Will you help out Mesa...National Seniority list?
01-08-2009, 05:53 AM
#131
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: CL-65 CA
Posts: 246
Originally Posted by Atwoo155
MESA operates more that 5 200's on the airways side alone, to say nothing of what is remaining at GO and all the 200's they operate for UNITED. Where did you get this 5 AC number?
01-08-2009, 07:36 AM
#132
Che Guevara
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,408
Originally Posted by BoilerUP
Because it is ultimately cheaper for LCC to outsource that flying
I agree with you that there are multiple factors at play here, but to ignore the financial health of a company who is doing the outsourcing would be overlooking another one of those causation factors.
I agree with you that there are multiple factors at play here, but to ignore the financial health of a company who is doing the outsourcing would be overlooking another one of those causation factors.
01-08-2009, 02:28 PM
#133
The NeverEnding Story
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,515
Originally Posted by ToiletDuck
Like I said. Outsourcing is "cheaper" because the companies themselves are cheaper in the grand scheme of things in comparison to the wholly owned.
Operationally, PSA is cheaper than RAH when it comes to 70 seat aircraft. I can't absolutely prove this to you because such costs are not broken out on the 10-Qs, but let's think logically about it - PSAs CR7s burn less fuel (also generate less revenue) than the E70, their crew labor costs are lower than RAH due to lower seniority/hourly rates/work rules, and they take advantage of Airways' economies of scale when it comes to other required services.
Why then, if PSA is operationally cheaper than RAH, is it more financially advantageous for Tempe to give 70 seat airframes to RAH instead of growing PSA?
Because RJET is willing to accept the financial costs related to 'small jet' aircraft acquisition, allowing Airways to save its available cash and credit for other capital purchases like widebodies to grow international flying.
I don't disagree with your conclusion, but I think your reasoning is seriously flawed by dismissing this very important financial factor.
01-08-2009, 03:13 PM
#134
Che Guevara
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,408
Originally Posted by BoilerUP
Yes, but you seem to be missing WHY its cheaper to out-source vs. in-sourcing...which is exactly what I've been talking about and you so casually dismissed in post #129.
Operationally, PSA is cheaper than RAH when it comes to 70 seat aircraft. I can't absolutely prove this to you because such costs are not broken out on the 10-Qs, but let's think logically about it - PSAs CR7s burn less fuel (also generate less revenue) than the E70, their crew labor costs are lower than RAH due to lower seniority/hourly rates/work rules, and they take advantage of Airways' economies of scale when it comes to other required services.
Why then, if PSA is operationally cheaper than RAH, is it more financially advantageous for Tempe to give 70 seat airframes to RAH instead of growing PSA?
Because RJET is willing to accept the financial costs related to 'small jet' aircraft acquisition, allowing Airways to save its available cash and credit for other capital purchases like widebodies to grow international flying.
I don't disagree with your conclusion, but I think your reasoning is seriously flawed by dismissing this very important financial factor.
Operationally, PSA is cheaper than RAH when it comes to 70 seat aircraft. I can't absolutely prove this to you because such costs are not broken out on the 10-Qs, but let's think logically about it - PSAs CR7s burn less fuel (also generate less revenue) than the E70, their crew labor costs are lower than RAH due to lower seniority/hourly rates/work rules, and they take advantage of Airways' economies of scale when it comes to other required services.
Why then, if PSA is operationally cheaper than RAH, is it more financially advantageous for Tempe to give 70 seat airframes to RAH instead of growing PSA?
Because RJET is willing to accept the financial costs related to 'small jet' aircraft acquisition, allowing Airways to save its available cash and credit for other capital purchases like widebodies to grow international flying.
I don't disagree with your conclusion, but I think your reasoning is seriously flawed by dismissing this very important financial factor.
2. If you don't have numbers you can't say one is cheaper. That's all there is to it. We can think PSA is cheaper but we have no idea what they managed to finance their aircraft at. We have no idea what their training department costs are. We also have no idea what their MX costs are. The CRJs have much higher MX requirements than the E birds.
Either way that's arbitrary. In general after it's all said and done an outsourced regional weighs less on the wallet than an in house which is why mainlines chose to do business with them. DAL already has the Comair planes yet they sit on a ramp in CVG simply because the flying quoted to them was cheaper than what they could do it for.
01-26-2009, 07:42 AM
#135
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: RJ FO
Posts: 171
In the short run outsourcing is cheaper, however in the long run I would say that wholyowns are cheaper. Even if Airways isn't fronting the money for the RAHes airframes they are paying for them. In the case of PSA and PDT all the profit (if there is any) goes to Airways. In the Case of RAH all the profit stays at RAH.
01-26-2009, 07:57 AM
#136
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,297
Originally Posted by Atwoo155
In the short run outsourcing is cheaper, however in the long run I would say that wholyowns are cheaper. Even if Airways isn't fronting the money for the RAHes airframes they are paying for them. In the case of PSA and PDT all the profit (if there is any) goes to Airways. In the Case of RAH all the profit stays at RAH.
I think about 30% wholly-owned is the maximum which makes business sense...that way mainline gets some profit but still has plenty of whipsaw leverage via the contractors.
01-28-2009, 06:19 AM
#137
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Position: RJ driver
Posts: 320
Originally Posted by rickair7777
I think about 30% wholly-owned is the maximum which makes business sense...
Some of these points do not have to be applied to a wholly-owned, but could be applied to a single contractor. There'd be more profit in wholly-owned since it cuts out the middle-man, but there are still advantages of having a large primary feeder with one or two secondary feeders for whipsawing even if all are contract regionals.
01-28-2009, 07:31 AM
#138
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,297
Originally Posted by Jake Wheeler
You make some excellent points, rick, but why not flip the number around to 70%? Still a large enough block to whipsaw, but now would have more control over seasonal scheduling among hubs, quality of training and maintenance and daily mechanical problems forcing cancellations.
Some of these points do not have to be applied to a wholly-owned, but could be applied to a single contractor. There'd be more profit in wholly-owned since it cuts out the middle-man, but there are still advantages of having a large primary feeder with one or two secondary feeders for whipsawing even if all are contract regionals.
Some of these points do not have to be applied to a wholly-owned, but could be applied to a single contractor. There'd be more profit in wholly-owned since it cuts out the middle-man, but there are still advantages of having a large primary feeder with one or two secondary feeders for whipsawing even if all are contract regionals.
01-28-2009, 07:50 AM
#139
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: Non flying, pays better than any front seat, home every night, not missing the crashpad/
Posts: 133
Originally Posted by seafeye
Seriously, not a flame question...
If and when Mesa goes TU, will you honor a national seniority list if ALPA puts one out?
If your airline gets some of Mesa's airplanes after they go broke are you going to let Mesa pilots work those airplanes? Be intergrated on your seniority list? Or are we going to let those pilots start at the bottom again?
I ask because....
If and when Mesa goes TU, will you honor a national seniority list if ALPA puts one out?
If your airline gets some of Mesa's airplanes after they go broke are you going to let Mesa pilots work those airplanes? Be intergrated on your seniority list? Or are we going to let those pilots start at the bottom again?
I ask because....
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.....
being a former Atlantic Coast / Independence Air type, and who took who's flying...JO should have gone away a long time ago
I guess it would be ok with me, I have 20+ years behind me most of which being a full alpa dues paying member
still looking for A
J O B
01-28-2009, 07:56 AM
#140
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Hot tub for now
Posts: 1,203
PSA and PDT can't strike. Whereas all the other non-wholly owned can.
PSA's and PDT's airplanes are owned by US Airways or Gecas, so if we go on strike all of our airplanes get transfered to Republic, TSA, Chautauqua or elsewhere that very next day. Sure the FAA may take their time to do the paperwork but dont' think that this all won't be done ahead of time if a strike is in the forcast. Our hands are tied, we can't strike or the company will just fold and that would be one less headache for mainline.
The reason air wiskey and republic are getting more flying is because they are paying for it. PSA doesn't have any money to buy flying so we get whatever crap is left over. Our next contract will be whatever management feels we deserve.
PSA's and PDT's airplanes are owned by US Airways or Gecas, so if we go on strike all of our airplanes get transfered to Republic, TSA, Chautauqua or elsewhere that very next day. Sure the FAA may take their time to do the paperwork but dont' think that this all won't be done ahead of time if a strike is in the forcast. Our hands are tied, we can't strike or the company will just fold and that would be one less headache for mainline.
The reason air wiskey and republic are getting more flying is because they are paying for it. PSA doesn't have any money to buy flying so we get whatever crap is left over. Our next contract will be whatever management feels we deserve.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
