Originally Posted by
Galaxy5
You do realize a 737-800 carries more people than an E175 right? I don’t trust you to do the math, so I’ll do it for you.
Using your numbers:
$400 / 166 seats = $2.41/seat/hr
$135 / 76 seats = $1.78/seat/hr
$1.78 / $2.41 = 74%
The cost for pilots on a 76 seat RJ is 74% of the cost of a 737-800. Well over half.
Are you that daft or just bad at solving logic problems?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You guys are arguing over 2% of the total picture. What I want to see is the CASM of an E175 on mainline vs an E175 at a regional.
Fuel, acquisition, maint requirements are the same no matter where it’s flown. If the determining factor of the profitability is the cost of the crew, then it’s a fundamentally flawed airplane.
If UAL could get our pilot productivity up to 7 hours a day ala SWA, at current UPA rates, I can’t see how it doesn’t work. United Shuttle was wildly successful (and popular) with the shuttle crews making slightly less than the mainline guys, with higher productivity (giving them pay parity). I’ve yet to fly with a LUAL guy who didn’t love the Shuttle flying. Bring the 175 to mainline and turn it back on, I’d do it!