Selling E-190's

[Art at ISP]

The only part about this which makes sense is for fleet commonality. Otherwise, hit has been proven ad nauseum that you can't shrink to profitability.

Is there a chance that some of the crews affected by the loss of the 190s may be able to stay when the new Airbii come on line?

The 190 is making money elsewhere--I understand B6 is very happy with them....

Hey if they really wanted to reduce capacity, they could just reduce the number of seats in the cabins and give people some comfort, but that would be a customer friendly move, and we all now how Dougie and Scotty feel about customers (not to discount their equal disdain for employees).

My BEST to you all...

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

The question is will it lead to more layoffs?

I would not bet against it! Sigh

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

Hey if they really wanted to reduce capacity, they could just reduce the number of seats in the cabins and give people some comfort, but that would be a customer friendly move, and we all now how Dougie and Scotty feel about customers (not to discount their equal disdain for employees).

My BEST to you all...

Thanks for another one of your cogent insightful postings. And happy (belated) birthday!

 

[HPDriver]

Thanks for another one of your cogent insightful postings. And happy (belated) birthday!

Actually, not really an insightful post.

AA tried that a failed miserably.

Reducing seating in an aircraft and still flying the aircraft means you have to jack up tickets to cover that airplane's operating costs. The only true way to lower costs is to park them or get rid of them.

Its obvious which route they took.

And its only a matter of time for the rest.

 

[FWAAA]

USAToday travel blog has picked up Kirby's letter:

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/ite...k=68500274.blog

 

[HPDriver]

"To those of you whose jobs are on the line, your union will continue to fight for your rights. I can assure you that Mr. Kirby’s remarks that staffing levels will be impacted will not the final word on your career."


What a bunch of drivel.

I'm sure Parker and company are laughing their butts off.

 

[ItsJustAJob]

I would be surprised if the on-time percentage of the E-190 fleet does not take a significant dive in the near future.

 

[luvn737s]

"To those of you whose jobs are on the line, your union will continue to fight for your rights. I can assure you that Mr. Kirby’s remarks that staffing levels will be impacted will not the final word on your career."


What a bunch of drivel.

I'm sure Parker and company are laughing their butts off.

Wait just a minute! Didn't Der Furher Cleary send out an update (or are they manifestos?) a few weeks back where he crowed about USAPA being unwilling to negotiate withthe company and in essence "buy the 190 jobs"?

Beneath the Bus - The Furloughees Newsletter

 

[FWAAA]

Actually, not really an insightful post.

AA tried that a failed miserably.

That's a common misconception among those who haven't studied the numbers and the history surrounding AA's MRTC initiative.

MRTC didn't "fail," but AA did abandon it in the difficult years following the September 11 attacks.

MRTC was announced in early 2000; the domestic fleet featured it by the end of summer, 2000. The international fleet was converted by early 2001. A few short months later, AA's revenue plummeted (along with revenue at all other airlines). Nevertheless, AA's yield bested the UA yield for several years while UA languished in Ch 11.

When AA announced the rollback of MRTC, it claimed that the incremental revenue from reinstalling the seats would be about $150 million each year, at a company with annual revenue of about 140 times that much. The incremental revenue was a drop in the bucket, but the company thought it important enough to slowly cancel MRTC.

Reducing seating in an aircraft and still flying the aircraft means you have to jack up tickets to cover that airplane's operating costs. The only true way to lower costs is to park them or get rid of them.

Nope, you don't have to "jack up" fares on the remaining seats. Attracting an additional expensive fare or two per flight from your competition (which, of course, would increase your average yield) would bring in plenty of money to pay for more seat pitch.

It's true that AA never tried to charge extra for MRTC (as UA finally did). Same at B6, which now tries to charge more for its extra legroom seats (all B6 seats feature more pitch than US, UA or AA). B6 has removed two rows of seats from all of its A320s (essentially, the same thing AA did on all its planes), but the motivation at B6 for the first removed row was to avoid more fines from the FAA for failure to have onboard space for wheelchairs. Dunno why B6 removed the second row, but it had the effect of extending the transcon range of its short-legged 320s.

Before B6 removed the seats, it had turned to small losses instead of profits (just as the legacies were finally beginning to recover from the 2001-induced revenue disaster). Once B6 removed the seats, it slowly returned to profitability. Dunno if there's a causal relationship, but there's certainly a correlation.

UA says that its E+ upcharges bring in substantial revenue, as does B6 with its recent charges for its extra legroom seats. Since some people will pay more for more room, it stands to reason that extra room at every seat will increase the average yield of the flight (since some of the people enjoying the room probably paid more). Fewer seats means higher average fares, no?

Failed miserably? The numbers don't bear out your assertion. Abandoned? Yep, AA abandoned it (prematurely, IMO).

 

[flybynite]

I know we are supposed to be taking delivery on AB's within the next 6 months or so. Does anyone have the types and amounts?

I'm thinking (hoping) that will offset the sell of the E-190 in the long run.

 

[HPDriver]

Nope, it failed. TWA tried it as well.

Want to talk about revenue buckets and the impact MRTC has on them?

 

[HPDriver]

I know we are supposed to be taking delivery on AB's within the next 6 months or so. Does anyone have the types and amounts?

I'm thinking (hoping) that will offset the sell of the E-190 in the long run.

No, staffing is already set way in advance. With the 190's leaving property, the east operation will be overstaffed with pilots.

Cleary can bluster all he wants, but this is going to happen.

 

[FWAAA]

Nope, it failed. TWA tried it as well.

Want to talk about revenue buckets and the impact MRTC has on them?

More unsupported, naked assertions. You can do better than that. I'm willing to be edumacated about the impact of MRTC on revenue buckets, so I anxiously await your discussion of same.

 

[boeingplt]

No, staffing is already set way in advance. With the 190's leaving property, the east operation will be overstaffed with pilots.

Cleary can bluster all he wants, but this is going to happen.

You sound like you're getting off on this.

All things considered, I would hold off on your victory dance. There are a number of elements in the mix with regard to staffing and nobody knows where the needle will stop, up to and including recalls.

It must suck that your life is so bleak that you can't find better things to take enjoyment in.

Have a great day sunshine.

 

[flybynite]

No, staffing is already set way in advance. With the 190's leaving property, the east operation will be overstaffed with pilots.

Cleary can bluster all he wants, but this is going to happen.

You forget...this impacts flight attendants too. I'm not going to get into a discussion about the union.

Union issues go to the "other" thread.