AA gov aid to exceed its capitalization
04-15-2020, 05:18 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2019
Posts: 1,256
Originally Posted by bababouey
I really don't know, the current space only uses them to augment an operation, not carry it. RJ standalone carriers have been tried before, only to fail. I don't think they're a good business to be in, which is probably why Parker owns 3 of them.
https://www.raa.org/who-we-are/
Regional airlines provide critical links connecting communities throughout North America to the national and international air transport networks and the vast economic benefits that connectivity brings. It is likely that you have flown on regional airlines regularly. In many cases, flights with fewer than 100 seats feature major airline branding and are operated by regional airline partners under code-sharing agreements. These airlines have their own operating certificates and their own employees. Some regional airlines serve communities through the Essential Air Service (EAS) program. Often, regional airlines are the only viable transportation link for small communities.
RAA provides a unified voice of advocacy for North American regional airlines aimed at promoting a safe, reliable and strong regional airline industry and serves as an important support network connecting regional airlines and industry business partners, enabling them to share best practices.
RAA provides a unified voice of advocacy for North American regional airlines aimed at promoting a safe, reliable and strong regional airline industry and serves as an important support network connecting regional airlines and industry business partners, enabling them to share best practices.
04-15-2020, 05:38 AM
#13
Bus Driver ordinarie
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Position: Airbus CA
Posts: 555
visiting
Originally Posted by chrisreedrules
Gas will cheap for the next year or two and you can make money in an RJ at 50-60% capacity with cheap gas. Not true with a 320 or 73.
counterintuitively ; low fuel prices might keep less efficient fleets flying longer in the short term; so the CRJ200/145s might get a new lease on life...
hang in there all..
04-15-2020, 07:04 AM
#15
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,273
Originally Posted by amcnd
If RJ’s were not profitable. They would have not made it past 9/11 and 2008.... they will make it pas covid-19. Yes much smaller fleets. But regionals will be around..
By the same token 50-seaters have a slight but much slimmer advantage over 70 seaters. That plus the fact that 50-seaters are pretty much all paid for keeps them flying.
Except for a handful of niche high-dollar markets, economics would NOT support most 50-seat ops if the planes had to be purchased/leased new... that's why nobody is actually looking to manufacturer new 50-seat jets. I'd probably expect to see 50-seat turboprops first.
There's a scope-defined niche for 50-seaters, but no manufacturer thinks that would work with new, vice used, jets.
Maybe that's something BCA could work on, after they shutdown the Max for good, go BK and get taken over by the federal government.
04-15-2020, 04:35 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 2,035
Originally Posted by rickair7777
RJ's are the only profitable way to provide 3x daily frequency on routes which can't come close to filling up a NB.
By the same token 50-seaters have a slight but much slimmer advantage over 70 seaters. That plus the fact that 50-seaters are pretty much all paid for keeps them flying.
Except for a handful of niche high-dollar markets, economics would NOT support most 50-seat ops if the planes had to be purchased/leased new... that's why nobody is actually looking to manufacturer new 50-seat jets. I'd probably expect to see 50-seat turboprops first.
There's a scope-defined niche for 50-seaters, but no manufacturer thinks that would work with new, vice used, jets.
Maybe that's something BCA could work on, after they shutdown the Max for good, go BK and get taken over by the federal government.
By the same token 50-seaters have a slight but much slimmer advantage over 70 seaters. That plus the fact that 50-seaters are pretty much all paid for keeps them flying.
Except for a handful of niche high-dollar markets, economics would NOT support most 50-seat ops if the planes had to be purchased/leased new... that's why nobody is actually looking to manufacturer new 50-seat jets. I'd probably expect to see 50-seat turboprops first.
There's a scope-defined niche for 50-seaters, but no manufacturer thinks that would work with new, vice used, jets.
Maybe that's something BCA could work on, after they shutdown the Max for good, go BK and get taken over by the federal government.
Sarcastic or serious with your BCA comment?
04-15-2020, 05:06 PM
#17
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,273
Originally Posted by Paid2fly
Sarcastic or serious with your BCA comment?
Not sure how they would deal with BCA being unsustainable since the other divisions (at least defense) should still be profitable. Most of the BCA assets are only valuable as-is to someone who wants to make commercial planes.
Their WB programs were still churning out planes, but who needs long-haul planes now, other than cargo (and that too will fall off if the economy goes down hard)?
There are calls to just let them fail (same people saying let the airlines fail), but Boeing is the largest US exporter...
They might end up seriously restructured, Max dead, and the new entity developing a new NB? Three months ago I would have said no way would max fail, but COVID is boulder dropped on the head of a company which was already on thin ice.
04-15-2020, 05:11 PM
#18
In a land of unicorns
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Position: Whale FO
Posts: 6,469
Originally Posted by rickair7777
I'm concerned at this point.
Not sure how they would deal with BCA being unsustainable since the other divisions (at least defense) should still be profitable. Most of the BCA assets are only valuable as-is to someone who wants to make commercial planes.
Their WB programs were still churning out planes, but who needs long-haul planes now, other than cargo (and that too will fall off if the economy goes down hard)?
There are calls to just let them fail (same people saying let the airlines fail), but Boeing is the largest US exporter...
They might end up seriously restructured, Max dead, and the new entity developing a new NB? Three months ago I would have said no way would max fail, but COVID is boulder dropped on the head of a company which was already on thin ice.
Not sure how they would deal with BCA being unsustainable since the other divisions (at least defense) should still be profitable. Most of the BCA assets are only valuable as-is to someone who wants to make commercial planes.
Their WB programs were still churning out planes, but who needs long-haul planes now, other than cargo (and that too will fall off if the economy goes down hard)?
There are calls to just let them fail (same people saying let the airlines fail), but Boeing is the largest US exporter...
They might end up seriously restructured, Max dead, and the new entity developing a new NB? Three months ago I would have said no way would max fail, but COVID is boulder dropped on the head of a company which was already on thin ice.
04-15-2020, 07:43 PM
#19
Perennial Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,501
Boeing simply needs fixing. I think it was once was one of the best run companies in the country. In fact I still have stock in it. But it has gone downhill considerably. The ridiculous execution of the KC-46 program:
https://breakingdefense.com/2020/03/...ound-problems/
now aggravated further by coronavirus:
https://www.defensenews.com/coronavi...et-sound-area/
the botched Starliner launch:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020...-unflattering/
and the pretty well known to everyone MAX problems really seem only to be the tip of the iceberg.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-b...-idUSKCN21W247
One could honestly say that the company has been grossly mismanaged since they moved their HQ to Chicago, which is hell and gone from ANY of its production facilities.
While I’m not selling my Boeing stock (mostly because I bought it long ago, lost the paperwork during a PCS move, and don’t have a clue about my basis) I no longer believe it’s too big to fail. If it doesn’t get it’s act together - and pronto - I could see it going under, or at least being parted out as multiple smaller companies...
https://breakingdefense.com/2020/03/...ound-problems/
now aggravated further by coronavirus:
https://www.defensenews.com/coronavi...et-sound-area/
the botched Starliner launch:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020...-unflattering/
and the pretty well known to everyone MAX problems really seem only to be the tip of the iceberg.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-b...-idUSKCN21W247
One could honestly say that the company has been grossly mismanaged since they moved their HQ to Chicago, which is hell and gone from ANY of its production facilities.
While I’m not selling my Boeing stock (mostly because I bought it long ago, lost the paperwork during a PCS move, and don’t have a clue about my basis) I no longer believe it’s too big to fail. If it doesn’t get it’s act together - and pronto - I could see it going under, or at least being parted out as multiple smaller companies...
04-15-2020, 08:06 PM
#20
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,273
Originally Posted by Excargodog
If it doesn’t get it’s act together - and pronto - I could see it going under, or at least being parted out as multiple smaller companies...
Unfortunately it may be too late to get their act together... who's going to buy Max's any time soon? How many times can they stand getting hit in the face by Mike Tyson (they stepped into the first one)?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
