Swa May Add Rjs To Fleet

[KCFlyer]

I'll have to agree to disagree on the RJ's Planes... I do stand corrected on the load factor...for the first 6 months of the year, the BELF was 71.9% - up 1% from last year. I still don't think it's a great position to be in where you need to fill almost 72% of your seats to break even.

The new smaller jets are going to increase costs by 14%. Sure, it's only a penny, but it seems to me that just a few cents in the airline industry is the difference between profit and loss. And that increase is just to operate the planes. There WILL be training and transition costs that will begin to be reflected in the cost side of things, there will be increasing ongoing maintenance costs for the older 320's. Something is going to have to cover those costs, and if it's an increase in fares, then how much will the public tolerate? I mean, there are people over on Clark Howard's (a consumer reporter) website where people think they are getting screwed with a $500 fare from St. Louis to Hawaii, or $199 round trip from Atlanta to Seattle. How much of a fare increase will they put up with?

And I really do think that using the RJ's as "training" planes will not go over well with the crews flying them... I really think that introducing a second plane into the mix introduces complications in pilot expectations. Look no futher than the "special" status of the 737-200 crews at Southwest, and that's not even a separate model.

Please don't think I am bashing JetBlue - I'm not. But I think that it's not a smart move to do anything that increases your costs (especially in double digit percentages) when your competition is doing everything in their power to reduce their costs...and the difference in costs really isn't all that much. What happens when JetBlue's costs exceed Southwests? The penny increase with the RJ's will push your costs up SWA's level. The additional costs will put them above that. And with the big boys trying their damndest to get their ASM costs below 10 cents, it's putting JetBlue dangerously close to fight like they've never known.

 

[WNjetdoc]

Are you trying to imply something with this statement? Or are you relaying fact? Do SWA pilots continue to get training while flying with passengers onboard?

A10, don't worry, he has a "little chubby" for SWA, B) .

 

[A10Pilot]

Don't get your panties in a wad, ALL airlines do a fair amount of training with Pax onboard. It's not like you just showed up at UPT. Most majors transition pilots between aircraft, so some time must be spent familiarizing oneself with a new jet (like going from Guppy to Bus). SWA pilots just need "left handed flying lessons". the "decision making" lessons are learned on IOE. All airlines try to limit the amount of time it's pilots spend NOT generating revenue. this ain't the AF.

Thank you for clearing that up for me. Truly, you have a dizzying intellect and rapier wit. Now I realize my 20+ years of flying experience, including flying combat, fighting in two wars, and flying for a major airline all these years is insignificant. I await further instruction to attain your jedi airline pilot status.

Now, if I could just find those panties.....

 

[Busdrvr]

Thank you for clearing that up for me. Truly, you have a dizzying intellect and rapier wit. Now I realize my 20+ years of flying experience, including flying combat, fighting in two wars, and flying for a major airline all these years is insignificant. I await further instruction to attain your jedi airline pilot status.

Now, if I could just find those panties.....

"Thank you for clearing that up for me. Truly, you have a dizzying intellect and rapier wit. Now I realize my 20+ years of flying experience, including flying combat, fighting in two wars, and flying for a major airline all these years is insignificant. I await further instruction to attain your jedi airline pilot status."

Wnjet acute care specialist (WNJetdoc would be missleading unless you work for Timco), What did I say that was anti-SWA? I made the point that adding fleets would likely destroy the training cost advantage. SWA's upgrade school is around less that two weeks (would an SWA pilot like to clarify the number of sims and the amount of time for upgrade school). No slam. you can do that due to having only ONE fleet. I think that'd change if you added another.

A10,
Your "surprise" at the notion that SWA (or any other major airline) would actually conduct training with revenue pax suggested you were unaware of the way training was accomplished outside the AF. I had no Idea you were such an accomplished VFR min-Far pilot with airline experience to boot (wow, TWO wars? That's impressive... )

 

[JS]

I dunno about that JS. From MCI, I can go to 22 Southwest cities on a nonstop flight. You're right, TUS isn't one of them. Compare that to 2 cities on United, 2 cities on AA, 2 cities on NWA, 3 cities on U, and 4 cities on Delta. And I doubt seriously that 22 fewer seats than a 737-500 is going to allow them to start serving TUS-MCI with a nonstop flight anytime soon.

KCFlyer, MCI is a Southwest hub. For the other airlines, MCI is not a hub.

Consider JAN, which is not a WN hub. WN flies from JAN to the hubs of BWI, HOU, MDW and MCO. WN does not offer any service at all from JAN to BOI, JAX, LIT, BNA, MSY, PDX, GEG, TPA, TUS and PBI.

Delta offers service from JAN to all those cities I listed except for MSY ("service" as in, a published fare exists; obviously you can fly to ATL and back on two fares). Only NW publishes a fare between JAN and MSY (via MEM).

If Southwest had some small planes, they would be able to offer more service out of JAN and JAX, making it possible to fly between the two.

 

[KCFlyer]

JS - let's try some nonhub cities, shall we?

How about ABQ...nonstops to MDW,DAL,ELP,HOU,MCI,LAS,LAX,LBB,MAF,OAK,MCO,PHX,PDX,STL,SLC,SAN,SEA,TP
,TUS

Or maybe Austin...nonstops to:

DAL,ELP,HOU,LAS,LAX,LBB,MAF,BNA,MCO,PHX,HRL,SAN,TPA.

That's still a lot of nonstops for "nonhub" cities.

 

[Ch. 12]

KCFlyer, MCI is a Southwest hub. For the other airlines, MCI is not a hub.

Consider JAN, which is not a WN hub. WN flies from JAN to the hubs of BWI, HOU, MDW and MCO. WN does not offer any service at all from JAN to BOI, JAX, LIT, BNA, MSY, PDX, GEG, TPA, TUS and PBI.

Delta offers service from JAN to all those cities I listed except for MSY ("service" as in, a published fare exists; obviously you can fly to ATL and back on two fares). Only NW publishes a fare between JAN and MSY (via MEM).

If Southwest had some small planes, they would be able to offer more service out of JAN and JAX, making it possible to fly between the two.

Some markets (JAN/JAX) aren't worth competing in. That is why nobody else is going against DL. There's no room for another carrier...especially one that demands high loads.

...why not add in OAJ and JAC? Just one more and we've got the Jackson 5!

 

[JS]

JS - let's try some nonhub cities, shall we?

How about ABQ...nonstops to MDW,DAL,ELP,HOU,MCI,LAS,LAX,LBB,MAF,OAK,MCO,PHX,PDX,STL,SLC,SAN,SEA,TP
,TUS

Or maybe Austin...nonstops to:

DAL,ELP,HOU,LAS,LAX,LBB,MAF,BNA,MCO,PHX,HRL,SAN,TPA.

That's still a lot of nonstops for "nonhub" cities.

Southwest has been serving ABQ and AUS for a long time. There is little need for smaller planes there.

From AUS, the flights to hubs are DAL, HOU, LAS, LAX, BNA, MCO, PHX and TPA. The non-hub flights are ELP, LBB, MAF, HRL and SAN. Of those five non-hub flights, only one is outside Texas. Presumably ELP, LBB, MAF and HRL are well-established routes that have been around for a long time. Most of Southwest's cities other than the hubs don't have the kind of service that AUS has. Even then, at AUS, 3/4 of the flights are boring old hub flights.

I mentioned JAN in my example because the JAN's of the world are the only places left for Southwest to grow into (besides NYC, ATL, MSP, etc.) AUS's exansion is limited.

 

[JS]

Some markets (JAN/JAX) aren't worth competing in. That is why nobody else is going against DL. There's no room for another carrier...especially one that demands high loads.

What do you mean, no one else is going against Delta? Continental and Northwest sell tickets in that market.

 

[JS]

Something else to consider is that even in their home state of Texas, there are lots of airports Southwest does not serve. With smaller planes, Southwest would be able to serve TXK, GGG, TYR, ILE, ABI, LRD, CLL, ACT and SPS.

Come on, how difficult could it be to compete with American Eagle? Even I don't care that much about seat assignments on a small plane.

 

[whatkindoffreshhell]

No, jetblues BELF is not 80%; in fact it is much less than other airlines (especially SONG, which is another story). What would be the BELF on a B6 ERJ?

Let’s look at a JFK-RIC trip of aprox 500mi

ASM: 100 seats X 500mi = 50,000

CASM: looking at Jetblues average seat mile cost which is around 6 cents, when you add 14% (the additional cost they said it will take to operate the RJ) you get around 9 cents.
$.09 X 50,000 gives you a trip cost of $4,500

Cost per seat $4500 / 100 seats = $45


***Math correction to jetBlue's favor: 6 cents plus 14% would bump the cost up to about 7 cents. Your example displays a 50% increase to 9 cents.

As for all the jetBlue naysayers: which culture which you rather work in -- jetBlue or any one of the majors?

 

[KCFlyer]

I'm not really a Jetblue naysayer...but the 14% increase is just the operation of the smaller jets by itself. The existing A320's are going to reach a point where they will require more maintenance. Not bashing Airbus either - it's just a fact that as planes age, they need a bit more care. So those costs will increase. That'll soon put you over SWA's costs. Startup costs in these new RJ cities will push up costs. Now while JS tries to point out that Southwest could offer RJ flights to Tyler, what about the cities that JetBlue could serve with 320's - MCI, STL, ORD(or MDW), IND, CLE are just a few that come to mind. IMHO, Jetblue has more growth opportunities by sticking with their original business plan of one aircraft type and starting service to some of these larger cities than they would realize by adding the cost and complexities of a mixed fleet.

 

[FWAAA]

Originally posted by Planes333:
What would be the BELF on a B6 ERJ?

Let’s look at a JFK-RIC trip of aprox 500mi

ASM: 100 seats X 500mi = 50,000

CASM: looking at Jetblues average seat mile cost which is around 6 cents, when you add 14% (the additional cost they said it will take to operate the RJ) you get around 9 cents.
$.09 X 50,000 gives you a trip cost of $4,500

Cost per seat $4500 / 100 seats = $45

Current average fare to RIC from NYC is $180 one way. If Jetblue charged an average of $180 one way to RIC from JFK, their BELF would be 25%. So in actuality they would only have to fill 25 seats to break even on a trip to RIC from JFK. It makes sense to add the RJ’s if you ask me.

I'm certain that B6's CASM for this trip would be substantially higher than its systemwide average CASM. Transcons (long stages) bring the average down to its current level; shorter stages will cost more per mile, regardless of the aircraft.

B6 is impressive - but read thru its latest registration statement and prospectus for the balanced view.

 

[sfb]

I think it's important to note that jetBlue's very low CASM of just over 6 cents is driven in part by three factors: relatively low wage rates due to its workforce all being in the first three years of their respective pay scales, a high average stage length (about 1250 miles), and very low maintenance expense with the A320's all still under warranty. I'd add that their depreciation numbers are unrealistic if they're still using the formula they stated in their S-1 filing; an A320 is unlikely to retain 20% of its value after 25 years of heavy use.

Introducing 100-seat super-RJ's into the fleet will help reduce pilot costs (lower wage rates) and flight attendant costs (2 required for 100 seats, vs. 4 for 156 seats), but it will increase costs overall due to higher acquisition/depreciation costs per seat, as well as shortening jetBlue's average stage length. Training and maintenance costs will also increase with operation of two fleets.

And jetBlue would be lucky to get 25% load factors on JFK-RIC service at fares of $180 each way, especially if DL/US/CO were to match the fares at LGA and EWR, and if WN were offering ISP-RIC service for $50 each way. jetBlue's costs are going down, but their yields are down as well -- the yields need to come up before the costs do as well, especially before jetBlue starts to expand into less dense markets which won't fill 156-seat A320's as easily as NYC-Florida and NYC-West Coast.

 

[PLANES333]

No, jetblues BELF is not 80%; in fact it is much less than other airlines (especially SONG, which is another story). What would be the BELF on a B6 ERJ?

Let’s look at a JFK-RIC trip of aprox 500mi

ASM: 100 seats X 500mi = 50,000

CASM: looking at Jetblues average seat mile cost which is around 6 cents, when you add 14% (the additional cost they said it will take to operate the RJ) you get around 9 cents.
$.09 X 50,000 gives you a trip cost of $4,500

Cost per seat $4500 / 100 seats = $45


***Math correction to jetBlue's favor: 6 cents plus 14% would bump the cost up to about 7 cents. Your example displays a 50% increase to 9 cents.

As for all the jetBlue naysayers: which culture which you rather work in -- jetBlue or any one of the majors?

I know that a 14% increase in costs would make the CASM around 7 cents, however the 6 cent casm rate B6 reports is just an average, on short flight the casm is closer to 8 cents and on longer flights it can be as low as 4 or 5 cents. It all has to do with fuel burn and other issues. I should have worded that statement a little better. What I ment to say was that B6's goal CASM would most likely be closer to $.09 becuase JFK-RIC is a short flight where the bulk of the trip is climb, yielding significantly more fuel burn. If B6 operated the ERJ to texas the CASM would be close to 7 cents per mile.