Initial Involuntary Furlough letters
04-03-2020, 09:02 AM
#101
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2017
Position: A320FO
Posts: 49
Originally Posted by mattmatt
https://skift.com/2020/04/02/united-...ick-snap-back/
please also read united forums, express jet forums
will i be refurloughed now or laid off with everyone when they close us down?
stay healthy, happy, and home
please also read united forums, express jet forums
will i be refurloughed now or laid off with everyone when they close us down?
stay healthy, happy, and home
Don't put too much into this in the near term. There is too much unknown right now.
That being said, Kirby was a huge proponent of 50 seat aircraft at AA and until a month ago, at UA as well. UA accelerated the retirement of the Dash 8’s by a year due to customer attitude toward them and operational challenges (weight restrictions,etc.) and sped up our implementation of the 145. Which went poorly.
I wouldn’t count us out yet, I also don’t think C5 or XJT survive as separate entities when this is all over, if at all. But its all speculation on my part.
04-03-2020, 11:50 AM
#102
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2017
Posts: 344
With the load averages in the teens at best on most domestic routes it seems foolish to me to fly anything bigger than a 50 seater right now so I find it stupid Kirby would be suggesting parking 50 seaters now or during a recovery. When topped off the XR has has enough range to make it nearly half way across the country, and it certainly costs a hell of a lot less to run and staff than that 737-8 I saw arrive at EWR from LAX the other day....with 2 people aboard.
04-03-2020, 03:59 PM
#104
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: It's a plane and it's a seat
Posts: 951
Originally Posted by njd1
With the load averages in the teens at best on most domestic routes it seems foolish to me to fly anything bigger than a 50 seater right now so I find it stupid Kirby would be suggesting parking 50 seaters now or during a recovery. When topped off the XR has has enough range to make it nearly half way across the country, and it certainly costs a hell of a lot less to run and staff than that 737-8 I saw arrive at EWR from LAX the other day....with 2 people aboard.
04-03-2020, 08:28 PM
#105
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: 787
Posts: 3,142
Originally Posted by njd1
With the load averages in the teens at best on most domestic routes it seems foolish to me to fly anything bigger than a 50 seater right now so I find it stupid Kirby would be suggesting parking 50 seaters now or during a recovery. When topped off the XR has has enough range to make it nearly half way across the country, and it certainly costs a hell of a lot less to run and staff than that 737-8 I saw arrive at EWR from LAX the other day....with 2 people aboard.
04-04-2020, 05:30 AM
#107
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: 787
Posts: 3,142
Originally Posted by terks43
“force majeure”
04-04-2020, 07:01 AM
#108
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2019
Posts: 247
Originally Posted by MasterOfPuppets
yeah.....Consider that phrase a nuclear bomb. It’s in their arsenal but use it more as a deterrent. Kirby has zero interest in nuking the the mechanics, flight attendants, pilots, dispatchers.....etc just to save 20 year old POS aircraft that passengers HATE. Why destroy your company to save a small company that flies outdated expensive aircraft?
United has the least amount of large RJ’s (170/175’s). If anything he would need scope relief on those in order to put them on 319/920 and 737 routes that have low load factor presently.
Or am I missing something more obvious?
04-04-2020, 07:09 AM
#109
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: 787
Posts: 3,142
Originally Posted by Cessna182TypeR
Scope already allows plenty of 50 seaters. How would he even need to drop a “nuclear bomb” as you say to keep them?
United has the least amount of large RJ’s (170/175’s). If anything he would need scope relief on those in order to put them on 319/920 and 737 routes that have low load factor presently.
Or am I missing something more obvious?
United has the least amount of large RJ’s (170/175’s). If anything he would need scope relief on those in order to put them on 319/920 and 737 routes that have low load factor presently.
Or am I missing something more obvious?
04-04-2020, 07:21 AM
#110
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2018
Posts: 236
These POS planes are not expensive. They are fully owned and with gas prices low like they have been (and will be for a while to come) are cheap to run. Not as cheap as a TP but that is another story.
Many thinner routes simply can't support a larger aircraft. Not everyone is connecting to an International flight which will offset the cost.
Say you service Buffalo six times a day with a 50 seat jet to your NYC hub. You cut that to 2 flights a day in a 73 (morning and evening because it's now flown by United Mainline only). Your competition still does 6 flights a day in a 50 seater with a departure time that suits you. Bam, customer lost.
People will forgo comfort for convenience more than you think.
Many thinner routes simply can't support a larger aircraft. Not everyone is connecting to an International flight which will offset the cost.
Say you service Buffalo six times a day with a 50 seat jet to your NYC hub. You cut that to 2 flights a day in a 73 (morning and evening because it's now flown by United Mainline only). Your competition still does 6 flights a day in a 50 seater with a departure time that suits you. Bam, customer lost.
People will forgo comfort for convenience more than you think.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
