Originally Posted by
gloopy
If we don't then its mismanagement on our part with revenues. Why push more seats into lower buckets just to spread the exact same revenue of the flight over more seats on the same flight? What are they teaching at the RASM/CASM schools these days? Fill-em-up no matter what? Its better to carry extra weight for the same total revenue? No wonder there's "no money in cargo".
I guess it really is better to have 3 full 50 seaters than a single 737-800 at 90% load factor because you're wasting that 10%?
Just always remember:
RASM-CASM=Operating profit
What makes the RASM or the CASM matters not. A MD90 could be a 757 replacement, a Next Gen CRj900 could replace a 757. A 737-900 could replace a 757. They all can attach to a jetway and fly 1,000 miles at around Mach .79. (The CRj actually does the profile better than the Douglas product, hey, 50 years changed the way they build wings)
Gloopy, you say they "suck at math." Not really. They suck at forecasting markets five years into the future when an airplane acquisition is really a 15 to 20 year look see. They also tend to screw up and make deals that looked good at the time, but which fade when the variables change.