United Express ???
 

So what happened to my thread? It just disappeared. Anywho, word on the street says the new JCBA will allow 76 seat RJs in exchange for 300 total UAX airframes. UAL currently has 539 UAX airframes (504RJs, 35 TPs). I guess some RJ moderator (rickair??) thought this was flame bait. It's not. Just rumored info.

Sled

yeah some mods are tripper happy moving threads. Look under your profile on the threads you created?

It's gone there too. I was expecting a PM from a mod telling me why he pulled it. Nothing. It's just GONE.

Sled

Also rumored, all the new 787s will be going to gojetssss. Mine has as much proof presented as yours.

yeah, that's likely..... 200+ Express planes going away....where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, the new Delta contract. Sounds pretty similar to me.
We will find out in about a month.

Sled

Makes sense... 50 seat profit/cost being so slim. In times when furlough clauses mean next to nothing, scope is one of the few means of increasing job security and protection. Given the number of furloughs that United has currently and the fact that they have increased their regional feed at the same time --( if I were there and voting)-- I wouldn't vote for a JCBA that didn't produce massive RJ cuts.

HAHA. No doubt gojetssss will get a helluva lot of the new airplanes. Probably see some good growth over there as they have no 50 seaters to park.
On another note. This should make the new ATP hiring standards easy to comply with. There will be plenty of qualified pilots out there.

Sled

The fact is the regional jet industry doesn't make sense when you break it down.

The CR7/9s and E170/175's aren’t that much more efficient than the 50’s and their still much less efficient when compared to all mainline jets. The difference is there are more seats and a dozen or so premium seats to pull the small margins off of. They also allow for increased capacity without increasing flights.

Just examples and you can break them down more if you like. The CR2 burns about 2500 lbs. /hr. at cruise which is about 50lbs/hr./seat. The CR9 burns about 3700 lbs./hr. which is about 48.68 lbs./hr./seat. That’s not much better than the 50. From my jumpseating on AirTran’s 73’s I’ve noticed average burns of around 5000 lbs./hr. at cruise which is about 36.5 lbs./hr./seat. On Delta’s 73-8s I seen burns around 6000 lbs./hr. which is about 37.5 lbs./hr./seat. I don’t have it on me but I know Delta plotted their CASMs for all mainline and all regional jets. Every regional jet had a higher CASM and any mainline jet (DC9 included).

Why are you calling me out??? I didn't delete it, an admin did. I'm not sure why it's flamebait but the admin is in a better position than I to understand UA contractual issues. But I'm sure you'll get violated again if you reposted it without fixing whatever you did wrong in the first place.

I pulled the thread, PM sent to the OP.

For sure! Not like many a poster can actually find the appropriate forum for a particular thread but feel that the forums they personally read are a proper spot for any topic :rolleyes:

USMCFLYR

You're exactly right with these numbers. I've done them all too...part of the curse of being a commuter...endless boredom. That being said...there is more to the story than this. Between my home and ORD there are 10 flights a day. All 10 on 50 seaters. That's 500 seats. The first flight is 530 and the last flight is 1030.
The fact of the matter is...people like 1. options(am,pm) and 2. frequency. The 50 seaters give them that frequency. To take it to the extreme...it makes alot more sense to put 10 50 seaters on it throughout the day than just one A380-800 at noon and noon only. Sure the 380-800 would have a lower CASM than all those 50 seaters but the bigger airplanes are better utilized on longer routes. So with a limited number of airplanes it doesn't really make sense to put larger airplanes on really short route. While the CASM is lower...the M is so short that the savings really isnt significant. Whereas...putting one of your limited number of larger airplanes on a longer route makes alot more sense because the M is so long that the savings of the lower CASM really adds up.

Sure but you're jumping to an extreme when using an example of cutting flights from 10 to 1. Yes they want options but you can still give them options without running 10 RJ’s. Instead of 10 RJs you can use 4 - 737-700's (137 x 4 = 548 seats) or 3 737-700s plus 3 RJ's and still cover the route with good frequency. This is exactly what Delta has started to doing and their doing it with great success. Also the length of flight doesn't matter as much as you’d think (i.e. SWA with all their little hops). Delta will use the DC9 to fly from MSP to RST which is a 15 minute flight and they'll run the Airbus from MSP to FAR (45 minute flight). They run the larger equipment at peak times to increase seats when the majority of travelers actually travel and then supplement them with RJ's for those who aren't restricted by the work or school week. They reduced the frequency but not from 10 to 1 but 10 to 5 or 6. Does it work? Well just look at Delta’s financials.

Believe me, this is where we’re headed and it's a good thing.

I was unaware that United was interested in what customers want.

^^^ what my brother from another mother said. United doesn't care. United ehh republic put me back on reserve this month .. But hey atleast I still got my job I guess..

Just curious, are you trying to prove my point? They are decreasing their regional operations and increasing peak time capacity by using larger aircraft. What's nice is the "cutting fleet size" has nothing to do with maintain ships, its all 50's.

Kinda like a certain mod that does the same on occasion :rolleyes:

Can you provide an example?

USMCFLYR

no, I wasn't trying to prove or disprove anything. I just so happen to have had that article in front of me and I thought I'd post it with your post. Your posts are generally informative and accurate. Love what you have done with your avatar too.

Thank you, I do try. ;)

Moved........

Nice avatar? Yes. Large enough? Nope. :D

It's all about three things when you're trying to make a thread seen: Location, location, location ;) Speaking of which, what happened the the "Moved" feature that left a little ghost of a thread being moved. That was a nifty feature.

good question....oh where, oh where has the "moved" feature gone...