Us Airways Strategic Analysis

[ClueByFour]

Another reason adding Air Wisconsin to the network and removing an EMB-145 operator is that the CRJ-200 has a more comfortable cabin,

No, it does not. The CRJ is a flying torture chamber.

a greater passenger acceptance rating

Let's see some numbers. Based on any number of unscientific surveys and feedback from VFFs, that's simply not true.

and better economics than the EMB-145.

Can't speak to it. It seems like very few of the affiliates flying either the CRJ-200 or the little ERJs can get out with a full boat and bags in any case, so the whole idea of "economics" kind of gets shot in the end in any case.

 

[700UW]

Mesa's EMB-145s are very uncomfortable, feels like you are sitting in a wooden park bench.

On the other hand, ExpressJet DBA Continental Express' EMB-145s, are very comfortable, very nice leather seats with lots of padding and cushion, I would fly COEX anytime over Mesa.

 

[mweiss]

increasing revenue ... is never a bad thing, as long as U can keep most or all of that additional revenue.

Absolutely false. Increasing revenue by a billion dollars annually, at a cost of two billion dollars annually, results in an additional loss of a billion dollars annually. How is that a good thing???

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

Absolutely false. Increasing revenue by a billion dollars annually, at a cost of two billion dollars annually, results in an additional loss of a billion dollars annually. How is that a good thing???

[post="253148"][/post]​

In USAirways case only losing 1 billion after spending 2 billion would be a godsend.

 

[mweiss]

ExpressJet DBA Continental Express' EMB-145s, are very comfortable

[post="253136"][/post]​

Having flown in them myself, I'd call "very comfortable" quite a stretch. Yes, the seats are well padded, but they're especially narrow. I'm not a big guy, and they felt confining to me.

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

Having flown in them myself, I'd call "very comfortable" quite a stretch. Yes, the seats are well padded, but they're especially narrow. I'm not a big guy, and they felt confining to me.

[post="253152"][/post]​

I think you are arguing something that is a matter of ones pain threshold.

 

[BoeingBoy]

USA320Pilot: and better economics than the EMB-145.

Can't speak to it. It seems like very few of the affiliates flying either the CRJ-200 or the little ERJs can get out with a full boat and bags in any case, so the whole idea of "economics" kind of gets shot in the end in any case.

[post="253134"][/post]​

Actually, as far as cost of operation, the ERJ has better economics than the CRJ when talking strictly about the 50-seat model of each. If you broaden the discussion to include 50 to 90 seat capacity, the CRJ may pull even or have an advantage, since the full capacity range is a common type while the Embraer products covering that range are not.

As far as the ability to carry both baggage and passengers when wx isn't great (or which would have to leave the most behind), I have no idea.

Of course, the whole premise that the AWAC deal provides any kind of leverage is based on the assumption that they will provide cheaper feed than Mesa, etc. The company saying so in BK court is not proof in my estimation - something seemingly supported by the fact that UA put AWAC's contract out for bid, not Mesa's.

Jim

 

[ringmaruf]

Mesa's EMB-145s are very uncomfortable, feels like you are sitting in a wooden park bench.

On the other hand, ExpressJet DBA Continental Express' EMB-145s, are very comfortable, very nice leather seats with lots of padding and cushion, I would fly COEX anytime over Mesa.

[post="253136"][/post]​

The Chautauqua ERJs are also very nice, with seats like the PSA CRJs.

I'm not sure about the Trans States ERJs, haven't been on one of them in a few years.

I agree that the Mesa ERJs are pretty lousy, but even then I prefer them over the Mesa CRJs.

 

[ringmaruf]

Of course, the whole premise that the AWAC deal provides any kind of leverage is based on the assumption that they will provide cheaper feed than Mesa, etc. The company saying so in BK court is not proof in my estimation - something seemingly supported by the fact that UA put AWAC's contract out for bid, not Mesa's.

[post="253156"][/post]​

I don't think what UA is doing means that much. It appears that AWAC is costing UA more than Mesa is costing UA. But I am almost certain that Mesa's contract with UA is much cheaper than their current, older contract with US. So AWAC's UA cost might still be less than Mesa's current US cost.

 

[markkus757]

All of the 50 seat jets feel like your on 1900 to me. I still miss Saab 340s, so take the above statement however you want. My answetr to the $64 question is too little time to overhaul 2 decades worth of issues. I did not say problems because everybody has contributed in one way or another. It seems that even a majority of the union members wish they could have said "no" a couple of years back. I do not believe in this company surviving after oil hits $65 / barrel. It does not matter to any other airline, they just have to outlast the first casulty in this war.

 

[RowUnderDCA]

"Another reason adding Air Wisconsin to the network and removing an EMB-145 operator is that the CRJ-200 has a more comfortable cabin, a greater passenger acceptance rating, and better economics than the EMB-145."


That's surprising news to me.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Absolutely false. Increasing revenue by a billion dollars annually, at a cost of two billion dollars annually, results in an additional loss of a billion dollars annually. How is that a good thing???

[post="253148"][/post]​

Sorry, sloppy of me not to be more specific. I was talking in the context of rational fares increasing total revenue in a market - adopting rational fares before a LCC competitor decides to enter a market could increase revenue and might keep the LCC out, thus retaining most/all of the increased revenue at little increased cost. You are right that increasing revenue in any way in not necessarily good. For example, throwing 1000 extra seats in a given market per day to capture 5 extra passengers per day might increase revenue, but costs would increase much more.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

I don't think what UA is doing means that much. It appears that AWAC is costing UA more than Mesa is costing UA. But I am almost certain that Mesa's contract with UA is much cheaper than their current, older contract with US. So AWAC's UA cost might still be less than Mesa's current US cost.

[post="253170"][/post]​

Quite possibly true, ringmaruf. It is the $64 million question and the answer will largely determine whether the AWAC agreement gives U leverage over the current affiliates (like USA320 claims) or not.

FWIW, it appears from the BTS data that Mesa's unit costs are about 10% lower than AWAC's but Mesa hasn't been big enough long enough to have anything but sketchy info in BTS's independent calculations.

Jim

 

[EyeInTheSky]

Can you hear her now?

 

[Phoenix]

Can you hear her now?

[post="253192"][/post]​

ROFLMAO!