially.
... one can only conclude that the aircraft(A318) was uncompetitive based on CASM.
And why do you think the A318 would be unprofitable? What is it that makes the E190 CASM lower even with it's "inherent inefficiencies?" As you yourself point out, these smaller planes are less efficient on a per seat basis. The CASM is lowered not by reduced landing fees but by reduced crew cost.
The A318 would reduce training costs (pilots, fa's, ground support,etc.etc.), maintenance support, eliminate the cost of adding a new type certificate, and many other factors. And with the low demand I'm sure Airbus would have parctically given the jets away. OK, so as a lighter airplane the 190 might have lower landing fees and a bit lower specific fuel consumption. This is a fraction of the CASM. So I'll give you the benfit of the doubt and say that over time (a long time IMO) those factors would make it a wash. So what's left in the CASM equation? Yup... you guessed it! Labor cost. In fact I challenge you to name just one other component in the CASM factor, that the company has control over, that has as large an affect on CASM as labor cost.
If pilot pay is so insignificant, as you imply, why not pay the pilots just a few bucks less than the 320? Why 40% less? Can you imagine a JB A318 pilot making 40% less than a JB A320 pilot? There would be a revolution.
The bottom line no matter how you try to argue it is that the E190 is slightly more efficient than the A318 operationally, more expensive in aquistion/training, and 40% less expensive in crew cost (compliments of the JB pilots).
peace,
767jetz