![]() |
The unions wouldn't let them do that to us
|
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
(Post 3144066)
The unions wouldn't let them do that to us
|
Originally Posted by flightlessbirds
(Post 3144045)
The 100% month of scope may actually be looser than the 120% 12 mo look back going forward if there is some continued recovery. They won’t have to use March/April/May 2020’s dismal numbers to calculate it.
|
Originally Posted by Hedley
(Post 3144090)
Prior to COVID regional block ran 85-90% of mainline block. UAX was scoped out on the big rj’s, and the company really didn’t want that many 50 seaters, but scope left them the choice of more mainline, or more 50 seaters. In the last 4-5 months express has been flying way over 120% because of the history of being under 100%. With mainline greatly reduced, express will have to stay below mainline NB block until the LOA terminates. United will maximize the use of the bigger rj’s, and this could alter the timeline for the reduction of the 50 seaters. Until United is running a full schedule, UAX will be given less flying. If they have to make a decision to reduce 70 seat hours (all 76 seat jets have to be converted to 70 while mainline is on reduced work) or 50 seat flying, my money says that it is the 50 seat fleet that takes the biggest hit. If this LOA is short lived, UAX could go back to what it was, if this drags on, the company will likely permanently alter the fleet mix and retire the 756 and all but a few 50 seaters. Grab a beer and pop some popcorn, it should be an interesting show. The carnage isn’t over yet.
The only variable that I don't know about is when the slot program at several major airports resumes. With reduced traffic, it's cheaper to run a 50 seat flight on a route that you have no interest in flying than a 70 seater. Especially if you're using the 70 seaters on profitable routes. |
Originally Posted by JediCheese
(Post 3145567)
I agree up to a point.
The only variable that I don't know about is when the slot program at several major airports resumes. With reduced traffic, it's cheaper to run a 50 seat flight on a route that you have no interest in flying than a 70 seater. Especially if you're using the 70 seaters on profitable routes. |
Originally Posted by Hedley
(Post 3145575)
I don’t know what the route structure will look like and how much it will change. We may stop flying 6 flights a day from a hub to LHR in a 767 and run 4 in a 777. We could stop running 6 flights a day on a 175 and run 4 in a 319 or 737-700. We may stop serving very small towns like CLL or HYS. We could end up back to where we were, or with reduced frequency on bigger planes and give up unneeded slots. There will probably be a difference in the near term, and post recovery as well. This could easily accelerate the phase out of different fleets. Just like 9/11 got rid of 727’s, DC-10’s, and most turboprops, this could be the gas on the fire that accelerates how both the legacy and regional fleets change. I really don’t see any older fleet at the legacies or regionals as something that stands a good chance of being here in several years. My money is on an airline industry that looks different than what it did a year ago.
Airframes get cheaper to operate and larger over time, but the same hub and spoke ideas continue on. Ask United how giving up slots and space at JFK and LGA are working out for them. Unless the airlines absolutely need to save cash to survive, they'll need those slots long term and filling them with cheap packing peanut flights allows the airlines to hold onto those valuable slots. |
Originally Posted by Hedley
(Post 3145575)
I don’t know what the route structure will look like and how much it will change. We may stop flying 6 flights a day from a hub to LHR in a 767 and run 4 in a 777. We could stop running 6 flights a day on a 175 and run 4 in a 319 or 737-700. We may stop serving very small towns like CLL or HYS. We could end up back to where we were, or with reduced frequency on bigger planes and give up unneeded slots. There will probably be a difference in the near term, and post recovery as well. This could easily accelerate the phase out of different fleets. Just like 9/11 got rid of 727’s, DC-10’s, and most turboprops, this could be the gas on the fire that accelerates how both the legacy and regional fleets change. I really don’t see any older fleet at the legacies or regionals as something that stands a good chance of being here in several years. My money is on an airline industry that looks different than what it did a year ago.
https://www.courthousenews.com/spiri...k-airport/amp/ All three of the Big Three are going to be downsized. They’ve said that. All three have reduced the number of types of aircraft in their fleets. While this pandemic has been a disaster for everyone it is certainly less damaging to the LCC/ULCC crowd, h€||, Allegiant is planning on BUYING aircraft while they are so cheap. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...argains-abound So yeah, very different indeed. |
Originally Posted by JediCheese
(Post 3145604)
Fuel costs post 9/11 got rid of many older airframes. When oil is 100+ a barrel, it's hard to justify flying an inefficient airplane vs buying a nice new A320/737 that's efficient. Might as well wonder why there's no 737 classics in anyone's fleet.
Airframes get cheaper to operate and larger over time, but the same hub and spoke ideas continue on. Ask United how giving up slots and space at JFK and LGA are working out for them. Unless the airlines absolutely need to save cash to survive, they'll need those slots long term and filling them with cheap packing peanut flights allows the airlines to hold onto those valuable slots. |
AA’s deal with Jetblue and Alaska essentially bypasses scope altogether. This leaves United and Delta without a date, but makes
you wonder if they could bring back TED and Song... |
Originally Posted by JediCheese
(Post 3145604)
Airframes get cheaper to operate and larger over time, but the same hub and spoke ideas continue on. Ask United how giving up slots and space at JFK and LGA are working out for them. Unless the airlines absolutely need to save cash to survive, they'll need those slots long term and filling them with cheap packing peanut flights allows the airlines to hold onto those valuable slots. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:44 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands