Andy

So, you're in your mid-40s and you don't have solid enough credentials to get a job with the ME3? Interesting. And you're not willing to pay your dues in the regionals. There's a problem here, and it's not the industry.

Born in the USA? Odd, there are more than a few indications in your post history that indicate you're related to 'Floyd'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6C8Z9aBa2Y

You are extremely naďve if you think that regional flying subsidizes mainline. That's some of the most expensive flying done. The CASM on RJs runs around 25 cents; the CASM on narrowbodies runs less than 15 cents and less than 10 cents on widebodies. Regional flying is a money losing proposition, even at regional wages. Majors lose money on regional flying that they outsource.

Funny that you complain about personal attacks. (Just a sampling of your bitter world; plenty of other attacks by you in your posting history)

ackattacker

Was just skimming this thread, not really too interested in this catfight, but this sentence stood out. You cannot be this naive yourself.

I majors consistently lost money on regional flying they wouldn't do it. They aren't running a transportation charity. One can get into a detailed discussion of "feed" etc. and how they move the money around but that's all you really need to understand, the bottom line. Regional flying adds to the bottom line or it gets axed.

That's all.

Andy

It's getting axed. Very quickly.

It was a failed experiment by the majors to increase frequency to smaller cities in order to capture more corporate clients.

If you look into the calculations that made RJ routes profitable, you'd quickly see that it wasn't profitable flying. I've seen some of the airline calculations for this - as an example, they'd assign ~80% of the revenue of a CVG-ORD-LAX ticket to the CVG-ORD regional leg.

It was a loss leader to get more business. No longer necessary so they're replacing costly regional flying with less expensive mainline flying. Or do you think that RJ CASM is less than mainline? If that were the case, airlines wouldn't be replacing regional flying with mainline flights. Here's a quote from the link below:
"Integral to the plan is removing 50-seat jets flown by United's regional contractors, which can waste more fuel per passenger than larger planes. The carrier said it will take 130 of these aircraft off its schedule by the end of 2015, with more cuts to come later."
United Airlines to lease up to 25 used aircraft from AerCap Holdings | Reuters

Typhoonpilot

Riyadh (AFP) - State-owned Saudi Arabian Airlines plans to roughly double its fleet over the next five years while expanding its routes, official media reported on Monday.

The carrier intends to raise "the number of aircraft from the current number of 119 to 200 aircraft by 2020," Saleh bin Nasser al-Jasser, the company's director general, said at an executive meeting.

He was quoted by the official Saudi Press Agency.

Jasser said the 70-year-old carrier, known as Saudia, will add domestic flights and new international destinations.

The kingdom, the Arab world's largest economy, is spending billions of dollars on building and upgrading airports, including those in the capital Riyadh and in the Red Sea city of Jeddah.

Gulf countries have been betting on a sharp rise in passenger traffic.

The region's so-called Gulf Big Three -- Emirates, Qatar Airways and Abu Dhabi's Etihad -- have seized a large chunk of global air travel, turning their hubs into major stops on transcontinental routes.




Hey look, another entrant into the fray. Now the U.S. carriers will be competing against Emirates, Etihad, Qatar, Turkish, and Saudi Arabian.

The U.S. carriers better get their collective "you know what together" or they will get badly burned on the lucrative traffic from the USA to the Sub-Continent (that neglected marketplace with over 1 billion people).

Oh no, wait, protectionism will save the U.S. carriers from their incompetent leadership



TP

baseball

It's not quite that simple. The regionals haven't done well as a whole since they parked all of the turbo-props and opted for those RJ's. At the time, the industry felt that the "reliability" of a jet was added value to the product. Passengers complained of the lack of "jets" on their smaller city pairs. So, the pressure mounted to add real jets to their markets. The operation was barely break-even back then. Domestically, most majors only break-even. Add in the real expensive experiment of the RJ's and it doesn't take a math major to figure something's wrong.

They do the flying to feed the animal. And, yes subsidies do exist. They buy the time in block hour arrangements and they also dollar cost average the time seasonally and they help with jet fuel purchasing. In many cases training costs and overhead are subsidized.

I think the industry is headed for some improvements. parking the expensive to operate 50 seaters, reducing capacity, bringing on a limited number of 70 seaters in select markets, and bringing back turbo-props all help the economics. I would never buy stock in a regional, but it's got to get better for it to survive in the model we have today.

Most airlines have cut the strings on their respective regionals. They look at it as a "pay to play" situation. They will purchase what they need, when they need, and in the markets they need. The regionals have to adapt to both the majors demands and the majors pilot union demands for job security. It's a tough spot to be in if you are a regional airline CEO. Sort of a lose-lose situation.

Drofdeb

and I'm the one who is naive. hee hee
I sincerely hope you are right, and RJ/turbo-prop/D-scale flying dies. But I will not hold my breath.

lol Andy, its all good, dont you worry about me. Save your fight for the ME3. Blue skies to you. Oh, and your sarcasm meter might be broken

BTW here is some sarcasm for ya, so that you can fix your broken meter ..... Do a little more research, dredge up some more of my posts and take them out of context. Post up some more youtube clips hee hee. Hope it keeps you awake tonight. Really has been fun seeing some you guys getting so wound up. We'll do it again in a few, when I'm bored lol.

ackattacker

Sure, lots 50 seaters are getting parked. 70 seaters are being added. This "failed experiment" has been going on for 20 years. Most of the feed could be cancelled tomorrow, and yet instead new contracts are being added. I stand by my statement, If it lost money they wouldn't do it. I apologize however for the thread drift. This is supposed to be about Emirates, not regional airline flying. There is a connection however, dealing with the accounting of the situation. Flying is a complex network of companies and quasi-governmental agencies doing various things. The end goal is to make money overall, give returns to the investors and jobs to the employees, not necessarily for each cog in the system to show a profit. How the lawyers and accountants and government agencies divy up which parts are supposedly making money or losing money is a little bit arbitrary, or at least don't always follow an obvious logic. For example, you could say that providing FAA services is a separate "business" that loses money since it gets funded by taxpayers in the US to the tune of around $16 billion annually. Emirates would argue I'm sure that that is a "subsidy" to the airlines. But then again, each time a passenger buys a ticket they contribute a small fortune to the government in terms of taxes and fees which would not be possible without the FAA. Not to mention the increase in economic activity that comes with safe and efficient air travel, which causes people to pay more income taxes etc. So does the FAA actually lose money or make money for the government? It all depends on perspective. I'd argue it makes money since it's a cog in a system that overall makes money. Similar with regional airlines. Whether Emirates and other Middle Eastern airlines which have a different tax and financial structure are actual productive cogs in a system which is turning an overall profit is really the question, or are they dumping capacity below the true cost in an attempt to gobble up market share. Questions like these are why the phrase "forensic accountant" exists.

Andy

20 years? Mostly post-911. Call it 15 years, but in those years, there was a huge glut of pilots. That's changed.

United's fleet plan for 2015 calls for a 4-5% reduction in ASMs, even with additional 76 seaters. And management has stated that they plan on reducing the 50 seater fleet by approximately the same amount in 2016.

The CASM of a 76 seater is better than a 50 seater but is still higher than mainline aircraft.

EXPAT1

Chinese carriers are now jumping rapidly into N American market. The Middle East may have subsidies but you haven't seen anything until you witness a Chinese State owned airline reaping subsidies. They have an endles supply of 20 year old Chinese "Hotties" to serve you on your 12 hour flight.

"hereas Chinese airlines are ramping up their expansion, with plans for more. Hainan Airlines intends to take 30 787-9s, mostly for North American service, while most of China Eastern's order for 20 777-300ERs will be used to serve North America."

Chinese airlines overtake US carriers across the Pacific. The big dilemma: US-China open skies? | CAPA - Centre for Aviation

https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/TZ...3109282584.jpg

742Dash

Unfortunately the ME3 will continue to crush their American competition for a simple reason that has nothing to do with labor costs.

Service. They have, the MBA infested US carriers do not.

I work for Atlas, which means more commercial positioning flights than I care to make (a feature of the ACMI/charter world). Fortunately international travel is in business.

At all points in the process the ME3 are miles ahead of the American airlines. Check in, the lounges, seats, attitude.

If United/Delta/American want the high yield international business class travelers then they have to stop treating them as SLF. Get the credit card holders and tip jars (!) out of the lounges and get some real food. Get seats equal to the ME3 (and United -- fire whoever thought 2-4-2 business in the 777 was a good idea), stop serving slop for food and deliver it with a better attitude than you see at an airport Denny's.

The American carriers will continue to be vulnerable until they up their game, at least at the front of the cabin. Finding out that the travel department has booked you on American/Delta/United should not be the bad news that it is.