|
Originally Posted by LAXtoDEN
(Post 3185224)
The CRJ200 is 30% (closer to 20% a year from now) of the SkyWest fleet. 200’s are all paid off, they have more 175’s coming on property, and own all the future orders of ERJ175’s with the CRJ program shut down. I’d assume some 200’s would be moved to SkyWest leasing, and the rest to the dessert.
A scenario of the 50 seater going away would hurt the pilot group and with no scope changes would most likely lead to SkyWest furloughs, but SkyWest Inc. would be just fine. |
Originally Posted by Hedley
(Post 3185251)
Finding someone that wants to lease a high mileage CRJ200 could prove to be extremely difficult these days, especially if fuel prices start to rise. You’re right about SkyWest Inc though. They are large, diversified, and set up to survive.
For cargo ops which do two (or less) relatively short flights per day, the economics work in favor of dirt-cheap used airframes, even at the expense of gas mileage. 1. The airplane's not constantly flying, so it can't support the big mortgage of a new bird. 2. Fuel cost isn't that important if you don't fly much. |
While future plans stated on earnings calls tend to -maybe- happen, it does sound like United is interested in reducing its international exposure by flying those seats domestically which up gauges every route. That is great news for 50 seat reductions.
I didn’t understand how up gauging is going to “increase connectivity”. I’m guessing it means 737s doing routes 700s and 175s couldn’t. That would cut down on passengers visiting two United hubs in a day. In the end though I don’t think major airlines are going to cut service to class D airports but instead these 50 seaters might be flown in the regional colors on a code share. They want riders our of xyz, they just don’t want their brand on the napkin. |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 3185194)
Except the last bonds that AA sold they had to pay 12% for the loan of the money. ForUnited it was 11%
https://i.ibb.co/k0MwvbV/EA6-D4865-1...F794-CB1-F.jpg and their financial situation is more precarious now. Except for Alaska, I think all the majors are junk-rated now. And they don’t have the money to pay off their junk rated bonds, instead they must refinance them by selling new bonds collateralized by older airplanes in the face if their own declining credit ratings. That’s bad enough - akin to refinancing credit card debt by repeatedly charging it on a new credit card at higher and higher rates. Add inflation to that, and the yields will skyrocket. How can ANY company make enough profit to pay off $40 billion (which certainly at least AA will reach before this is over) while paying 15-20% interest on that debt? Inflating your way out of debt might work for the government which after all prints money, but it will put every major airline (and most regionals) in bankruptcy if it happens. Airlines can hedge most of their costs, so I doubt large inflation would be an insurmountable problem. Even such things as pilot pay get locked in for years in the future via the CBA and inflation has no bearing on that. The real issue is if there's shocks to the system instead of a nice steady climb in inflation. Back on topic, the US government (the group that can tax) is much more likely to use inflation than taxes to pay off their debts. |
Originally Posted by JediCheese
(Post 3185288)
No one wanted those airplanes (why would you agree to finance old airplanes at the previous value when there's no market for them). I think Delta and SWA aren't junk. United is junk but they can still access the market.
Airlines can hedge most of their costs, so I doubt large inflation would be an insurmountable problem. Even such things as pilot pay get locked in for years in the future via the CBA and inflation has no bearing on that. The real issue is if there's shocks to the system instead of a nice steady climb in inflation. Back on topic, the US government (the group that can tax) is much more likely to use inflation than taxes to pay off their debts. One cannot hedge interest expense on future debt refinancing. Not when your credit rating is already junk - and yeah, Delta and SWA ARE junk. Anything not A-rated is junk. https://www.fitchratings.com/research/corporate-finance/fitch-takes-rating-actions-on-north-american-airlines-10-04-2020 so back on topic, with serious inflation most of the heavily indebted carriers will be forced to go into bankruptcy. |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 3185299)
Anything not A-rated is junk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_credit_rating |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3185328)
Close but not quite, some of the upper B's are investment grade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_credit_rating Broadly speaking, all bonds can be placed in one of two categories:
The point though, is that airlines are ALREADY paying huge amounts in debt service and will be paying even more in refinancing. This summer AA did a bond sale for $2.5 BILLION at 12%. That one transaction alone means an annual debt service of $300 million. And how much OTHER debt does AA have? We’ll know in another week, but it has to be north of $35 Billion... |
Originally Posted by JediCheese
(Post 3185288)
No one wanted those airplanes (why would you agree to finance old airplanes at the previous value when there's no market for them).
|
Run from this career
If you are even remotely thinking about this as a career....run, run like mad. The future is dismal, bleak, horrific.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUKKBN29W0YS “This is just the start. It will get worse,’' said Brook Simmons, president of the Petroleum Alliance of Oklahoma. “Meanwhile, the laws of physics, chemistry and supply and demand remain in effect. Oil and natural gas prices are going up, and so will home heating bills, consumer prices and fuel costs.’' |
Originally Posted by WhiskyWhisky
(Post 3187022)
If you are even remotely thinking about this as a career....run, run like mad. The future is dismal, bleak, horrific.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUKKBN29W0YS “This is just the start. It will get worse,’' said Brook Simmons, president of the Petroleum Alliance of Oklahoma. “Meanwhile, the laws of physics, chemistry and supply and demand remain in effect. Oil and natural gas prices are going up, and so will home heating bills, consumer prices and fuel costs.’' |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3187029)
Meh. When I switched careers back in the 90's I actually did a very serious analysis of "Peak Oil". There wasn't even the hint of any sort of replacement for petro jet fuel at the time. Today we can fuel the current jets on 100% SAF if necessary. It's more expensive but not unsustainably so, and economy of scale will help with that.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/27/polit...den/index.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5SM1duWDMY Bend over and grab your ankles. It's coming raw, dry, and abrasive. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3187029)
Meh. When I switched careers back in the 90's I actually did a very serious analysis of "Peak Oil". There wasn't even the hint of any sort of replacement for petro jet fuel at the time. Today we can fuel the current jets on 100% SAF if necessary. It's more expensive but not unsustainably so, and economy of scale will help with that.
|
Originally Posted by 9mikemike
(Post 3187585)
MEH, Wrong for sure on SAF. Not viable, not available, not scaleable and not affordable. Of course that can all be fixed like all other green technologies with punitive government measures for traditional energy and 100% percent forced taxpayer support of the “green technology. One more way for the super-elites to become more elite. Sickening
It can become available, and is certainly scalable... not all SAF is a boutique biomass process, you can make it out of air, water, and electricity. That scales infinitely. It will cost more than Jet A, but at current niche production scale it's about 4 times more expensive so based on typical industrial scalability it should ultimately cost less than twice what Jet A costs. That's not great but presumably there will be subsidies and ultimately the industry can adapt to it. We're obviously not switching over all at once. But technically I don't see any alternative, other than catastrophic regulatory caps on dinosaur-powered air travel. SAF is a "drop-in" fuel, that current aircraft designs can use. Alternatives like hydrogen would require total and radical re-designs of the the airplanes $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Unless the green politics can be defeated, but I'm not seeing that either. I've given up whining about it. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3187626)
Unless the green politics can be defeated, but I'm not seeing that either. I've given up whining about it.
|
Originally Posted by 9mikemike
(Post 3187585)
MEH, Wrong for sure on SAF. Not viable, not available, not scaleable and not affordable. Of course that can all be fixed like all other green technologies with punitive government measures for traditional energy and 100% percent forced taxpayer support of the “green technology. One more way for the super-elites to become more elite. Sickening
lol ok nice display of moral outrage Green Energy is good for the economy, it creates well-paying jobs, and the fear-mongering towards it on these boards is hilarious. For all the talk about the threat of China on here, you would think trying to lead the world in innovation in a new sector would be of national security interest. |
Originally Posted by furloughfuntime
(Post 3187949)
Never hear people who are butt hurt over green energy subsidies complain about the billions of dollars in subsidies to the oil and gas lobby over the last several decades. It's okay when the government throws money at the oil barons, but it's a bridge too far when it comes to Green Energy?
lol ok nice display of moral outrage Green Energy is good for the economy, it creates well-paying jobs, and the fear-mongering towards it on these boards is hilarious. For all the talk about the threat of China on here, you would think trying to lead the world in innovation in a new sector would be of national security interest. |
Originally Posted by furloughfuntime
(Post 3187949)
Never hear people who are butt hurt over green energy subsidies complain about the billions of dollars in subsidies to the oil and gas lobby over the last several decades. It's okay when the government throws money at the oil barons, but it's a bridge too far when it comes to Green Energy?
Originally Posted by furloughfuntime
(Post 3187949)
Green Energy is good for the economy, it creates well-paying jobs, and the fear-mongering towards it on these boards is hilarious. For all the talk about the threat of China on here, you would think trying to lead the world in innovation in a new sector would be of national security interest.
The problem is that taking a slash-and-burn approach to ESTABLISHED economic sectors (such as petroleum and airlines) is actually quite bad for the economy, and a few jobs in the windmill industry aren't going to make up for that. For example what's the typical pilot going to do in green energy, drive a truck? For 20% of his pilot wages? If GOVERNMENT is going to meddle catastrophically in major economic sectors then GOVERNMENT needs to develop the plan for job transitions. If they just regulate your job and lifestyle out of existence, and say "let them eat cake", they'll get the predictable results, complete backlash against policy and motives, and that extends even to legit underlying science (if any). Frankly any government plan to drive a major shift out of petroleum is going to require putting a lot of people on a very generous dole for life. Politically there's no other way. 51% of the population can't just vote away the lives, dreams, and financial future of the deplorable 25-30%... that's how you get insurrections (real ones, not dumbass rioters). Basically they have to build the new system, and then invite the people in the old system to come on over. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3187987)
Most people have no idea. Politicians brag openly and hold press conferences when they grant "cool" subsidies. But they don't do that for most other things.
Sure it's good for the economy. The problem is that taking a slash-and-burn approach to ESTABLISHED economic sectors (such as petroleum and airlines) is actually quite bad for the economy, and a few jobs in the windmill industry aren't going to make up for that. For example what's the typical pilot going to do in green energy, drive a truck? For 20% of his pilot wages? If GOVERNMENT is going to meddle catastrophically in major economic sectors then GOVERNMENT needs to develop the plan for job transitions. If they just regulate your job and lifestyle out of existence, and say "let them eat cake", they'll get the predictable results, complete backlash against policy and motives, and that extends even to legit underlying science (if any). Frankly any government plan to drive a major shift out of petroleum is going to require putting a lot of people on a very generous dole for life. Politically there's no other way. 51% of the population can't just vote away the lives, dreams, and financial future of the deplorable 25-30%... that's how you get insurrections (real ones, not dumbass rioters). Basically they have to build the new system, and then invite the people in the old system to come on over. As far as the threat to pilot's jobs, that's just more fear-mongering. Nothing Biden has suggested could lead a reasonable person to believe that. Creative destruction is part of technological change and innovation, and it's necessary. If you want them to "build the new system" so people can transition, that's exactly what these subsidies are for. Help a burgeoning industry gain its footing while we move to a more sustainable model. |
Originally Posted by furloughfuntime
(Post 3187995)
Did you read the article? Biden halted new leases on federal lands and announced his intention to buy electric vehicles. How is that a "slash and burn approach" or "meddling in major economic sectors"? I am trying to understand. The very fact that oil companies are allowed to lease federal lands shows that the federal government is not trying to destroy the industry. Would it also be meddling if the government bought cars with internal combustion engines? I don't see how this is slash and burn, but I guess we may have different definitions.
I don't care if the government opts not to buy IC cars, that's their prerogative, and part of market forces. The problem is when they tell the rest of is that we can't. BTW, if you don't have a technical background, airliner engines are all IC, and there's no remotely practical alternative to that for 90-99% of airline ops... you might just be able to run very small, short range regional prop planes on batteries. But anything with much more than 20 seats is going to be economically infeasible.
Originally Posted by furloughfuntime
(Post 3187995)
As far as the threat to pilot's jobs, that's just more fear-mongering. Nothing Biden has suggested could lead a reasonable person to believe that.
Originally Posted by furloughfuntime
(Post 3187995)
Creative destruction is part of technological change and innovation, and it's necessary. If you want them to "build the new system" so people can transition, that's exactly what these subsidies are for. Help a burgeoning industry gain its footing while we move to a more sustainable model.
What makes people insanely angry is when their jobs, careers, lifestyles and futures are specifically targeted by the government for liquidation. POTUS is not the only politician in DC, I'm talking about the AOC/squad wing. If government's going to go there, they need to make it smooth and relatively painless, and that's not going to be cheap. |
the entire aviation industry will not exist in ten years all in the honor of the carbon footprint. cheers.
|
I think we need to get specific here. One of the issues is when using the term “green energy” what are you referring to? Solar and wind? Personally, I don’t think those technologies have matured yet to take on the base load. Sure, they’re feel good nice for supplemental. But look at the return on investment.
Also when talking about wind & solar you need to talk about storage or batteries. This requires rare and or heavy metals which creates toxic byproducts to process. So how green is it when you consider all aspects. Also be sure your not being sold a bill of goods when politicians start talking swinging policy changes. Who profits from switching to green initiatives. Is it the automobile industry or specifically Cadillac who is looking to become the first all-model EV manufacturer? COVID has proven to be a boon to online retailers and a detriment to small shops/ business owners. So who’s going to get screwed this time? |
This Federal Reserve president shares my opinion on green energy transition...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...KBN29Y2P7?il=0 |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3188018)
I don't care if the government opts not to buy IC cars, that's their prerogative, and part of market forces. The problem is when they tell the rest of is that we can't. |
Originally Posted by itsmytime
(Post 3188243)
when did they tell the rest of us we couldn’t?
|
Originally Posted by Firefighterpilo
(Post 3188267)
California Governor (for now) Newsom pushed through an agenda to make IC vehicle illegal to sale in California 2025. No idea if it went through but he has been pushing hard for it.
|
You tree hugging Biden lovers fail to accept the reality of HISTORY and keep dreaming of utopias. Wake up!!
Delta to Shut Down ComairBy Doug Cameron And Saabira ChaudhuriUpdated July 27, 2012 6:32 pm ETDelta Air Lines Inc. DAL -5.29% plans to close its Cincinnati-based Comair Inc. feeder airline this fall, reflecting the high costs and declining ridership of the small, fuel-thirsty jets used by it and other regional carriers. High fuel prices have upended the small regional jets that blossomed in the U.S. during the early 1990s, transforming small-city airports and becoming a hit with passengers used to flying turboprops. Hundreds of regional jets are parked in the desert as airlines moved to larger, more efficient planes. Oops. |
But what's the future of United Express tho!? 🤔
|
Originally Posted by WhiskyWhisky
(Post 3188274)
You tree hugging Biden lovers fail to accept the reality of HISTORY and keep dreaming of utopias. Wake up!!
Delta to Shut Down ComairBy Doug Cameron And Saabira ChaudhuriUpdated July 27, 2012 6:32 pm ETDelta Air Lines Inc. DAL -5.29% plans to close its Cincinnati-based Comair Inc. feeder airline this fall, reflecting the high costs and declining ridership of the small, fuel-thirsty jets used by it and other regional carriers. High fuel prices have upended the small regional jets that blossomed in the U.S. during the early 1990s, transforming small-city airports and becoming a hit with passengers used to flying turboprops. Hundreds of regional jets are parked in the desert as airlines moved to larger, more efficient planes. Oops. |
Just curious....
Originally Posted by WhiskyWhisky
(Post 3188274)
You tree hugging Biden lovers fail to accept the reality of HISTORY and keep dreaming of utopias. Wake up!!
Delta to Shut Down ComairBy Doug Cameron And Saabira ChaudhuriUpdated July 27, 2012 6:32 pm ETDelta Air Lines Inc. DAL -5.29% plans to close its Cincinnati-based Comair Inc. feeder airline this fall, reflecting the high costs and declining ridership of the small, fuel-thirsty jets used by it and other regional carriers. High fuel prices have upended the small regional jets that blossomed in the U.S. during the early 1990s, transforming small-city airports and becoming a hit with passengers used to flying turboprops. Hundreds of regional jets are parked in the desert as airlines moved to larger, more efficient planes. Oops. |
Originally Posted by GA2Jets
(Post 3188282)
But what's the future of United Express tho!? 🤔
Depends greatly on the future of United. https://i.ibb.co/FJV3c33/A373-EBBA-7...8-CAA18-B8.jpg United Airlines said Wednesday that it finished one of the worst years in its history by losing $1.9 billion in the last three months of 2020, and it predicted more of the same in the first quarter of this year. The loss was wider than analysts expected. The number of U.S. airline passengers had been building slowly since May but was hammered again when COVID-19 cases began surging in the fall, causing health experts to beg people to stay home.United lost $7.1 billion in 2020, an amount exceeded only in 2005, when bankruptcy-related costs pushed the company to a $21 billion loss. Including debt and severance payments, the airline burned through $33 million in cash per day. Revenue plunged 69% in the fourth quarter compared with a year earlier. United predicted a similar decrease — between 65% and 70% — in the first quarter of 2021, a slightly more pessimistic view than the one expressed by Delta Air Lines last week. |
Originally Posted by nonononononono
(Post 3188022)
the entire aviation industry will not exist in ten years all in the honor of the carbon footprint. cheers.
|
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 3188291)
Nothing burger. The Cares2 money expired 3/31. All these people were told they would be furloughed again when the money expired. The true test will be this summer when the LOA for pilot furloughs expires. |
Originally Posted by flynd94
(Post 3188352)
Nothing burger. The Cares2 money expired 3/31. All these people were told they would be furloughed again when the money expired. The true test will be this summer when the LOA for pilot furloughs expires.
|
Originally Posted by furloughfuntime
(Post 3187995)
Did you read the article? Biden halted new leases on federal lands and announced his intention to buy electric vehicles. How is that a "slash and burn approach" or "meddling in major economic sectors"? I am trying to understand. The very fact that oil companies are allowed to lease federal lands shows that the federal government is not trying to destroy the industry. Would it also be meddling if the government bought cars with internal combustion engines? I don't see how this is slash and burn, but I guess we may have different definitions.
As far as the threat to pilot's jobs, that's just more fear-mongering. Nothing Biden has suggested could lead a reasonable person to believe that. Creative destruction is part of technological change and innovation, and it's necessary. If you want them to "build the new system" so people can transition, that's exactly what these subsidies are for. Help a burgeoning industry gain its footing while we move to a more sustainable model. Is it rediculous that over 40 years later we still just store the old rods in a containment pool instead of recycling them? Yes it is, but it is nonetheless true. Government regulation has an extremely long lasting chilling effect. |
Originally Posted by tallpilot
(Post 3188412)
Carter banned the recycling of nuclear fuel rods. Regan reversed it. To this day, there is no infastructure to recycle the rods. Once government bans something private industry stops investing in it because the risk of a future ban is too great.
Is it rediculous that over 40 years later we still just store the old rods in a containment pool instead of recycling them? Yes it is, but it is nonetheless true. Government regulation has an extremely long lasting chilling effect. |
Originally Posted by Hedley
(Post 3188363)
If you are talking about the United LOA, it doesn’t terminate this summer unless demand is back and the pilots are needed, otherwise we have it until 10/22.
|
Originally Posted by flynd94
(Post 3188352)
Nothing burger. The Cares2 money expired 3/31. All these people were told they would be furloughed again when the money expired. The true test will be this summer when the LOA for pilot furloughs expires.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...lion-junk-bond and they couldn’t get enough takers to make it work: https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/united-a...ints-1.1433725 the problem is they have a LOT of bonds maturing from previous years - bonds they sold at 3.5-4%. They don’t have the money to pay off those bonds, they’ll have to refinance them. So their debt service will climb substantially, those parked 787s costing them more and more until international flying resumes. Even if they don’t furlough a single pilot you better believe it affects UAEX, and the career prospects for every UAEX employee. |
Originally Posted by GA2Jets
(Post 3188419)
Uh huh...so was private industry was scared to brew beer after prohibition bc it might get banned again? Private industry won't do things that don't make money, if it's cheaper for them to throw them out, that's what they do unless told otherwise. Most of the time anyway.
|
Originally Posted by tallpilot
(Post 3188412)
store the old rods in a containment pool instead of recycling them? Yes it is, but it is nonetheless true. Government regulation has an extremely long lasting chilling effect.
But for clarity, recycling spent fuel doesn't eliminate the need to store spent fuel... the hot isotopes are still hot and still need to be stored. Recycling separates the very hot stuff (which needs very long-term stoarge) from not-so hot stuff which will decay sooner, and also separates out unburned fuel and which can be repackaged in new fuel and isotopes which can be used in medicine and industry (mostly for imaging). Elements cannot be destroyed or modified (outside of a reactor core), they can only be chemically or physically separated from each other. If it has a long half-life, you're stuck with it. |
Originally Posted by Hedley
(Post 3188363)
If you are talking about the United LOA, it doesn’t terminate this summer unless demand is back and the pilots are needed, otherwise we have it until 10/22.
I meant the protections for us bottom dwellers on the list |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:46 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands