It wasn't presented as a logic problem until your post. I understand what you are presenting. I am daft as well.
So if it's so logical, and so obvious, and cheaper....why does it exist?
Clearly the logic you are using is not what is determining the fleet plan.

To expand on that, if you bring those airplanes on property, the pay rate will obviously increase, making them even less logical. I'm not trying to garner support for them, i'm just trying to understand why some people think they are going away, or coming to mainline.

 

You nailed it! Large jets have a place in the future if you are a low cost airline like Spirit or Frontier. Smaller jets from 76 to 130 seats are expected to grow the most. The E175 can be configured to 88 seats and it would reduce the operating costs significantly. The MRJ doesn't meet scope restrictions, but it can be configured to 100 seats I believe. Boeing recognizes the future and that's why they want to buy/invest in Embraer.

The future without doubt is the low cost model. United has finally recognized it and that's why they are adding significant capacity to compete with the LCCs, but I don't think it will work. UAL doesn't have a low cost model, can they invest 50% in ExpressJet and other regionals and turn them into a low cost/codesharing airline? The B737/Airbus has an obvious place in the market, but it's saturated with LCCs that are growing capacity. United and other majors will have a difficult time in the international market with the growing LCCs as well. Lots of challenges ahead!

 

The other thing missing from this "logic" is frequency and schedule.

 

You didn't add the 401K 16% or profit sharing mainline pilots receive in your calculations. The 737-800 could never be successful in the majority of markets in the 76-100 seat category.

 

You really are clueless, and lost me at Boeing... if they had seen the future they would have shi-canned the guppy over a decade ago and built
1.) something to compete with the 320/321NEO
2.) something to compete with the CSeries

Instead they tried to use politicians and money to stomp out perceived competition, in a segment they don’t even build an airplane for, then were totally blindsided by the Airbus aquistion of the CSseries. Now they’ve got their pants around their ankles desperately waddling around trying to find a solution. They’re trying to buy EMB because it’s their only play. Oh by the way the Brazilian govt just told them to pound sand.

https://hosted.ap.org/thetimes-tribu...embraer-boeing

 

Your statement gave rates and said the rates were less than half. I proved your very simplistic statement wrong. End of story there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The rates are indeed less than half. I was making a simplistic statement.
You tried to turn it into a complex problem that has a whole slew of other factors. Now you don't want to address all the other factors that make your logic "logical".

So, not really the "end of the story there", is it.

If it is so much cheaper, as you are trying to claim, then why does it exist as it does?

 

No Galaxy5 nailed it.....your inability to see the logic is breathtaking. They have always said...”You can’t fix stupid”

 

I never said it was cheaper. In fact, I said there was a 26% spread. The rates are not less than half. Please show your work.

Edit: I will concede, if you are talking about the actual rate itself, and not how it is applied, then yes, it is less than half. So in a vacuum, you’re right. Unfortunately that really has no applicability to how this works.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

And that’s not complex math. That’s “pass the state standardized testing math.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk