Originally Posted by
JetJock16
Sources? Last time I looked at a breakdown of airlines operating cost per seat per mile, RAH was not 21% lower than SKW. The fact is that SKW has one of THE lowest debt to asset ratios in the industry and it's far lower than RAH's. Not to mention lower managerial cost, greater buying power, etc.
Look, this isn’t a ****ing match about whose airline is better so don't start that BS. It's about your above #'s which are a little ............... errrrrrrrrrr a lot ............ over the top so just show your sources and if they pan out then great but don't expect anyone on here to just take your word for it?
This had nothing to do with the airlines really so don't take it there. It was an example. Everyone talks about how the 170/175s aren't desired because they burn more fuel. Truth is that's only one part of the equation. I wanted to show that. There's a reason people keep wanting them. Because of the lower cost structure at RAH it could easily negate what happened. Normally I'd just tell someone that if it was important enough they could find the figures themselves but I'll spare you the searching since it wasn't the easiest to come across.
You can find the price per ASM in their quarterly reports.
Skywest operating cost at $.097
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/...____LAW517.htm
RAH at $.076
http://seekingalpha.com/article/7473...t?source=yahoo
*Note that I stated these were the points at which they break even. These are their operating costs. However the importance of these numbers is that the company can pass these savings on to the customer. Obviously these numbers fluctuate over time and the goal of the company is to make money so their rates are higher. However if someone thinks the 170/175 is a bad aircraft that the others don't want simply based on a few different pounds in the fuel burn, which it seems to be what everyone here has been saying, then they need to think again. The cost per departure difference could be more than enough to offset the cost of the extra fuel. I don't know what all makes the operating cost at RAH so much cheaper but I'm sure the aircraft have something to do with it. The EMBs don't have near the MX requirements of the CRJs which is an additional cost the company has to swallow.