The trend is bigger jets.
 

One answer, I suppose, to the increasing difficulty in hiring.

ST. GEORGE, Utah, May 9, 2018 /PRNewswire/ -- SkyWest, Inc., (NASDAQ: SKYW) ("SkyWest") today reported 144,600 block hours in April 2018, compared to 152,100 block hours in April 2017, a decrease of 7,600 or five percent. The net decrease was consistent with SkyWest's fleet transition plan to improve the mix of aircraft in its fleet by adding new E175 aircraft while reducing its 50-seat jets.

The year-over-year net change was primarily driven by approximately 6,800 additional block hours from SkyWest's E175 aircraft (includes the E175 aircraft and the E175 SC aircraft) and a decrease of approximately 14,400 block hours from its other aircraft types.

In April 2018, SkyWest's dual class aircraft represented approximately 52 percent of SkyWest's total block hour production for the month compared to approximately 50 percent in April 2017.

SkyWest reported 580,900 block hours for year-to-date April 2018, compared to 604,800 block hours year-to-date April 2017, a decrease of 23,900, or four percent. This net change was primarily driven by approximately 26,500 additional block hours from its E175 aircraft and a decrease of approximately 50,400 block hours from its other aircraft types.

SkyWest had 83,500 departures in April 2018 compared to 90,600 in April 2017, a decrease of 7,100, or 7.8 percent.

These are the numbers published in the fiscal report and they include all of Inc. which means it includes Expressjet.

SkyWest Airlines block hr stats:
April 2018: 116113
April 2017: 101369

Hmm. Don't know what to say. Here is the URL for where I got my info:

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...300645286.html

And an identical posting in the New York Times business section:

SkyWest, Inc. Reports Combined April 2018 Traffic for SkyWest Airlines and ExpressJet Airlines - New York Times

Both allegedly also include express jet numbers...

Up until you hit scope limits anyway...

For those regionals that actually HAVE scope limits anyway. Some, like Horizon, do not.

I'm pretty sure that's getting fixed soon.

One would think so. Yet the parent company has been around since 1932 - what's that - 86 years? And they don't have scope yet.

Yeah but have they tried to push scope limits yet? I would argue that if they tried, it would be stopped.

By whom? The pilots at AS who haven't seen fit to put the scope limits in the contract - ever? The newbie pilots inherited from the Virgin acquisition many of whom simply want to leave,since AS is getting rid of the aircraft they are rated in and the bases they live at? Certainly not the Horizon pilots?

With Airbus now rebranding the bigger CRJs and Boeing buying a controlling interest in the Embraer civilian side, clearly both major aircraft companies believe that SOMEBODY will soon be flying 100 seat jets.

Scope limits arw pretty much always in the mainline CBA, not in the regional CBAs. DL scope limits the DCI fleet count. UALs scope limits United Express. AS would have to negotiate scope into their contract.

Right now DL is maxed out on regional aircraft, for one regional to grow another has to shrink. UAL I think is maxed out as well, but I don’t know their scope as well as I do DL. I have no clue about AA.

My understanding is United and Delta contract language restricts the use of larger aircraft at regional partners at all airlines, meaning if an airline desired to fly larger RJs for Alaska they would have to sever ties with UA and DL.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

UAL’s pilot union has filed a grievance alleging UAL is 2 aircraft over scope as far as 70/76 seaters. UAL’s scope is flexible and dependent on the number of mainline aircraft.

AAL is scoped out as well. As AAL brings regional flying in-house, they have been gradually reducing their flying with non-wholly owned regionals.

This is 100% wrong. Our scope has very defined limits, and the only way the company can increase those limits is by adding a new small narrow body a/c (CS, ERJ, etc.) and even then they can only add one new RJ to the limit for every 4 additional aircraft of the NSNB category.

UAL is completely scoped out and the two a/c found to be in violation of our scope is going to cost them.

So if adding ML aircraft changes the scope cap on large RJs...wouldn’t you call that flexible and dependent on ML aircraft counts? :confused:

No because it’s dependent on a jet we don’t have and aren’t buying.

They have hit the defined ceiling of large RJs allowed to operate, and it’s not adjustable or negotiable.

If we’re talking 50 seaters, then the discussion changes by mainline narrowbody fleet count but I don’t know what our total narrowbody fleet has done count wise.

Delta isn’t scoped out on 50 seat flying...

So, basically, UAL is capped out at 153 76-seat aircraft. The legal language of this agreement is pretty bad because it doesn’t mention what happens with 70-seat aircraft after January 1, 2016.

A basic read says they can have 255 76/70 seat configuration, of which 153 may be 76-seat configuration. A good lawyer would say the agreement doesn’t say this based on the sloppy wording.

Is UAL over on 76-seat aircraft or 70-seat aircraft? How are RAH’s and SKW’s owned aircraft factored in, inside or outside the count?

Not so much.

The newer AS and VX pilots spent years at the regionals, so they have little tolerance for scope shenanigans. The senior VX pilots generally have worked for multiple airlines each, including legacies. They are not all leaving, but I'd expect many from NY to switch to any big four which will have them.

Also now is not really a great time to push scope boundaries. Any regional or alter-ego which is assigned NB size AC will want NB pay pretty quickly in the current pilot market conditions. Additionally, it will then become very hard for that major to hire pilots... nobody is going to sign up if stagnation or furlough is in the future, they would literally lose pilots and not be able to replace them (unless they stoop to CFI's).

AS will probably not take a big steaming scope dump in their house right now, and the pilot group will probably insist on scope next year.

That's just it. I don't believe Alaska has ANY scope limits currently.

Only that provided by DL and UA's regional feed contracts. Neither DL/UA, nor their unions, want to compete with a "virtual legacy" airline with most flying outsourced.

Pretty sure they are scoped out. 125 50 seaters and last I checked they were there.

Delta has actually had to remove 50 seat flying to meet scope. Their scope clause had trigger points requiring the reduction of 50 seat aircraft, which allowed more 70/76 seat aircraft. As said above, magic number is 125 50-seat aircraft.

My understanding if it’s 125 lines of 50 seat flying, not hulls. I’ve never got a solid answer on if the OO at-risk counts against that.

The source for both these reports is a news release by SkyWest, Inc. itself. This seems extremely reliable as a source.

A couple of interesting things. XJT flying is down 40% year-over-year and SKW flying is up 15% year-over-year. I think the shocker was that XJT's 135/145 fleet for UAX is down 28% and that is despite United hiring 23 XJT pilots into their June new hire class through the CPP. I can see why DL and AA are both pulling the plug on XJT with corporate's blessing. At that rate of collapse in flying, XJT's cancellation of the UAX flying will be the year after next at the latest.

There are 104 70 seat aircraft on cpa's. The 76 seat count is 153.

257 aircraft versus the agreed maximum 255 aircraft with a 70/76 configuration. Means that the 104 70 seaters needs to be dropped to 102. I would not think it would be a problem to sit 2 700's. I know United has at least one 175 that is still just sitting because of scope.

FYI. Two formerly united YX birds are being repainted in Delta livery to reduce the UAL count by two and add two spares to the DL flying.

Coincidence?! Think about it.

I don't believe that Horizon, Alaska's wholly owned, has any ties with UA or DL.

He is saying if SKW starts flying larger jets for anyone that our contract with UA and DL allows UA or DL to terminate SKW’s flying for them. So, no direct connection between Alaska - just a cause and effect.

Correct. So SKW is not going to jeopardize the vast majority of their flying to take on a fewer bigger jets for AS (or anyone else).

That's the way the DL and UA managers and unions intended for their scope to work.

What's stopping Skywest inc from opening an alter ego to fly large RJs for Alaska?

Delta’s scope language is.....

It might be possible. Any alter ego would probably have to be completely separate. Separate employee group. Separate 121 certificate. And, then you risk upsetting your customers by skirting their agreement.

You'd certainly upset your labor, but I don't think American/Delta/United management would care at all. We have historical precedent set by TSA/GoJet and Chautauqua/Shuttle/Republic.

Nothing in theory.

But in reality it would likely poison the relationship with DL/UA/AA. SGU knows which side of their bread is buttered.

Also this is not a good time to start up regional/ULCC airlines. There's a pilot shortage at levels below legacy/big-6, but the FAA will require experienced 121 PICs at a startup, so any pilots who would be willing to do it for startup/regional wages would be badly substandard, or would very quickly unionize and demand what they're worth. The juice would not be worth the squeeze. Maybe someday, but not right now.

Delta is SkyWests biggest agreement. They would not upset DL just to fly a handful of over 76 seat aircraft for AS...

I agree, which again wouldn't stop Horizon. But we are slightly off track. The original issue wasn't one of scope, it was about the trend for regionals to fly larger jets, allowing in Skywest's case (and others) for more passenger miles from fewer block hours. It begs the question whether this is coincidental or driven by the dearth of highly qualified regional applicants, since a 76 seat aircraft requires the same number of pilots as a 50 seat aircraft.

Certainly, some markets might be more economically served - at least from a fuel standpoint - by 50 seat jets - but just as clearly these aircraft appear to be being increasingly replaced by the larger aircraft, be they Embraer/Maybe-soon-Boeing or Bombardier/Airbus.

At least to the extent that current scope limitations allow.

Up-gauging to alleviate a pilot shortage might not be limited just to the regionals.

The only downside is pax lose frequency options, which will put you at a competitive disadvantage if someone else will provide that frequency.

There are a couple of things at play:

DL scope has some trigger points that is actually shifting towards larger regional aircraft on average. Total RJs go down but the mix shifts towards dual class at the expense of 50 seaters. So the result is a higher average seat count per aircraft.

AA has a scope language that defines large RJ as larger than 65 seats. I predict that you will see a lot of 50 seaters being replaces by 65 seaters. This will also increase the average seat count per RJ.

SKYW INC is taking or shifting all dual class to the airline side while reducing 50 seaters on the XJT side. So the result is fewer overall block hours at INC level. Probably less ASM at INC level but all growth with OO.