Percentage of flying done by regionals.
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,498
When I was 23 I vowed I would never fly a jet for a non-mainline carrier. I got hired off a Beech 1900. If every pilot had the same opinion as mine regionals would never have had a place in history. I don't expect my Utopian view to be popular, but I just hope regional pilots of today can empathize a little better with mainline pilots. No one foresaw 9/11 or age 65 or the financial collapse of 2008 and THAT is really what enabled the 50 seaters and then the 70 seaters to proverbially Take Off. Today we should all be focused on reversing that trend regardless of where we work.
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Posts: 693
What is completely neglected when you just factor seat miles is the *number* of people who have the United experience at our regional affiliates. Many of our miles are wrapped up in ultra long flights to places like Singapore.
For each passenger buying that ticket, more than a dozen would fly express from, say EWR-BUF to equal seat miles.
So per seat miles, sure we, uh, rock. But as a ratio, how many unique passenger travel experiences go to express? It’s a lot closer and that is a tangible and significant issue.
Would have been nice to have grabbed those 65 737-700s to take control of that ratio and I hope we find ourselves with a NSNB for this same reason.
For each passenger buying that ticket, more than a dozen would fly express from, say EWR-BUF to equal seat miles.
So per seat miles, sure we, uh, rock. But as a ratio, how many unique passenger travel experiences go to express? It’s a lot closer and that is a tangible and significant issue.
Would have been nice to have grabbed those 65 737-700s to take control of that ratio and I hope we find ourselves with a NSNB for this same reason.
I am one in support of facts, and I find the ability of people on the internet to make posts that are fallacious and then have that information gain a life of it's own to be the single biggest failing of the internet. With that in mind here is last month's posting by UCH of RPMS. The point here is that regionals do not carry anything close to what mainline carries in any measure be it passengers or miles, and if you are a subset of regionals you are even a smaller fraction which over the last two decades has changed radically every 5 years or less.
It's all about keeping a healthy perspective . . . on ALL sides.
It's all about keeping a healthy perspective . . . on ALL sides.
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2018
Posts: 160
Are you serious?
The only people to blame for RJ's existing is the mainline pilots who sold out scope to keep a few more dollars in their paycheck.
There is no shortage of people wanting to fly for a living. Regionals have classes full until next year. It you create it, it will get staffed.
The only people creating this mess of a system are the greedy mainline pilots saying "eff the scum below me, I got mine." Now there are a few realizing the heavy intl flying is getting farmed out to JV's at the top and the regional jet flying is getting bigger at the bottom saying "oh no guys! let's band together now that my future wb job might be at risk!"
The only people to blame for RJ's existing is the mainline pilots who sold out scope to keep a few more dollars in their paycheck.
There is no shortage of people wanting to fly for a living. Regionals have classes full until next year. It you create it, it will get staffed.
The only people creating this mess of a system are the greedy mainline pilots saying "eff the scum below me, I got mine." Now there are a few realizing the heavy intl flying is getting farmed out to JV's at the top and the regional jet flying is getting bigger at the bottom saying "oh no guys! let's band together now that my future wb job might be at risk!"
You’re wrong about another thing too. If you look at UAL over the past year and look ahead to the next 2 years, you’ll see substantial growth both in domestic and international capacity.... at mainline. What “farming out” are you talking about? I’m doing layovers in cities I haven’t seen in almost 20 years. EUG, MFR, BNA, SBA, PSP, etc etc.
And, shockingly, wrong again about all the regionals being able to fill classes. At least according to management. *Cough* Great Lakes *Cough*
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Position: B756 FO
Posts: 1,288
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 237
When I was 23 I vowed I would never fly a jet for a non-mainline carrier. I got hired off a Beech 1900. If every pilot had the same opinion as mine regionals would never have had a place in history. I don't expect my Utopian view to be popular, but I just hope regional pilots of today can empathize a little better with mainline pilots. No one foresaw 9/11 or age 65 or the financial collapse of 2008 and THAT is really what enabled the 50 seaters and then the 70 seaters to proverbially Take Off. Today we should all be focused on reversing that trend regardless of where we work.
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 662
Yeah, so, the thing about math....
What those statistics also tell me are, mainline held 84.3% of the flying in 2017, now it's only 82.7%. I don't necessarily disagree with Sunvox's point, but as a % it's trending the other way! And this is an environment where everyone is pounding to take flying back, yet the math doesn't lie. Mainline is growing, but again, the math don't lie here and I would have expected the statistics to show otherwise.
I bet however, if the regional stats were further dissected it would show much of that growth is new service, so one could argue previously served destinations are stagnant on the regional side.
What those statistics also tell me are, mainline held 84.3% of the flying in 2017, now it's only 82.7%. I don't necessarily disagree with Sunvox's point, but as a % it's trending the other way! And this is an environment where everyone is pounding to take flying back, yet the math doesn't lie. Mainline is growing, but again, the math don't lie here and I would have expected the statistics to show otherwise.
I bet however, if the regional stats were further dissected it would show much of that growth is new service, so one could argue previously served destinations are stagnant on the regional side.
#17
Yeah, so, the thing about math....
What those statistics also tell me are, mainline held 84.3% of the flying in 2017, now it's only 82.7%. I don't necessarily disagree with Sunvox's point, but as a % it's trending the other way! And this is an environment where everyone is pounding to take flying back, yet the math doesn't lie. Mainline is growing, but again, the math don't lie here and I would have expected the statistics to show otherwise.
I bet however, if the regional stats were further dissected it would show much of that growth is new service, so one could argue previously served destinations are stagnant on the regional side.
What those statistics also tell me are, mainline held 84.3% of the flying in 2017, now it's only 82.7%. I don't necessarily disagree with Sunvox's point, but as a % it's trending the other way! And this is an environment where everyone is pounding to take flying back, yet the math doesn't lie. Mainline is growing, but again, the math don't lie here and I would have expected the statistics to show otherwise.
I bet however, if the regional stats were further dissected it would show much of that growth is new service, so one could argue previously served destinations are stagnant on the regional side.
#18
On Reserve
Joined APC: Sep 2018
Posts: 13
If you're just trying to compare total flying between both sides, a better metric is Available Seat Miles, not RPMs. RPMs tell you how many passengers were flying; ASMs tell you how much total flying took place regardless of how many butts actually occupied seats.
Comparing ASM's in UAL's 2nd quarter results between 2017 and 2018 show (in millions):
Mainline 2Q 2017: 60,473
Regional 2Q 2017: 6,994
Regional percentage of flying: 11.6%
Mainline 2Q 2018: 63,061
Regional 2Q 2018: 7,641
Regional percentage of flying: 12.1%
Mainline growth 2Q year-over-year: 4.3%
Regional growth 2Q year-over-year: 9.3%
I wasn't able to find anything that broke down new destination growth vs. capacity growth via upgauging equipment between either of the two sides. Certainly growing regional capacity at over double the rate of mainline growth isn't sustainable over the long term because of scope limitations.
It will be interesting to see how the YOY numbers compare when 3Q results get released next month. IIRC, the company has already hit the "scope choke" hard limit on the number of 76 seat airplanes UAX can operate. Increasing efficiency for further capacity growth can only take them so far: there are only so many hours in the day.
Comparing ASM's in UAL's 2nd quarter results between 2017 and 2018 show (in millions):
Mainline 2Q 2017: 60,473
Regional 2Q 2017: 6,994
Regional percentage of flying: 11.6%
Mainline 2Q 2018: 63,061
Regional 2Q 2018: 7,641
Regional percentage of flying: 12.1%
Mainline growth 2Q year-over-year: 4.3%
Regional growth 2Q year-over-year: 9.3%
I wasn't able to find anything that broke down new destination growth vs. capacity growth via upgauging equipment between either of the two sides. Certainly growing regional capacity at over double the rate of mainline growth isn't sustainable over the long term because of scope limitations.
It will be interesting to see how the YOY numbers compare when 3Q results get released next month. IIRC, the company has already hit the "scope choke" hard limit on the number of 76 seat airplanes UAX can operate. Increasing efficiency for further capacity growth can only take them so far: there are only so many hours in the day.
#19
No but Southwest, Kiwi, Vanguard, Spirit, Frontier, and others were around, and I did not and would never have applied to any. In fact I was called at home and offered a job at Vanguard while I was flying a 1900 and turned it down. I would have gotten to United a year earlier had I taken the job, but I'm a bit of a utopian and altruist at heart, and I believed then as I do now that pilots should not fly jets for non-mainline companies. I actually had applications in for investment jobs in '96 when I finally got hired at UAL because I promised myself if I didn't make it to the mainlines by 30 I'd look for work elsewhere rather than go to work for a non-mainline jet company. Lucky for me, United called 3 months before I turned 30.
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 1,820
If you're just trying to compare total flying between both sides, a better metric is Available Seat Miles, not RPMs. RPMs tell you how many passengers were flying; ASMs tell you how much total flying took place regardless of how many butts actually occupied seats.
Comparing ASM's in UAL's 2nd quarter results between 2017 and 2018 show (in millions):
Mainline 2Q 2017: 60,473
Regional 2Q 2017: 6,994
Regional percentage of flying: 11.6%
Mainline 2Q 2018: 63,061
Regional 2Q 2018: 7,641
Regional percentage of flying: 12.1%
Mainline growth 2Q year-over-year: 4.3%
Regional growth 2Q year-over-year: 9.3%
I wasn't able to find anything that broke down new destination growth vs. capacity growth via upgauging equipment between either of the two sides. Certainly growing regional capacity at over double the rate of mainline growth isn't sustainable over the long term because of scope limitations.
It will be interesting to see how the YOY numbers compare when 3Q results get released next month. IIRC, the company has already hit the "scope choke" hard limit on the number of 76 seat airplanes UAX can operate. Increasing efficiency for further capacity growth can only take them so far: there are only so many hours in the day.
Comparing ASM's in UAL's 2nd quarter results between 2017 and 2018 show (in millions):
Mainline 2Q 2017: 60,473
Regional 2Q 2017: 6,994
Regional percentage of flying: 11.6%
Mainline 2Q 2018: 63,061
Regional 2Q 2018: 7,641
Regional percentage of flying: 12.1%
Mainline growth 2Q year-over-year: 4.3%
Regional growth 2Q year-over-year: 9.3%
I wasn't able to find anything that broke down new destination growth vs. capacity growth via upgauging equipment between either of the two sides. Certainly growing regional capacity at over double the rate of mainline growth isn't sustainable over the long term because of scope limitations.
It will be interesting to see how the YOY numbers compare when 3Q results get released next month. IIRC, the company has already hit the "scope choke" hard limit on the number of 76 seat airplanes UAX can operate. Increasing efficiency for further capacity growth can only take them so far: there are only so many hours in the day.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post