I second that good sir.

 

Unfortunately ALPAs the one that gave up the scope (with the support of it's members at the mainline level of course). There's nothing that can be done about this nonsense.

 

This will probably mean stability, or even growth, at the UAX regionals.

They are parking alll 737s.

They still want to grow international.

They will still need feed for international.

The feed is going to have to come from somewhere...

 

I tend to agree..... its what this business has been doing for 30+ years.... larger aircraft at mainline..... bigger/more at the regional level..... now its international expansion.... less domestic... to be picked up by ....RJ's of some ilk I do fear.

 

Rick I'm not trying to rain on your parade when I post these so don't bite my head off. I'm literally praying you're correct. But being Devil's advocate I'd make the case that this could mean UAL is simply losing an incredible amount of money and is doing any and everything to keep the place afloat. UAL was the first to initiate bag fees because of how bad a pinch they are in. Regional feeders aren't always cheaper. If cutting domestic frequency of flights is the route they want to go then it could make sense to cut the regional flights and do fewer, but fuller, mainline flights. Obviously I'm hoping your correct as it's jobs for all of us but lets not kid ourselves and be unprepared for could come.

 

Personally I'd rather the jobs and airplanes stay at mainline, so it's not really my parade...what I think is going to happen and what I would like to happen are two seperate things, and unlike some people, I can keep the two straight.

If a 120-seat 737 is flying with 80 pax...it is losing it's ***.

Downsize it to a 50/70 seat RJ, then not all 80 pax get to fly...this drives prices up which MIGHT make a full 50/70-seater profitable. Maybe.

If they are going to replace each 737 with two RJ's, then they are stupid of course.

 

The whole point is to remove the seats from the market, not replace them with other aircraft. In order for this industry to survive, as a whole, there needs to be a 20% to 25% reduction of available seats. That means when one carrier removes seats, no one else rushes in to add them back in. Unfortunately, this also equates to several more carriers closing their doors. Definitely dark days ahead for all.

 

Southwest isn't going to let gates sit idle. And, like in the past, WN will pick up the slack.

 

I'm guessing UAL is now starting talks with their "Regional" feed on how to reduce costs (ie concessions). I'm hoping UAL is in better shape than they are projecting, but it doesn't appear that way with the massive cuts and added fees. UAL going out of business doesn't help because it will be hard to transfer the tails to another carrier (especially the 50 seat variety). For RAH, I thought they were hoping to place those tails with United. It appears to be survival mode right now and what was good terms at 100 brl oil may not be the case today. I believe Bedford even said that Frontier offered to continue the contract if RAH would take on some of the fuel costs and that was rejected. UAL may bring the same proposition to the table, especially if they are looking at BK. Fuel is hurting the airlines and it is the one part of a mainline carriers regional cost structure that they cannot control. Only time will tell what will happen, but I'm sure the announcement today probably has the management at UAL's regional feeds (especially those heavily vested into UAL) a little worried about the future.

 

That happened already, it will just be a repeat of what UAL did in the 2003-2004 time frame when they bent over their 3 existing express carriers at that time. And like you said, they had Ch.11 on their side and the ability to exercise more leverage over their contractors. Sadly, we at the regional level are STILL feeling the effects of those concessions.