Rumor of ALL SJC-LAX/LAS/SNA/SAN cut in Dec -- DISASTER !!!

[will fix for food]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/7/2002 12:18:27 AM Busdrvr wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
----------------
[/blockquote]

But it's ironic that instead of adding 10 seats to the F100 and thereby reducing per seat costs by 11%, AMR (and yes, UAL) feels the high yield pax would rather fly on a jungle jet. Didn't someone say you have 87 seats on them? I'd rather be on a 97 seat Fokker flown by mainline, than a 50 seat jungle jet ANYDAY.
----------------
[/blockquote]

I never understood your argument, no matter how many times I hear it. Why would you possibly put more seats on a leg than you can fill profitably? To drop the CASM? Why not just put a 777 on the flight? It must have the lowest CASM of them all. At some point you have to drop the fares low enough to fill all those extra seats. And then you are probably just covering costs..if you are lucky.So what do you gain? Nothing.

What is the direct operating cost of flying a RJ for an hour versus a F100? A few years ago it was 3 times more expensive to fly an F100 for an hour than a 50 seat RJ. If a route will only support 50 pax a leg do you think that these days they will pay 3 times as much to fly on a Fokker? Because that is what the airline will have to charge just to cover the costs.

BTW, I would rather fly on a Fokker also. But if I actually had to pay for a ticket I sure wouldn/t pay any more to do it. The RJ's are just as fast if not faster, and the difference in seat room between an RJ and coach in a Fokker feels minimal. Well...Except for MRTC..that is a big improvement over pitch in an RJ. But if you put in 10 more seats that is destroyed......

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/7/2002 10:43:13 PM will fix for food wrote:

I never understood your argument, no matter how many times I hear it. Why would you possibly put more seats on a leg than you can fill profitably? To drop the CASM? Why not just put a 777 on the flight? It must have the lowest CASM of them all. At some point you have to drop the fares low enough to fill all those extra seats. And then you are probably just covering costs..if you are lucky.So what do you gain? Nothing.

You are correct, it would be futile to put on more seats if you can't sell the ones you have, however, a 75% load factor does not mean that each flt is 75% full. There are some days (Friday, Sunday) load factors are consistantly higher, and others (Sat) that may be consistantly lower. It's nice to have MRTC, but traditional coach is better than RJ room. If you could have sold 10 more seats, but didn't have them to sell, you've lost revenue (prob to SWA). There is no rule that says you have to sell the 10 seats on off peak days. The question is, did you lose business by taking MRTC away? From SJC to LAX, I'd submit that you lose more business by going to the jungle jet. You don't compete directly with UAL on that route (or do you?).

What is the direct operating cost of flying a RJ for an hour versus a F100? A few years ago it was 3 times more expensive to fly an F100 for an hour than a 50 seat RJ. If a route will only support 50 pax a leg do you think that these days they will pay 3 times as much to fly on a Fokker? Because that is what the airline will have to charge just to cover the costs.

I'd have to see those stats, if so the F100 is a lot more inefficient than i thought. Guppy's are typically much more efficient PER SEAT than the RJs. For the latest reporting period, ACAs system wide CASM was 15.7 cents, and Sky Wests was 18.56 cents. The plan is to get just the high rev pax (skim off the top) by going to the RJ, since the top 50 fares are significantly higher than the bottom 50 on a flt. May work in the short term, but likely drives those high yield guys away in the long term.

BTW, I would rather fly on a Fokker also. But if I actually had to pay for a ticket I sure wouldn/t pay any more to do it. The RJ's are just as fast if not faster, and the difference in seat room between an RJ and coach in a Fokker feels minimal.

I'd pay a little more, for the crews and mx if nothing else.

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/7/2002 1153 PM will fix for food wrote:


I'd pay a little more, for the crews and mx if nothing else.

----------------
[/blockquote]

I don/t know about the pilots, but having worked at both the regional and mainline levels I can definatly say that the ratio of "rocket scientists" to "non rocket scientists" is the same.
----------------
[/blockquote]

There are good young pilots and crappy old ones, but, I'd think that mainline's pilots and Mechs would be, on average, more experienced than the regionals. Plus, I'd rather have a US or European built jet than one made in Brazil, but thats my own silly bias.

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/7/2002 11:51:38 PM eolesen wrote:

Well, from a safety perspective, the CRJ and ERJ have a far better hull loss record than next largest (in terms of airframes operating) European built RJ does.

Let me clarrify, givenm the choice, I avoid ALL RJs

I'm not aware of any CRJ or ERJ hull losses, and I'm sure that the combined CRJ fleet in the US (and possible for the ERJ) has more cycles than the BAE146s of the US.

I know of a couple. They seem to usually involve landing and WX. I think all CRJs and ERJs are only CAT II.

http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/rasb/rasb1...b1_99/osocc.cfm

Slamming regional mechanics is nothing more than a cheap shot, and one that has nothing to back it up. No regional carrier has ever had a fatality due to shoddy maintenance that I can recall.

RTFP, I said that typically mainline pilots and MX are on average, more experienced than Regional. That, I believe, is a fact. if you have data that disproves that statement, please publish it. Somehow I don't see that as a cheap shot
----------------
[/blockquote]

 

[will fix for food]

I'd pay a little more, for the crews and mx if nothing else.

----------------
[/blockquote]

I don/t know about the pilots, but having worked at both the regional and mainline levels I can definatly say that the ratio of rocket scientists to non rocket scientists is the same.

 

[Oliver Stone''s Apprentice]

Well, from a safety perspective, the CRJ and ERJ have a far better hull loss record than next largest (in terms of airframes operating) European built RJ does.

I'm not aware of any CRJ or ERJ hull losses, and I'm sure that the combined CRJ fleet in the US (and possible for the ERJ) has more cycles than the BAE146s of the US.

Slamming regional mechanics is nothing more than a cheap shot, and one that has nothing to back it up. No regional carrier has ever had a fatality due to shoddy maintenance that I can recall.

 

[MAH4546]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/6/2002 4:08:46 PM verhalen2003 wrote:


The only "MAJOR" to be doing business on the West Coast and surviving is United... (I don't count Alaska as a "major" because they have no hubs outside the West Coast)

----------------
[/blockquote]

So is USAirways not a major? They don't have any hubs on the West Coast.

 

[Oliver Stone''s Apprentice]

[a href=http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/rasb/rasb1_99/osocc.cfm]Link to AC Synopsis[/a]

OK, the AC 1997 accident is one I hadn't seen before.

And, of all ironies, that CRJ was operated by mainline pilots and maintained by mainline mechanics, since AC is one of the only carriers who actually have RJ flying performed by mainline pilots.

But what exactly does all that have to do with whether or not people fly on them? Nothing. People have accepted them quite well, far more than flying on a Lawn Dart or Jetscream.

 

[mga707]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/7/2002 11:51:38 PM eolesen wrote:

I'm not aware of any CRJ or ERJ hull losses, and I'm sure that the combined CRJ fleet in the US (and possible for the ERJ) has more cycles than the BAE146s of the US.

[/blockquote]

Seem to recall CO Express having a training accident (no pax) at BPT with a Jungle Jet a few years back--thought it was a hull loss, but maybe it was repairable.

 

[verhalen2003]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/8/2002 1:55:27 AM MAH4546 wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/6/2002 4:08:46 PM verhalen2003 wrote:


The only "MAJOR" to be doing business on the West Coast and surviving is United... (I don't count Alaska as a "major" because they have no hubs outside the West Coast)

----------------
[/blockquote]

So is USAirways not a major? They don't have any hubs on the West Coast.
----------------
[/blockquote]

What I meant was, UAL was the only major with healthy intra-West Coast operations. Obviously US is a major, but intra-West Coast flights -- hah !!

Anyway, my initial alarm about this rumor was greatly relieved when it was clarified that the SJC-SoCal routes are going RJ, *not* being dropped entirely. Apart from the job impact that this may have on AA employees, I applaud this decision from a business perspective and a passenger's perspective, because....

a) It will make AA competitive intra-California for a long time to come, and will even permit the restoration of routes that have not been served for a while (SJC-SEA, SJC-DEN, LAX-SLC ? to name a few... these have been mentioned by the ramp worker source at SJC.)

B) It may result in increased frequencies, which will better leverage the longer haul connections available at both LAX and SJC (currently there are some connections that would be marketable if there was a better timed flight to/from LAX and/or SJC).

c) It reaffirms AA's commitment to the FF base it has built up in LAX and SJC over the years, and reinforces AA's credibility in the California market (this is important for business that are making decisions about a preferred carrier, especially ones that may be switching from UAL).

I wish I could change the subject line of this topic from DISASTER to GREAT IDEA

 

[ITRADE]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/9/2002 12:41:14 AM mga707 wrote:

Seem to recall CO Express having a training accident (no pax) at BPT with a Jungle Jet a few years back--thought it was a hull loss, but maybe it was repairable.

----------------
[/blockquote]

IIRC, the hull had a flaw and the aircraft's back broke.

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/8/2002 7:00:46 PM eolesen wrote:

[a href=http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/rasb/rasb1_99/osocc.cfm]Link to AC Synopsis[/a]

OK, the AC 1997 accident is one I hadn't seen before.

And, of all ironies, that CRJ was operated by mainline pilots and maintained by mainline mechanics, since AC is one of the only carriers who actually have RJ flying performed by mainline pilots.

But what exactly does all that have to do with whether or not people fly on them? Nothing. People have accepted them quite well, far more than flying on a Lawn Dart or Jetscream.
----------------
[/blockquote]


Without a doubt, RJs are FAR superiour to J-31s and EMB-120s. I just don't like them on REALLY long legs, and I don't like them in marginal WX. It saves a good deal of money to have CAT II only, but given the choice between the worlds greatest pilot handflying down to maybe slightly below CAT II mins or the jet doing an autoland while I watch? I'll take the autoland.

 

[sfb]

Well, if the rumor is indeed true, and if the BOS, AUS, and DEN flights don't see cuts, that will put AA's SJC operation at 29 daily mainline departures. I do wonder what sort of incentive AA will be able to provide to keep its customers from switching over to WN or UA on intra-California flights; without MRTC or the availability of First Class upgrades, there seems to be less reason to choose AA over the competition (aside from AAdvantage miles and an AAssigned seat on a regional jet).

Then again, I imagine that yields and passenger traffic have suffered at SJC more than the national average since Silicon Valley has been one of the areas hardest-hit by the dot-com implosion and lingering weakness in the IT sector. But it also seems like the whole Reno Air fiasco (not to mention the purchase price) was all for naught.

 

[verhalen2003]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/9/2002 4:03:17 PM sfb wrote:

Well, if the rumor is indeed true, and if the BOS, AUS, and DEN flights don't see cuts, that will put AA's SJC operation at 29 daily mainline departures. I do wonder what sort of incentive AA will be able to provide to keep its customers from switching over to WN or UA on intra-California flights; without MRTC or the availability of First Class upgrades, there seems to be less reason to choose AA over the competition (aside from AAdvantage miles and an AAssigned seat on a regional jet).
----------------
[/blockquote]

Couple of comments in response:

1) All of UA's southbound service from SJC is currently on regional jets (note, I am speaking of SJC, not SFO). The only mainline carrier between SJC and points south, after these changes by AA, would be WN.

2) There are enough people who are either Aadvantage loyalists or who have a definite preference for assigned seating, to sustain AA RJ service on these routes. The loads on the current mainline service would definitely be enough to support the Eagle service. Of course, some pax have a definite dislike for RJ service and they may defect to WN, but see point #3 below...

3) The costs of Eagle service are low enough such that AA will be able to consistently offer low fares that are very competitive with WN advance fares. As a result, it is reasonable to expect that AA would attract a share of the purely fare-driven customers away from WN (people buying the absolute lowest fare usually don't have any idea about the differences in equipment anyway). Between the pax that leave AA because of not liking the RJ, vs. the pax that come over because the fares are low, I would expect that AA will have about the same net pax count that it has now, which should make the Eagle operations a solid success.

IMHO, LRTC coach such as on WN is not more comfortable than regional jet coach, but that's just me... I know there are others with different feelings.

 

[sfb]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/9/2002 4:43:30 PM verhalen2003 wrote:
Couple of comments in response:

1) All of UA's southbound service from SJC is currently on regional jets (note, I am speaking of SJC, not SFO). The only mainline carrier between SJC and points south, after these changes by AA, would be WN.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Good point. And even then UA only goes to LAX. In fact, I imagine you'd see significant spill on some of the stronger routes like SNA and LAX, unless the frequency is upped with the RJ's. Whether or not AA can maintain or increase average yields using RJ's is another question. I'm not inclined to believe that given that WN's yields are comparable to AA RJ yields at DAL/DFW (and yields are currently comparable at SJC as well).

[blockquote]
----------------
2) There are enough people who are either Aadvantage loyalists or who have a definite preference for assigned seating, to sustain AA RJ service on these routes. The loads on the current mainline service would definitely be enough to support the Eagle service. Of course, some pax have a definite dislike for RJ service and they may defect to WN, but see point #3 below...
----------------
[/blockquote]

I agree that you can probably fill the RJ's for at least the short term. And AA has a significant customer base in the SJC area owing to their two attempts at a hub/focus city at SJC. Whether or not RJ service is an agreeable long-term solution is another question; certainly, the bus ride out to the LAX satellite terminal adds an element of inconvenience to the customer experience.

Speaking from my experience with AA RJ's at BOS, I'd take a Southwest no-assigned-seats flight on a competitive route over a half-hour wait (in my case) on an unairconditioned bus and twenty minutes of confusion onboard over why the passenger manifest and bodies-in-seats didn't match up.

[blockquote]
----------------
3) The costs of Eagle service are low enough such that AA will be able to consistently offer low fares that are very competitive with WN advance fares. As a result, it is reasonable to expect that AA would attract a share of the purely fare-driven customers away from WN (people buying the absolute lowest fare usually don't have any idea about the differences in equipment anyway). Between the pax that leave AA because of not liking the RJ, vs. the pax that come over because the fares are low, I would expect that AA will have about the same net pax count that it has now, which should make the Eagle operations a solid success.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Frankly, that is a myth. It's difficult to get an accurate ASM cost for Eagle because AA generally doesn't break it out, but you can estimate one from DOT's airline financial performance report. In Q2, Eagle reported operating expenses of $299.6 million and 1.44 billion ASM's flown -- which works out to 20.8 cents/ASM. That's OK given that their RASM was higher than that, but it's also almost 3 times WN's CASM. Given an average fare of $80-90 on most of those routes, Eagle will need to run 80+% load factors to break even.

What's true about a regional jet is that each departure costs less than a mainline departure. So, if you've only got demand for 60 or so seats, you forego the revenue at the low end and make money by not flying a bunch of empty seats around.

[blockquote]
----------------
IMHO, LRTC coach such as on WN is not more comfortable than regional jet coach, but that's just me... I know there are others with different feelings.
----------------
[/blockquote]

That may well be true, but WN's frequent flyer program is better at rewarding travelers who make many short trips. They may not take you to Hawaii or Europe, but it's also far easier to redeem an award. And unless AA adds frequency with the RJ's, they'll also offer the more convenient schedule. In the end, I think it boils down to whether assigned seats are worth it. Just my opinion, though.