Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Air Wisconsin (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/air-wisconsin/)
-   -   50 Seat Viability (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/air-wisconsin/128834-50-seat-viability.html)

dremaldent 04-06-2020 09:45 AM

50 Seat Viability
 
Just want to create this thread to talk about a few things we know so far. Kirby did imply that 50-seaters may be going away, but we shouldn't be super worried about that right now. Here's my take on everything going on right now.

1. We have no idea what he actually meant when he said that, nor the timeframe. He could be implying that he wants scope relief from UALPA, which he likely won't get, which makes this entire fear of him taking our planes away kind of moot.

2. Switching exclusively to a 70 seat market won't work without scope relief. There are simply too many routes to cover.

3. AWAC has passed an LOA that makes us (Hopefully) furlough proof until the end of May, on the basis of reducing our guarantee of course.. They have also passed an LOU which pay protects us in case we get COVID-19. That doesn't sound like a dying company to me. If they take money from the Federal government, this is extended to the end of September.

4. Even if Kirby gets his scope relief, there will still be a (Slightly smaller) regional market that needs to be covered. Sure it will be taken up by larger companies, but having CRJs rather than ERJs will give us a small edge in retraining since I'm expecting United will prefer CRJs over ERJs. It's very likely AWAC will still retain a contract.

5. The economy will bounce back after this. UND has posted a video made by economists in their university about how they expect airlines to fully recover by the end of the year. Hiring will slow down until summer next year, but will not stop. UND is 96% accurate when it comes to industry prediction.

6. Contrary to the fear I've been seeing from many, this will not end the airline industry (Yes, I've actually seen people say that no one will want to do air travel ever again after this). People will forget about this rather quickly, and return to their old habits as soon as the risk of contracting COVID-19 is reduced.

GA2Jets 04-06-2020 10:23 AM

I think you make some good points, but there should be a #0 that appears before all others: no one knows how this public health crisis, therefore this economic crisis will unfold.

This is the message underneath the town hall and the emails from RB. We could see anything from complete devastation to comtolete return of demand and the only way to know is wait, unfortunately...

I really doubt 50 seat flying will disappear from UA. Get cut, sure I mean everything will be trimmed. But disappear? Makes no sense to me. If pax comfort was such a big deal, they wouldn't pack economy seats into mainline planes. If they don't get scope relief, there is no way it will all disappear, but even if they do get relief, they'd need a heck of a lot of 175s flying to replace the seats in smaller markets.

Perhaps another good question is, if 50 seat flying gets cut by (let's say) 50%, whose flying is going away?

Itsajob 04-06-2020 10:27 AM


Originally Posted by dremaldent (Post 3025261)
Just want to create this thread to talk about a few things we know so far. Kirby did imply that 50-seaters may be going away, but we shouldn't be super worried about that right now. Here's my take on everything going on right now.

1. We have no idea what he actually meant when he said that, nor the timeframe. He could be implying that he wants scope relief from UALPA, which he likely won't get, which makes this entire fear of him taking our planes away kind of moot.

2. Switching exclusively to a 70 seat market won't work without scope relief. There are simply too many routes to cover.

3. AWAC has passed an LOA that makes us (Hopefully) furlough proof until the end of May, on the basis of reducing our guarantee of course.. They have also passed an LOU which pay protects us in case we get COVID-19. That doesn't sound like a dying company to me. If they take money from the Federal government, this is extended to the end of September.

4. Even if Kirby gets his scope relief, there will still be a (Slightly smaller) regional market that needs to be covered. Sure it will be taken up by larger companies, but having CRJs rather than ERJs will give us a small edge in retraining since I'm expecting United will prefer CRJs over ERJs. It's very likely AWAC will still retain a contract.

5. The economy will bounce back after this. UND has posted a video made by economists in their university about how they expect airlines to fully recover by the end of the year. Hiring will slow down until summer next year, but will not stop. UND is 96% accurate when it comes to industry prediction.

6. Contrary to the fear I've been seeing from many, this will not end the airline industry (Yes, I've actually seen people say that no one will want to do air travel ever again after this). People will forget about this rather quickly, and return to their old habits as soon as the risk of contracting COVID-19 is reduced.

I don’t think that anyone knows how this is going to play out. This is Kirby’s quote about the 50 seat jets:
“my guess is that the 50 seaters will be mostly gone by the end of this. Under almost any of these scenarios 50 seat flying will be a thing of the past”.

Do they think that in a market where demand is reduced that many of the small markets that have been served by the 50 seat jets will no longer be worth it? Do they want to take advantage of this depressed market to eliminate a fleet type that generates negative customer feedback? Will they decide to add 100 seat jets to the mix and unlock more 175’s for the regionals? They have wanted to greatly reduce the 50 seat fleet in the past, but couldn’t due to scope. With reduced demand and a several year recovery anticipated, it sounds like they have decided that now is the time. Depending on what this recovery looks like, there could be fleet retirements at both UAL and UAX.

TheFly 04-06-2020 10:33 AM

Fifty seaters burn less fuel and only takes 3 people to staff. With 10 people on an RJ versus 10 pax on a 737 or Airbus...from an economic standpoint, the RJ is probably less of an economic hit.

piloto2 04-06-2020 10:46 AM


Originally Posted by dremaldent (Post 3025261)
I'm expecting United will prefer CRJs over ERJs. It's very likely AWAC will still retain a contract.

What makes you think that? The only plane the flying public hates more than the ERJ 145 is a CRJ 200. The 200 is getting harder and harder to support. The 145XRs flying for UAL were going to get upgrades. Nothing similar has been mentioned for the 200, has it? But the real issue may be the small size of AWAC's pilot group. Very much in the same category as Trans States, but without any aircraft that UAL has expressed any interest in upgrading.

RAHkid94 04-06-2020 10:52 AM

Regarding point 4- United was going to dump a bunch of money into upgrades (including wifi) for the 145’s so they must like them more than the CRJ’s.

If there’s a reduction, why would they give the remaining flying to us instead of Commutair or XJT, since they’re heavily invested in those two?

GA2Jets 04-06-2020 10:58 AM


Originally Posted by RAHkid94 (Post 3025332)
Regarding point 4- United was going to dump a bunch of money into upgrades (including wifi) for the 145’s so they must like them more than the CRJ’s.

If there’s a reduction, why would they give the remaining flying to us instead of Commutair or XJT, since they’re heavily invested in those two?

Technically they said the whole 145 fleet and "many" of the 200 fleet would be upgraded. That read to me like, we don't own them so we can't make anyone (like SKW) do anything.

GA2Jets 04-06-2020 11:05 AM


Originally Posted by GA2Jets (Post 3025341)
Technically they said the whole 145 fleet and "many" of the 200 fleet would be upgraded. That read to me like, we don't own them so we can't make anyone (like SKW) do anything.

"– a full interior refresh across our E-145 fleet and many of the CRJ-200 aircraft our partners operate." In the article on Flying Together, Feb 24 (a lifetime ago).

Firefighterpilo 04-06-2020 11:11 AM

dremaldent

I appreciate the optimistic post and know you are trying to buffer the doom and gloom. That being said it is more important that all pilots right now stay grounded in reality so they can best position themselves for the future.

All of your points are optimistically subjective at best and misleading at worst. University of North Dakota is not a world renowned financial college and have not predicted anything close to 96% accuracy. In fact they released the same info after 911 saying it was going to only be a couple month slump. We know how that turned out. Being a large aviation school they are trying to paint a rosy picture not grounded in reality. They survive on students paying hundreds of thousands of dollars buying into the pilot shortage myth. They and embry riddle have been peddling this fantasy for two decades.

If pilots learned anything from the lost decade, and this is shaping up to be much worse, things are going to be bad for a really long time.

I am not trying to attack you but after 911 I spent more time listening to pilot recruiters and not enough time focus on reality and it hurt my family. Right now all pilots would be best served planning on the worse case scenarios instead of banking on the best. Some airlines are better positioned then others but all are being hurt. If you are at AWAC and heard Kirbys words you should be planning accordingly.

I wish nothing but the best for all pilots but don’t want to see people with their heads in the sand ignoring the huge red flags. Like they say sh*t in one hand and wish in the other and see what fills up first.

dremaldent 04-06-2020 11:29 AM


Originally Posted by Firefighterpilo (Post 3025353)
dremaldent

I appreciate the optimistic post and know you are trying to buffer the doom and gloom. That being said it is more important that all pilots right now stay grounded in reality so they can best position themselves for the future.

All of your points are optimistically subjective at best and misleading at worst. University of North Dakota is not a world renowned financial college and have not predicted anything close to 96% accuracy. In fact they released the same info after 911 saying it was going to only be a couple month slump. We know how that turned out. Being a large aviation school they are trying to paint a rosy picture not grounded in reality. They survive on students paying hundreds of thousands of dollars buying into the pilot shortage myth. They and embry riddle have been peddling this fantasy for two decades.

If pilots learned anything from the lost decade, and this is shaping up to be much worse, things are going to be bad for a really long time.

I am not trying to attack you but after 911 I spent more time listening to pilot recruiters and not enough time focus on reality and it hurt my family. Right now all pilots would be best served planning on the worse case scenarios instead of banking on the best. Some airlines are better positioned then others but all are being hurt. If you are at AWAC and heard Kirbys words you should be planning accordingly.

I wish nothing but the best for all pilots but don’t want to see people with their heads in the sand ignoring the huge red flags. Like they say sh*t in one hand and wish in the other and see what fills up first.

Obviously everyone should plan for a worst-case scenario. But, the worst-case scenario that I am seeing from other pilots on this forum is far worse than will actually happen. Some are saying that all air travel will be shut down for years. Not just a reduction, completely shut down.

UND's projection was completely based in evidence. I watched it and analyzed the data myself.

The industry will recover from this. There might be furloughs, but it won't be terrible once the economy opens back up.

Besides, with the entire economy shut down for a few months, most don't have any options other than to collect unemployment if furloughs happen anyway. Personally, I have a second job lined up, about 9 months of living expenses, and unemployment which will all buffer me through if things go really wrong. Leaving any company right now is a terrible idea. Having backup plans is a good idea. Basically I'm telling everyone that the right decision right now is to ride it out and hope we come out ahead (or at least as far ahead as we can be) once this is all over. Not like you're getting another job flying anyway.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:52 AM.


User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2021 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands