|
DOT Final Order-Continuation Of Service
|
Spirit was in the 4% range for market share in 2019. Hence my curiosity about flying being added back in to closed stations.
|
Guess we’re safe till October 1st at minimum
|
Originally Posted by MCDUmanipulator
(Post 3027249)
Guess we’re safe till October 1st at minimum
|
Originally Posted by LandGreen
(Post 3027284)
Did spirit announce they are taking the grant?
|
Back of napkin math , let’s say they do 45 flights a day in a slow down, multiplied by 30 days a month, divided by the number of requires flights per station as per the final order that was just issued (approx 14 at 3 a week) = 96 stations. I think in a 45 flights a day slow down , they could support flying to 96 stations , and keep in mind , international stations are excluded. I’m sure some routes will have higher yields than others , but they’ll probably ask for specific route exemptions like the Greensboro’s Richmond’s , and Asheville’s etc. If the service requirements are the main concern, I’d bet they take the money
|
Originally Posted by schmohawk
(Post 3027321)
Back of napkin math , let’s say they do 45 flights a day in a slow down, multiplied by 30 days a month, divided by the number of requires flights per station as per the final order that was just issued (approx 14 at 3 a week) = 96 stations. I think in a 45 flights a day slow down , they could support flying to 96 stations , and keep in mind , international stations are excluded. I’m sure some routes will have higher yields than others , but they’ll probably ask for specific route exemptions like the Greensboro’s Richmond’s , and Asheville’s etc. If the service requirements are the main concern, I’d bet they take the money
That being said, I hope they are able to take the money, preserve our incomes for a period to come, and on the other side of this we come out and go back to growing as an airline. |
It’s to keep the economy moving. Without the clause all the airlines would just shutdown for the next couple months and then no one would fly causing a kink in the commerce flow
|
So every market we serve once daily - we would still have to go three times a week? This would only be a 57% cut in service. I can’t see this working with single digit passenger numbers. We are already at 90%.
And for the big airlines that are serving a market five flights a day - they only need to serve five times a week now. =86% reduction Prepare for the bad news and furloughs |
Originally Posted by NKSpilot
(Post 3027462)
So every market we serve once daily - we would still have to go three times a week? This would only be a 57% cut in service. I can’t see this working with single digit passenger numbers. We are already at 90%.
And for the big airlines that are serving a market five flights a day - they only need to serve five times a week now. =86% reduction Prepare for the bad news and furloughs |
Originally Posted by schmohawk
(Post 3027321)
Back of napkin math , let’s say they do 45 flights a day in a slow down, multiplied by 30 days a month, divided by the number of requires flights per station as per the final order that was just issued (approx 14 at 3 a week) = 96 stations. I think in a 45 flights a day slow down , they could support flying to 96 stations , and keep in mind , international stations are excluded. I’m sure some routes will have higher yields than others , but they’ll probably ask for specific route exemptions like the Greensboro’s Richmond’s , and Asheville’s etc. If the service requirements are the main concern, I’d bet they take the money
Fly ORD-DTW three times a week and that covers it for all flight requirements in and out of those two airports? Maybe FLL-MCO-TPA-RSW-FLL circle three times a week would fulfill the requirement for all those airports? Something like that would be the best way to minimize operating costs. If we only need three flights a week in or out of FLL that would be a HUUUUUUUUGE savings. (Or DTW or LAS or any other “point”) Either way the requirements of this law are not very well thought out. |
Originally Posted by NKSpilot
(Post 3027462)
So every market we serve once daily - we would still have to go three times a week? This would only be a 57% cut in service. I can’t see this working with single digit passenger numbers. We are already at 90%.
And for the big airlines that are serving a market five flights a day - they only need to serve five times a week now. =86% reduction Prepare for the bad news and furloughs https://www.transportation.gov/sites...er%20FINAL.PDF |
Looks like we are asking for a lot of exemptions. Trying to cut 26 cities. Bold move.
https://www.regulations.gov/document...2020-0037-0049 |
Originally Posted by stevo22
(Post 3027525)
Looks like we are asking for a lot of exemptions. Trying to cut 26 cities. Bold move.
https://www.regulations.gov/document...2020-0037-0049 |
Using ATL as an example. WN operates 431 per week and only has to operate 5. NK operates 73 per week and has to operate 3? The whole list is like this. Unless it means NK is getting a larger chunk of aid, that's some kind of sh!t.
|
Originally Posted by Qotsaautopilot
(Post 3027377)
It’s to keep the economy moving. Without the clause all the airlines would just shutdown for the next couple months and then no one would fly causing a kink in the commerce flow
|
Originally Posted by Silver02ex
(Post 3027495)
It’s more like 75%-80% cut. You’re assuming we have to serve those “routes” which is not the case, however we just need to serve hose stations 3 times a week. Which is similar to our May’s schedule. We just need to do 3 flight per week to that station. For example we do LAS-BOS 7 days a week. We can still drop that route and serve BOS from FLL. The issues is places like Plattsburgh that only see 7 flight per week, and we have to do 3. Here’s a few examples of the stations that we don’t serve now, but what we did per week: MSP-81, IND-28, DEN-84. We only need 3 Flights to these places. The cuts are much higher than you think even if we have to start those stations back up. Here is the final ruling from the DOT which shows who operate to each cities by airlines.
https://www.transportation.gov/sites...er%20FINAL.PDF Wow, thank you for the link to the actual “Final Order”. Looks pretty reasonable and I was completely wrong. Maybe we will end up in good shape with the grant money after all. |
Originally Posted by NKSpilot
(Post 3027580)
Wow, thank you for the link to the actual “Final Order”.
Looks pretty reasonable and I was completely wrong. Maybe we will end up in good shape with the grant money after all. |
$50 we take the money and no furlough till October.
|
Originally Posted by Macjet
(Post 3027670)
Seriously? Frontier, Allegiant, Sun Country, and Spirit got !@#$% on this in a Federal pound me in the !@# sort of way.
|
I find it interesting in the final order that we’re are now required to start 3 weekly flights to Albuquerque NM, Birmingham AL and Macon GA even though I’m not aware that we’ve ever opened a station there.
|
Originally Posted by bruhaha
(Post 3027719)
I find it interesting in the final order that we’re are now required to start 3 weekly flights to Albuquerque NM, Birmingham AL and Macon GA even though I’m not aware that we’ve ever opened a station there.
|
Looks like someone beat me to posting the link to Actual final order, it wasn’t available when I created the thread.
I think this portion of the order is probably the most significant. Some guys probably won’t want to browse the entire document. Starting page 7. “The Department recognizes the objections of NACA and the low-cost and ultra-low-cost carriers. The Department has determined that the impact on these carriers from the approach proposed in the Show Cause Order would be disproportionate and potentially at odds with the aims of the CARES Act. The Department will therefore modify its tentative findings by adjusting the minimum service levels for all carriers by, in effect, creating a third category. The Department will now require that any carrier with a greater than 10 percent share of total industry domestic capacity23 in calendar year 2019 that served a point more than 25 times per week will need to continue serving that point at least five times per week; for points served between five and 25 times per week, the carrier would need to provide at least three weekly flights; and for points served less than five times per week, it would only need to provide one weekly flight. For covered carriers with less than a 10 percent share of total industry domestic capacity in calendar year 2019 that served a point five or more times per week, it would only need to provide three weekly flights and for points served less than five times per week, it would only need to provide one weekly flight. Some carriers, including Allegiant and Frontier, provided additional specific recommendations for the Service Obligation and exemptions that the Department is declining to adopt here. The CARES Act provides the Department with broad discretion to impose service obligations on carriers receiving financial assistance, as it deems necessary and we believe the approach outlined here is appropriate. The modified methodology adopted by DOT results in minimum service obligations that are significantly below carriers’ full pre-pandemic schedules, and provides sufficient flexibility for carriers of all business models to meet their service obligations. The Department believes this modification strikes an appropriate balance between the needs of communities to retain at least minimal connections to the national air transportation system during the public health emergency, as required by the CARES Act, and the economic needs of certain segments of the industry on which the original proposal would have had a disproportionate impact.” |
I counted them up as best I can, I see 145ish weekly flights to the stations listed based on Feb’s numbers. If they even had to double that amount of flights to meet the obligations for each “station” it would still only be like 40 flights a day. 40 flights a day would be a 91 percent cut or so assuming 4400 a week previously.
|
Originally Posted by GrillMaster
(Post 3027754)
I counted them up as best I can, I see 145ish weekly flights to the stations listed based on Feb’s numbers. If they even had to double that amount of flights to meet the obligations for each “station” it would still only be like 40 flights a day. 40 flights a day would be a 91 percent cut or so assuming 4400 a week previously.
I’d like to think optics might factor in to this a bit, but really I’m sure they’ll see which side the scales lean toward financially and make the decision. |
Originally Posted by FNGFO
(Post 3027788)
And it’s still about 10x more than they’re doing now.
I’d like to think optics might factor in to this a bit, but really I’m sure they’ll see which side the scales lean toward financially and make the decision. arent we currently doing 56 a day? How is that 10x what we are doing now? |
Originally Posted by GrillMaster
(Post 3027807)
arent we currently doing 56 a day? How is that 10x what we are doing now?
|
Originally Posted by CAirBear
(Post 3027810)
Exactly. Even if we add another 40 flights a day to comply (not sure), even that isn’t much.
|
Did you see the reason Spirit listed for not wanting to serve the airports they listed
“To the extent that the CARES Act support for contractors is not sufficient or properly distributed, Spirit may have to financially support contractors in certain markets, As of date of filing and based on publicly available future airline schedules, this city is well-served by numerous other airlines” I’m doubtful that the govt will approve these exemptions because by this logic every airline could say “another airline goes there so I don’t need to.” Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
Originally Posted by FNGFO
(Post 3027221)
Spirit was in the 4% range for market share in 2019. Hence my curiosity about flying being added back in to closed stations.
Originally Posted by NKSpilot
(Post 3027476)
Maybe FLL-MCO-TPA-RSW-FLL circle three times a week would fulfill the requirement for all those airports? Something like that would be the best way to minimize operating costs.
So, some more very rough napkin math. Assuming a rough correlation of 4% market share to 4% grant entitlement, that's around $1 billion of grant money (25,000,000,000 * .04 = 1,000,000,000). I've seen numerous estimates on the flight hour cost of an A320, but generally in the $7000-$10,000 range. Assuming an average 2.5-hour block, and taking the middle of that operating cost range, we might be looking at ~$21,250 per flight (8,500 * 2.5). Suppose the company even had to double our current 56 flights per day to meet the government's requirements, that's an additional $1,190,000 per day (21,250 * 56), or $35,700,000 per month (1,190,000 * 30), or $214,200,000 for the six month period (35,700,000 * 6). Granted, this math is extremely crude, but ~1 Billion > ~250 Million. Seems like they'd take the money? |
Originally Posted by CAirBear
(Post 3027810)
Exactly. Even if we add another 40 flights a day to comply (not sure), even that isn’t much.
|
Originally Posted by GrillMaster
(Post 3027807)
arent we currently doing 56 a day? How is that 10x what we are doing now?
|
Originally Posted by Rocinante
(Post 3027845)
A round robin like that would be an innovative way to meet the requirements and cut costs. It could be done in one FDP too. So, some more very rough napkin math. Assuming a rough correlation of 4% market share to 4% grant entitlement, that's around $1 billion of grant money (25,000,000,000 * .04 = 1,000,000,000). I've seen numerous estimates on the flight hour cost of an A320, but generally in the $7000-$10,000 range. Assuming an average 2.5-hour block, and taking the middle of that operating cost range, we might be looking at ~$21,250 per flight (8,500 * 2.5). Suppose the company even had to double our current 56 flights per day to meet the government's requirements, that's an additional $1,190,000 per day (21,250 * 56), or $35,700,000 per month (1,190,000 * 30), or $214,200,000 for the six month period (35,700,000 * 6). Granted, this math is extremely crude, but ~1 Billion > ~250 Million. Seems like they'd take the money? |
Originally Posted by flyingpuma1
(Post 3027825)
Did you see the reason Spirit listed for not wanting to serve the airports they listed
“To the extent that the CARES Act support for contractors is not sufficient or properly distributed, Spirit may have to financially support contractors in certain markets, As of date of filing and based on publicly available future airline schedules, this city is well-served by numerous other airlines” I’m doubtful that the govt will approve these exemptions because by this logic every airline could say “another airline goes there so I don’t need to.” Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Im sure everyone will put forth such arguments, and that the DOT will have to pick and choose a bit, but better to ask and win some than not and win none. |
Originally Posted by FNGFO
(Post 3027871)
Well, the money can only allegedly be used for payroll. I guess they could plan to not spend whatever portion they don’t need for the six months and then use it for future payroll needs in a goofy numbers swap to make it look like it isn’t eventually used to cover operating expenses.
|
Originally Posted by Rocinante
(Post 3027845)
A round robin like that would be an innovative way to meet the requirements and cut costs. It could be done in one FDP too. So, some more very rough napkin math. Assuming a rough correlation of 4% market share to 4% grant entitlement, that's around $1 billion of grant money (25,000,000,000 * .04 = 1,000,000,000). I've seen numerous estimates on the flight hour cost of an A320, but generally in the $7000-$10,000 range. Assuming an average 2.5-hour block, and taking the middle of that operating cost range, we might be looking at ~$21,250 per flight (8,500 * 2.5). Suppose the company even had to double our current 56 flights per day to meet the government's requirements, that's an additional $1,190,000 per day (21,250 * 56), or $35,700,000 per month (1,190,000 * 30), or $214,200,000 for the six month period (35,700,000 * 6). Granted, this math is extremely crude, but ~1 Billion > ~250 Million. Seems like they'd take the money? Per hour cost is a little high I think. Our CASM ex fuel is 5.4 cents per seat mile. For a 2 1/2 hour trip which is about 1000 miles that’s $54 per seat. Times 182 seats on a 320 is $9828. That’s $3931 per hour. That’s all costs including Pilot salary, paying contractors, toilet paper at the GO, Bendo’s bonus, Ted’s guitar lessons, etc. Fuel cost is on top of that, but at a dollar a gallon it’s only about $4 more per seat. Which only reinforces your point that grant money will go along way for us. |
Cheers, thanks for the better numbers.
|
Originally Posted by Silver02ex
(Post 3027854)
I will also add this. If you look at May’s schedule (just look up random cities that we stop serving now) MSP, PDX, DEN and so on. You will see that (as of now) we will start those back up in about 4-5 weeks. So if we don’t get the exemption, all we are doing is starting those stations back up earlier to meet the requirements. I just do t see us doing 56 flights a day in May based on current May’s schedule.
|
Originally Posted by NKSpilot
(Post 3027476)
Maybe FLL-MCO-TPA-RSW-FLL circle three times a week would fulfill the requirement for all those airports? Something like that would be the best way to minimize operating costs.
https://crankyflier.com/2020/04/09/a...-requirements/ |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:14 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands