Originally Posted by
zoooropa
While you never know what Bedford is going to do next, one thing is certain.
That's true
Originally Posted by
zoooropa
Replacing expensive 100 seat jets with less expensive 100 seat jets, logical.
agreed again...
Originally Posted by
zoooropa
Replacing efficient 130-160 seat jets with more expensive 100 seat jets, illogical.
Depends on what the historical load factors have been on those 130+ seaters... if they are going out with an average of 90-115 then the 100 seat plane wins out. One less FA, and all the associated training and benefit costs, plus you get the remaining crew at regional rates and rules.
Originally Posted by
zoooropa
While our 320 rates are not the highest in the industry, they are slightly above average. Yet our block hour cost is the lowest thanks to a well written contract and the number of hours that we fly.
Bedford doesn't want to fly only EMB 190/175/170 because he realizes that some routes can make money with 100 seats while others can accommodate a larger gauge aircraft.
If you are trying to say that the EMB's will be utilized in denver while the buses will be moved to other cities, then you are correct.
If you are trying to say that the EMB's will replace buses and the number of buses flying around will decrease, then you are incorrect. There are actually more buses being delivered, as well as more 190's.
Pilot rates are not the "end all be all" numbers that determine operating cost. It is actually more expensive, at RAH rates, to fly a 190 than it is to fly a F9 318. Again, don't take my word for it, the data is all publicly available.
You also mentioned "a year or so". I believe in one year all FAPA pilots will be recalled and we will be mired in a SLI quagmire, or the dust will be settling from an arbiter's decision on SLI.
Agreed with the rest too... good post, with the one possible exception.