|
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1160341)
Excuse me. I own you. Or will. You shall now your head when typing a post in my general direction. Was your head down? did you say Oh Captain My Captain?
I'll buy this airline by its own assets or something. I will give you a gift, I will say RJs. Now that I own this airline you may wonder, does FTB want to be a master that is loved or feared? Both. I want you to fear how much you love me. I fear the glimpses you give us in to the deep reaches of your mind! :D |
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 1160340)
So cap the seats and only sell the excess in the higher buckets during ultra peak times. Bonus: happy revenue generators when they non rev and a smoother operation for the many thousands of employees that don't "commute by choice".
But seriously, just cap the lower buckets if the flight is a money maker and don't trash yields just to fill up the plane for the same total revenue as a half full plane. |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1160335)
Dunno. Just going off my experience. YMMV. Sorry if I give ya bad info Ferd. :o
|
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1160344)
Do you think that would really do that? Look no further than the MD-90 as an example.
I guess it really is better to have 3 full 50 seaters than a single 737-800 at 90% load factor because you're wasting that 10%? |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1160345)
A RAW of 140 is about 70 hrs of credit.
|
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 1160350)
I guess it really is better to have 3 full 50 seaters than a single 737-800 at 90% load factor because you're wasting that 10%? I've been concerned for awhile that we want to show load factors vs total cost of the good provided for sometime now. I honestly think we are leaving money on the table in several markets by flying full smaller jets. PHX to SLC pops into my head right away. Our competition flys full 737s and A320s and all but two (early morning and late night) of ours are Skywest RJs. Ferd |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1160341)
I want you to fear how much you love me. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1160364)
That's how I feel about this, but it is illegal and we'll see if anyone here even knows what it is:
|
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 1160350)
If we don't then its mismanagement on our part with revenues. Why push more seats into lower buckets just to spread the exact same revenue of the flight over more seats on the same flight? What are they teaching at the RASM/CASM schools these days? Fill-em-up no matter what? Its better to carry extra weight for the same total revenue? No wonder there's "no money in cargo".
I guess it really is better to have 3 full 50 seaters than a single 737-800 at 90% load factor because you're wasting that 10%? RASM-CASM=Operating profit What makes the RASM or the CASM matters not. A MD90 could be a 757 replacement, a Next Gen CRj900 could replace a 757. A 737-900 could replace a 757. They all can attach to a jetway and fly 1,000 miles at around Mach .79. (The CRj actually does the profile better than the Douglas product, hey, 50 years changed the way they build wings) Gloopy, you say they "suck at math." Not really. They suck at forecasting markets five years into the future when an airplane acquisition is really a 15 to 20 year look see. They also tend to screw up and make deals that looked good at the time, but which fade when the variables change. |
Hey quick question, does the pilot group need to approve a rate on the 717 if they decide to bring them on property?
Or is their as predetermined way of setting a rate for a new aircraft type that is brought on property? Just wondering... |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:28 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands