Exactly..........

 

60% is decent for the age of the service. Also consider ExpressJet is connecting small cities to small cities. That ultimately yields about 31 passengers per aircraft. Southwest in late '02 and mostly throughout '03 were reporting 55%-60% load factors.

ExpressJet's CEO was quoted saying...
ExpressJet's branded from what I've heard is a superior product to Southwest and other competitors.

 

The load factor numbers are meaningless without yield data. If they are selling tickets for $500 each way then XJT will be wildly profitable. Conversely, if they are selling seats for $29 each way then their financial results will be awash in red ink.

IIRC, XJT needed roughly a 25% yield improvement to break even in the 60-65% load factor range. I don't think they will get it all at once, but they are likely making some gains toward this goal as they develop a loyal customer base and better brand recognition in their markets. Perhaps by next summer they can turn the corner on the branded operation.

 

You can't compare XJT load factors with SWA and say one is better than the other. We don't know what percentages are needed to make a profit. The 737 is a nice aircraft and if 70 people are on it they might pull in much more than the 31 on the ERJ. Need to see the exact operating cost they are figuring per seat mile.

 

Thank you!!!

 

The aircraft are appropriately sized per the market being served at ExpressJet.

 

ahhhhhhhhhh Please Toilet of we had 99% L/F, you would say, "well it ain't 100".................


PS. Good point though

 

I understand what you are saying I just don't understand WHY you are saying it. What I'm saying is that we don't know, or at least I don't and it hasn't been mentioned here, what the operating cost of both XJT and SWA are per seat mile. The aircraft expenses are not proportional. The bigger the aircraft the more efficient(money wise) per seat to an extent. It's very possible that SWA could operate at a much less $ per seat mile. To move 150 people SWA needs 2 pilots and three flight attendants. To move 150 people XJT would need 6 pilots and 3 FAs. Granted SWA pays much more to the other two up front I'm just pointing out one example of several about how % load is only loosely usable when compared within one airline. IE XJT NOV. 2007 % vs XJT NOV. 2006 %. Even then fluctuating ticket prices, fuel prices, etc all go into the mix. Unless someone can give the operating cost and revenue numbers for both you can't just walk up and say any one airline operates better than another... I find it very hard to believe that XJT is operating better than SWA. Reason being is SWA has had many years to run through everything with a fine tooth comb and if there's a way to save a penny they've already done it. I don't believe any upstart company can expect to operate with their kind of efficiencies. Those things take years.

 

Who's South West? Never heard of that airline. Are they in an alliance with Youknighted?

Anyway, jokes aside, it's a bad comparison (no offense intended). Just like you can't look at one factor (i.e. load factor) and automatically label it as unsatisfactory, you can't do the same and claim the opposite. As eerily similar the route structures are, CASM, RASM, LF, crews per aircraft, etc etc etc etc are completely incomparable. Not to mention the fact that it can't even be boiled down to the 150 pax= two pilots + 3 FAs as opposed to 6 pilots (I know you made very similar points TD as I have, which were quite good and correct, I'm using this as an out of context example. Sorry!). As I mentioned above, even for that simplified comparison, you have to take into account the actual efficiency of the aircraft, crews per airplane, salaries for FAs and Pilots alike, salaries for ground handling and landing fees, expenses for amenities (Ha! They still exist?!) on board, MX cost, etc etc etc. Oh, and of course you have to compare markets. Most of the markets that XJet is serving are either operated by other RJs or by LCCs. That means, unfortunately, that XJet has almost zero control over pricing. Because their income per seat is going to be generally fixed due to the type of market they are competing in, it becomes that much more important to look at the costs rather than straight variables like load factor.

 

Since we're talking XJET performance numbers...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...s/5359226.html

This is all conspiracy theory, but here it goes:

XJET has branded flying going between under-served markets. However, they are under-served for a reason. They don't want to get TOO successful on the branded side or another LCC (Airtran, SWA, PeopleExpress) will decide they too can make a profit on that route. With the operation being so new (and less than a year is new) any competition, even if it's one overlaying flight a day can have a serious effect on the bottom line of the operation. If I was XJET, I'd be happy with a 60-70% load factor and making a small profit off the structure. Anything more and you'll become too attractive to additional competition which at this stage of XJET's operation could be severly detrimental. Probably why they want to keep their operating stats a secret for a little while longer...

I don't work there, and even if I did, I wouldn't be management, so take this with a grain of salt...but I don't think it's in XJET's best interest to have a wildly successful branded operation right outta the gate. If they're smart (in my opinion), they'll take it slow so that when/if it does takeoff, they'll have the means to stay competitive should someone else jump into their routes.