Msp Station Status

[Rico]

Geeze, you are right, I must be strange to think full planes are a great idea.

Fact is, that if we are filling the E70's at a decent fare, we make more cash than not filling a 737 or 319, or filling a 737 or 319 with an excess of cheap fares.

Revenue and CASM is what is key, not load factor, but if the Load factor continues to remain strong you can increase fares to increase revenue rather than flooding the market with over capacity.

My point is, that IF the 190 is brought onto the property, then there will be a lot more flexibility on routes such as these, in which the aircraft that is BEST sutied for that routes best (and most profitable) capacity be used rather than having to overdo it with multiple 737 or 319 frequencies.

More mainline is great, but only where it makes US more money, not "break even" routes that fill a EJet (and make a lot of profit).

This is a perfect example of how the EJets can develop new markets that over time may or may not support a 737 or A319. Today IAH, tomm who knows...?

 

[TomBascom]

Full planes have their place. But travel has high days and low days. Filling the planes every day means that you're lopping off the peaks in order to make the valleys look full -- people don't change their plans just so that you can have a full plane on Wednesday morning. When you start running the airline to meet your low demand needs you're ceding the busy day traffic to someone else.

If you can consistently fill, or nearly fill, a small plane you've proven that the route can support larger planes. So put a larger plane on it. Or raise the price a buck or two. But don't pat yourself on the back for having a full plane. The job is only beginning when you've got people on the planes.

 

[wings396]

Well if you only have 72 seats to offer, and you are filling them one will never know how many more can be sold unless you try. As far as the 190's. I hope they NEVER show up on the property, unless they are classified as Mainline flights. Enough is enough already, soon they will have 737's flying under the Express banner. First it was the 50 seaters, then the 70..where will it end already? I doubt that JB will Express their 190 A/C. What we have here is F-100 size A/C being operated by Express for peanut wages.

 

[mweiss]

...I must be strange to think full planes are a great idea.

In a sense, yes. Load factor does not equate to profitability (as you noted later in your post). Yes, if you're only going to sell 50 seats, it's better to fly an RJ at 100% LF than to fly a 737-400 at 35% LF. But it's never that simple.

The tougher question is whether it's better to fly one 737-400 than three RJs. It depends on the time-sensitivity to demand.

 

[BoeingBoy]

mweiss,

More to the point in the PHL-IAH case, is the total daily trip cost of 4 E-170's higher or lower than 3 737's? Being so new, only time will tell....

Jim

 

[diogenes]

Exactly, Jim, and I think an implication of your post is the ONLY way to make the RJ scam fly (or so the Palace thinks) is lower labor costs.

 

[mweiss]

And that plan might have worked, if it weren't for those pesky fuel price increases. On an ASM basis, the RJs are much less fuel efficient than larger aircraft.

 

[Rico]

Airlines do not pay for fuel by the seat. They pay by the flight.

Although costs do matter, they only matter in relation to the revenue a given flight produces. Thus, even if the costs are somewhat higher "per seat", if the RASM is higher then it is secondary. Using a E70 more often through the day provides greater frequency than what US could afford to do with larger aircraft. More frequency attracts business travel, and higher per seat revenue.

Obviously, if you can reduce costs, you can keep a larger precentage of what you make, thus the emphasis upon CASM, but stupid emphasis upon costs alone will get you nowhere.

Right now, using the E70's, US is able to offer greater frequency than were they to use a 319 or 737. With better overall seating, and far greater customer perception than what CAL can offer,

THEY are on the defensive, that will force them to either utilize a CAL Mainline aircraft with less frequency, or continue to painfully use the EMB-145's. Either way they are at a disadvantage over what US Airways offers. And this is done while flying into their BEST hub, not too shabby, and a good indicatiuon of what the E70 can do for US

At a certain point, the market can handle a larger aircraft on some or even all of the frequencies, but that time will have to wait, as there is no aircraft larger than the 170 yet smaller than the 319. THAT is where the 190's would really shine, as the market will have to develop a significant amount to ensure success enough to justify 50+ seats per flight. "Mainline", or "Mainline/MDA" replacing the 737 with additonal 320 family and 190 family aircraft would give US the flexibility to place the right sized aircraft on routes such as these that no other airline could match.

 

[mweiss]

Airlines do not pay for fuel by the seat. They pay by the flight.

Really? Last time I looked they paid by the gallon.

even if the costs are somewhat higher "per seat", if the RASM is higher then it is secondary.

Agreed. So, is the higher frequency generating a sufficient bump in RASM to offset the increased CASM? You claim that the increase in frequency will push business travelers to US. Will businesses be willing to pay more for the higher frequency? These days, most travel departments say no.

...give US the flexibility to place the right sized aircraft on routes such as these that no other airline could match.

That's funny. Perhaps you didn't know this, but AA used to have that philosophy. That's how they got their complicated mix of aircraft in the 1980s. The current line of thinking is that it is cheaper to have some empties fly around than to have yet another type. US has not only a large number of different types, but also a large number of different companies, and none of them mix.

The order of the day at US should be consolidation, not fragmentation.

 

[diogenes]

On an ASM basis, the RJs are much less fuel efficient than larger aircraft.

Exactly.

And in the long run, that fact is trump.

 

[diogenes]

Really? Last time I looked they paid by the gallon.

Agreed. So, is the higher frequency generating a sufficient bump in RASM to offset the increased CASM? You claim that the increase in frequency will push business travelers to US. Will businesses be willing to pay more for the higher frequency? These days, most travel departments say no.

That's funny. Perhaps you didn't know this, but AA used to have that philosophy. That's how they got their complicated mix of aircraft in the 1980s. The current line of thinking is that it is cheaper to have some empties fly around than to have yet another type. US has not only a large number of different types, but also a large number of different companies, and none of them mix.

The order of the day at US should be consolidation, not fragmentation.

Well, you beat me to the punch.

I was wondering, are we really gonna charge folks MORE to ride the EMB?