I know of one FO reserve in TYS that has flown 94 hours this month. I am near the bottom of the seniority list system wide and I am holding a line, so is the guy below me.....

 

Nothing good happens at PSA.

 

Don't think so huh? You guys have new equipment.

 

And yet I am still not happy with being beatin on a daily basis by scheduling and their minions, while 55 guys sit willing to help. But are airplanes are kinda new that makes it all better. There is another company that flies the SAME AIRPLANE for US AIR that's more expencive than us that not only furloughed less people (which is amazing concidering they are almost twice the size of Psa) but also recalled ALL of their guys as well as a short stint of hireing while we sit motionless. But it's ok our airplanes are shiny. Ploblably the best looking in the express fleet, washed often and cleaned often. Yet none of that helps when the company calls me at 2am on my day off because they don't have enough fore thought to staff properly going into spring and most likly summer too. End rant.
P.s. I don't hate awac or any of their pilots or any other airways express CO maybe MESA those guys have been real pricks lately.

 

AMEN...........

 

Why does everyone on here think that 50 seaters are dinosaurs? Do you think that airlines will consistently fly 70+ seat aircraft into places like KFLO and KPGV? There's no demand for that kind of capacity in lesser populated areas like that. With the limited range and speed of turboprops (not to mention their decreasing popularity), 50 seat jets are needed to serve lower capacity markets. They're not going anywhere.

 

You're exactly right. The 50-seater will still continue to exist, but in a much, much more limited role.

A major problem with the aircraft is that breakeven-profit is a very narrow spectrum due to high direct operating costs, namely, high fuel burns. When the CRJ/ERJ series came on the scene through the '90's, oil was in the $20-$40/barrel range. Now we're pushing over $80. And you only have a potential of 50 passengers of which to recoup that cost from...i.e., very high CASM. Keep in mind that many of the tickets sold are on connecting itineraries. Now you're further dividing up that revenue among several segments. Flying that was a moneymaker in 2000 with these jets may no longer be so.

Your aircraft ownership costs aren't cheap, either. Now also, keep in mind that many of these aircraft were bought or financed at the top of the market 10 years ago or in the late '90s, when BBD/Embraer had huge backlogs of orders.

Statment of disclosure: I'm a Dash driver, so I'm inherently biased on this topic. But with that being said, how much more of a revenue premium can the RJ command over a turboprop on a short hub turn such as the two markets you named? Sure, every pax surveyed is going to whine about the t-prop and call the virtues of the jet, but when they're on Expedia at the "Purchase" screen, what's going to matter then?

I fully respect you PSA guys/girls....you're great people who run a great airline. I'm not bashing anyone on here or calling out anyone's aircraft, just pointing out that we're in a tough business environment.

 

The whole 50 seaters are inefficient is crap.
Most of our flight the burn is about 2000 lbs. Or about $12/pax.
This is based on fuel being $2/gallon.
I add it up on each flight and the highest i have ever seen is $22/pax/hour.
Ok so lets say the dash is more fuel efficient by 50%.
It's only at worst case a $10 difference/pax. And that isn't even realistic, I don't fly a dash so i can't compare the two directly but give me a release for a flight from PGV-CLT or anywhere else in N.C. and lets compare numbers.
The regional jets are inefficient only comes from management who want to scare us into working for less money. The airplanes are making them beaucoup cash. Don't be fooled. They just want to make even more money and have us fly a 70-90 seat airplane for the same amount. Their profits increase 40% and our pay will stay the same. Bad deal!

 

I love it when pilots try to play accountant and determine operating costs, and revenue generating ability for a certain airplane. I remember flying with a captain that had this whole complicated formula to determine how economical the Dash was over the RJ. He would then emphasize his point by announcing his findings to the passengers, schooling them on this "green" form of air transport we call the dash. The point is unless you have all the numbers and overhead costs in front of you it's hard to really know what the margins are. I need not remind anyone, airline's margins are razor thin and a few $3 CASM may mean the difference between an operating profit and loss.

I seriously doubt airlines would be purging themselves of 50 seat RJs left and right in order to save a few bucks on labor costs. The amount they would lose in misplaced capacity would negate the savings. Airlines want the capacity the 70-90 RJs provide as well as the CASM. IMHO their is a future for turboprops, especially the Dash, to fill the void in 50 seat capacity. Bombardier is in development of an upgraded dash 8 300, with Q400 speeds. This could be the future of the 50 seat market, and I think all it would take is some PR to get the public comfortable with TPs again, especially the nexgen quiet TPs.

 

You're 100% right on that one. Crew costs are basically negligible.