UAL's UAX flying to increase?
06-04-2008 | 11:13 AM
#24
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,755
Likes: 6
If there is another round of bankruptcies it'll be a bloodbath like never before seen. I have buddies at United and they are so beaten down that some say they'd just as soon see the company go out of business than cut pay and benefits further. And I think the companies know it. It won't be endless Ch. 11. It'll be right to liquidation for some if it really comes to that.
06-04-2008 | 12:06 PM
#25
Doing One Pilot's Job
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,889
Likes: 123
I may **** off fosters again for posting "insider information"...but since its pubically available information I'm gonna post it anyway:
UAL ALPA small jet scope...
UAL ALPA small jet scope...
1-K-22 “Small Jets" means (a) Jet Aircraft that are certificated in the United States of America for seventy (70) or fewer seats and a maximum permitted gross takeoff weight of less than eighty thousand (80,000) pounds and (b) up to eighteen (18) specific aircraft with certificated seating capacity in excess of seventy (70) seats operated by Feeder Carrier Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. ("AWAC"). These eighteen aircraft are identified as the "AWAC Quota"
Currently, the AWAC Quota is filled by BAe-146 aircraft with the following tail numbers: N463AP, N179US, N181US, N183US, N606AW, N607AW, N608AW, N609AW, N610AW, N611AW, N612AW, N614AW, N615AW, N616AW, N290UE, N291UE, N292UE, and N156TR.
AWAC may replace any aircraft within the AWAC Quota with:
(i) any other BAe-146 or AVRO 85 aircraft each with no more passenger seats than were carried in the actual operation of the replaced aircraft, or
(ii) any other aircraft with a maximum certificated seating capacity in the United States of eighty-five (85) seats and a maximum certificated gross takeoff weight in the United States of up to ninety thousand (90,000) pounds.
Currently, the AWAC Quota is filled by BAe-146 aircraft with the following tail numbers: N463AP, N179US, N181US, N183US, N606AW, N607AW, N608AW, N609AW, N610AW, N611AW, N612AW, N614AW, N615AW, N616AW, N290UE, N291UE, N292UE, and N156TR.
AWAC may replace any aircraft within the AWAC Quota with:
(i) any other BAe-146 or AVRO 85 aircraft each with no more passenger seats than were carried in the actual operation of the replaced aircraft, or
(ii) any other aircraft with a maximum certificated seating capacity in the United States of eighty-five (85) seats and a maximum certificated gross takeoff weight in the United States of up to ninety thousand (90,000) pounds.
06-04-2008 | 12:30 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
From: FO
An RJ is not profitable at the current price/barrel of oil. 50 seats are profitable up to around $50/ barrel; 70 seaters are profitable up to $70/ barrel; and 130 seaters are profitable up to $130/ barrel. This of course is with the current ticket prices and nearly full aircraft. Any aircraft with less than 120-130 seats and has jet engines is not profitable from A to B (right now) even with full loads. RJ's will still have their place in some markets, but I would expect to see a lot of capacity dropped on the regional side. Why united didn't start with the regionals is beyond me.
06-04-2008 | 12:33 PM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
From: FO
SWA announced cutbacks by retiring aircraft (19 I think this year was the original number) while taking the aircraft already set up for delivery. So far they've already announced they won't be retiring as many. I think it is 9 aircraft they're keeping so far that they said they would retire . Each month they add so more flights and announce a higher net aircraft gain for the year.
06-04-2008 | 12:45 PM
#28
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
From: 737 RIGHT SEAT
An RJ is not profitable at the current price/barrel of oil. 50 seats are profitable up to around $50/ barrel; 70 seaters are profitable up to $70/ barrel; and 130 seaters are profitable up to $130/ barrel. This of course is with the current ticket prices and nearly full aircraft. Any aircraft with less than 120-130 seats and has jet engines is not profitable from A to B (right now) even with full loads. RJ's will still have their place in some markets, but I would expect to see a lot of capacity dropped on the regional side. Why united didn't start with the regionals is beyond me.
06-04-2008 | 12:53 PM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,899
Likes: 0
From: Leftof longitudinal
Oh yes they can. Continental made two trips. 1983-1986, then again 1990-1993. It is ugly and make attorneys and senior management a whole lot of money. <ng>
06-04-2008 | 01:01 PM
#30
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,132
Likes: 797
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
An RJ is not profitable at the current price/barrel of oil. 50 seats are profitable up to around $50/ barrel; 70 seaters are profitable up to $70/ barrel; and 130 seaters are profitable up to $130/ barrel. This of course is with the current ticket prices and nearly full aircraft. Any aircraft with less than 120-130 seats and has jet engines is not profitable from A to B (right now) even with full loads. RJ's will still have their place in some markets, but I would expect to see a lot of capacity dropped on the regional side. Why united didn't start with the regionals is beyond me.
Neither RJ or 737 is profitable under current conditions.
If you have less than 100 pax, a 737 probably cannot be profitable without massive fare increases.
If you fill up an RJ, AND raise fares sufficiently the RJ might be profitable.
This assumes that they will replace each 737 with only one, or possibly two RJ's.
A 150-seat 737 will be more economical than three 50-seat RJ's under any circumstances. But if you have fewer than 150 pax, then RJ's start to look better.
Nothing is going to work with much less than 50 pax, unless it has propellors.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
JetFlyer06
Major
16
01-20-2008 03:29 AM
