I thank you all for the input, but I wouldn't characterize ACA's operation as a joke. That's going a little far. I flew for ACA for 4 years and got to see a lot of the United system at work (not always pretty). I no longer work there, but reading remarks, which seem to me to be a result of arrogance more than anything else, still annoys me. I also feel that this arrogance (we can just take the RJ's over) reperesents a fatal flaw within the ALPA family. What happened to unity? You would just crap all over somone to keep your payraise, wouldn't you? I guess you already did (read furloughs).
Farley,
I mean no disrespect to you, ACA or any other regional carrier. But I work for UNITED AIRLINES. I don't work for ACA. If I lose my job, is ACA going to take care of me? Of course not. Therefore, my allegiance is to my company. I will grant you that the UAX regionals are an important part of UA's system. We need their feed and they need ours. But there will come a day when a big problem will have to be dealt with in terms of RJ's and who flies them. If it makes the most economic sense for UA to own and operate its' own RJ's with its own employees down the line, and if those employee groups agree to do it, than I am all for it if it's in the best interests of United.
As for my comments regarding ACA's IAD operation, they are based on their horrible on-time performance as compared to UA and the other UAX carriers the last several months. Can't really blame the weather. And I know a few people who have to commute on ACA in/out of IAD and their experiences don't make for pleasant conversation. In the end, we're all entitled to our opinions. Mine is simply that ACA runs a less than reliable operation.
I mean no disrespect to you, ACA or any other regional carrier. But I work for UNITED AIRLINES. I don't work for ACA. If I lose my job, is ACA going to take care of me? Of course not. Therefore, my allegiance is to my company. I will grant you that the UAX regionals are an important part of UA's system. We need their feed and they need ours. But there will come a day when a big problem will have to be dealt with in terms of RJ's and who flies them. If it makes the most economic sense for UA to own and operate its' own RJ's with its own employees down the line, and if those employee groups agree to do it, than I am all for it if it's in the best interests of United.
As for my comments regarding ACA's IAD operation, they are based on their horrible on-time performance as compared to UA and the other UAX carriers the last several months. Can't really blame the weather. And I know a few people who have to commute on ACA in/out of IAD and their experiences don't make for pleasant conversation. In the end, we're all entitled to our opinions. Mine is simply that ACA runs a less than reliable operation.
Cosmo
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 840
- 0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/30/2002 3:37:32 PM UAL777flyer wrote:
As for my comments regarding ACA's IAD operation, they are based on their horrible on-time performance as compared to UA and the other UAX carriers the last several months. Can't really blame the weather. And I know a few people who have to commute on ACA in/out of IAD and their experiences don't make for pleasant conversation. In the end, we're all entitled to our opinions. Mine is simply that ACA runs a less than reliable operation.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Is ACA's on-time problem limited to its IAD operation or is it a problem at ORD as well? Is the problem fleetwide or is it limited to a certain aircraft type (and if the problem is with the 328Jet or J41, that could explain why there isn't an on-time problem at ORD)? Will the upcoming elimination of the orphan 328Jet operation or the J41s (by early 2004) help any? And has UA offered ACA any assistance to correct this problem, especially since IIRC ACA currently operates more RJs for UA than Air Wisconsin and SkyWest combined?
I'm asking all of these questions because I'm just curious since I fly UA (and occasionally ACA) from IAD fairly often. My most recent trip on ACA was an IAD-LGA round trip in early August where the morning northbound CRJ trip was about a half-hour late but the late afternoon CRJ return to IAD was on-time. So my limited experience was mixed. Any insight you can provide would be appreciated.
----------------
On 10/30/2002 3:37:32 PM UAL777flyer wrote:
As for my comments regarding ACA's IAD operation, they are based on their horrible on-time performance as compared to UA and the other UAX carriers the last several months. Can't really blame the weather. And I know a few people who have to commute on ACA in/out of IAD and their experiences don't make for pleasant conversation. In the end, we're all entitled to our opinions. Mine is simply that ACA runs a less than reliable operation.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Is ACA's on-time problem limited to its IAD operation or is it a problem at ORD as well? Is the problem fleetwide or is it limited to a certain aircraft type (and if the problem is with the 328Jet or J41, that could explain why there isn't an on-time problem at ORD)? Will the upcoming elimination of the orphan 328Jet operation or the J41s (by early 2004) help any? And has UA offered ACA any assistance to correct this problem, especially since IIRC ACA currently operates more RJs for UA than Air Wisconsin and SkyWest combined?
I'm asking all of these questions because I'm just curious since I fly UA (and occasionally ACA) from IAD fairly often. My most recent trip on ACA was an IAD-LGA round trip in early August where the morning northbound CRJ trip was about a half-hour late but the late afternoon CRJ return to IAD was on-time. So my limited experience was mixed. Any insight you can provide would be appreciated.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/30/2002 5:27:49 PM Cosmo wrote:
[/blockquote]
Is ACA's on-time problem limited to its IAD operation or is it a problem at ORD as well? Is the problem fleetwide or is it limited to a certain aircraft type (and if the problem is with the 328Jet or J41, that could explain why there isn't an on-time problem at ORD)? Will the upcoming elimination of the orphan 328Jet operation or the J41s (by early 2004) help any? And has UA offered ACA any assistance to correct this problem, especially since IIRC ACA currently operates more RJs for UA than Air Wisconsin and SkyWest combined?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Are you guys REALLY that nieve? ACARS!!!!! ACA's ontime performance went down drastically the DAY the started reporting with ACARS. Now, they pad the Heck out of the schedules. On a typical day, an ACA crew's actual flight time is an hour OR MORE less than scheduled.
----------------
On 10/30/2002 5:27:49 PM Cosmo wrote:
[/blockquote]
Is ACA's on-time problem limited to its IAD operation or is it a problem at ORD as well? Is the problem fleetwide or is it limited to a certain aircraft type (and if the problem is with the 328Jet or J41, that could explain why there isn't an on-time problem at ORD)? Will the upcoming elimination of the orphan 328Jet operation or the J41s (by early 2004) help any? And has UA offered ACA any assistance to correct this problem, especially since IIRC ACA currently operates more RJs for UA than Air Wisconsin and SkyWest combined?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Are you guys REALLY that nieve? ACARS!!!!! ACA's ontime performance went down drastically the DAY the started reporting with ACARS. Now, they pad the Heck out of the schedules. On a typical day, an ACA crew's actual flight time is an hour OR MORE less than scheduled.
Cosmo
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 840
- 0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/30/2002 6
20 PM Busdrvr wrote:
Are you guys REALLY that nieve? ACARS!!!!! ACA's ontime performance went down drastically the DAY the started reporting with ACARS. Now, they pad the Heck out of the schedules. On a typical day, an ACA crew's actual flight time is an hour OR MORE less than scheduled.
----------------
[/blockquote]
OK, so then why is there an on-time problem, as UAL777flyer alluded to?
----------------
On 10/30/2002 6
20 PM Busdrvr wrote: Are you guys REALLY that nieve? ACARS!!!!! ACA's ontime performance went down drastically the DAY the started reporting with ACARS. Now, they pad the Heck out of the schedules. On a typical day, an ACA crew's actual flight time is an hour OR MORE less than scheduled.
----------------
[/blockquote]
OK, so then why is there an on-time problem, as UAL777flyer alluded to?
Have any of you guys or gals analyzed where the SJ's would fall on the pay curve? I'm wondering if things could be worked out among all groups, if you folks out there would have any issues to bringing the 50/70/90 seaters on the property? I wonder what kind of havoc that would cause AA/DL/NW/CO if we got a head start on the higher end SJ's.
I'm not familiar with schedule success, but I wouldn't want many of the ground ACA employees working around my hamburger, much less my transport.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/30/2002 7:51:41 PM sumsonic wrote:
Have any of you guys or gals analyzed where the SJ's would fall on the pay curve? I'm wondering if things could be worked out among all groups, if you folks out there would have any issues to bringing the 50/70/90 seaters on the property? I wonder what kind of havoc that would cause AA/DL/NW/CO if we got a head start on the higher end SJ's.
----------------
[/blockquote]
DAL operates 70 seaters at CMR already and Horizon operates them for Alaska. The jets simply are not that great. They beat the heck out of an EMB-120, but that's about it. Up until the latest furlough, UAL was able to pay some of the 767 international F/Os less than 50K a year. that's the way the system works. if you brought RJ's into the system, even at RJ payrates, it would only make all the other equipment more senior and more expensive paywise for the company. The company enjoys a HUGE cost savings by forcing pilots to work up through the system and stating all over at the lowest payrate a couple times on the way up. RJ's should be part of mainline equipment, unfortunately, DAL gave it away years ago, and putting them in mainline would be disasterous brcause of the cost advantage they would enjoy.
----------------
On 10/30/2002 7:51:41 PM sumsonic wrote:
Have any of you guys or gals analyzed where the SJ's would fall on the pay curve? I'm wondering if things could be worked out among all groups, if you folks out there would have any issues to bringing the 50/70/90 seaters on the property? I wonder what kind of havoc that would cause AA/DL/NW/CO if we got a head start on the higher end SJ's.
----------------
[/blockquote]
DAL operates 70 seaters at CMR already and Horizon operates them for Alaska. The jets simply are not that great. They beat the heck out of an EMB-120, but that's about it. Up until the latest furlough, UAL was able to pay some of the 767 international F/Os less than 50K a year. that's the way the system works. if you brought RJ's into the system, even at RJ payrates, it would only make all the other equipment more senior and more expensive paywise for the company. The company enjoys a HUGE cost savings by forcing pilots to work up through the system and stating all over at the lowest payrate a couple times on the way up. RJ's should be part of mainline equipment, unfortunately, DAL gave it away years ago, and putting them in mainline would be disasterous brcause of the cost advantage they would enjoy.
RJs at UAL are only profitable for the contract carriers such as ACA and Skywest. In the first 9 months of 2002 UAL lost about 192 million dollars on express operations. ( From 3rd Qtr 10-Q report). If you were to add up all the profits for the express carriers you would see that in those first 9 months they do not even come close to approaching 192 million in profits. The only reason RJs are profitable is because UAL is subsidizing them for ACA and Skywest. Pilot pay has little or nothing to do with it. The cost range for RJs runs around 15 to 19 cents per ASM. The Media and the airlines like to remark about the low operating costs that RJs provide. Its just not true. In summary UAL or U pilots could fly them for free and both would still lose money on them. It was a great myth while it lasted.
aflcio2,
You can make the argument that with the current situation, the UAX carriers lose less than if UA were flying mainline service on those routes. Using a fee per departure system works to the benefit of the express carriers in this environment. But when the economy is thriving, it works out to UA's advantage.
You can make the argument that with the current situation, the UAX carriers lose less than if UA were flying mainline service on those routes. Using a fee per departure system works to the benefit of the express carriers in this environment. But when the economy is thriving, it works out to UA's advantage.
Sure it does. At 15-19 cents per ASM the costs are to high. Thats great when your competition is limited on where you fly them, but when someone like SWA or JBLU moves in your screwed. Face it RJs are not low cost. They are very expensive jets to operate. To think you ever make money on them is a myth.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/31/2002 1
31 PM aflcio2 wrote:
Sure it does. At 15-19 cents per ASM the costs are to high. Thats great when your competition is limited on where you fly them, but when someone like SWA or JBLU moves in your screwed. Face it RJs are not low cost. They are very expensive jets to operate. To think you ever make money on them is a myth.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Then why does anybody fly them? Why aren/t they littering the deserts?
----------------
On 10/31/2002 1
31 PM aflcio2 wrote: Sure it does. At 15-19 cents per ASM the costs are to high. Thats great when your competition is limited on where you fly them, but when someone like SWA or JBLU moves in your screwed. Face it RJs are not low cost. They are very expensive jets to operate. To think you ever make money on them is a myth.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Then why does anybody fly them? Why aren/t they littering the deserts?
The market demands it - certain high-yield passengers will pay more to fly point to point rather than spend half a day transiting hubs. The RJ serves thin markets that are not big enough for point to point service with larger aircraft.
Because they use them in thin markets where they are able to control capacity and charge higher fares for the direct flight. Soon however low cost carriers will move in on this terrority and I suspect you will see them in the desert. The fact remains that they are HIGH COST. Not LOW COST. Check out there operating stats per ASM.
aflcio,
Don't forget the RASM part of the equation. I agree with you about SJ being expensive a/c to operate. It depends how much I can squeeze out of that capacity. Yes SJ's are expensive, but I stand to lose more money flying a guppy (per departure) with a 60% load vs. flying more SJ flights with 85% loads. It's all in the mix and capacity. The problem is I'm in a cash conservation mode. The company will take a $500 loss per departure on an SJ vs. $2000 loss per departure on a guppy. Take a market that has 4 737 trips. We lose $8000 per day. We convert to 8 SJ's and lose $4000 a day. I still lose money, but I'll at least live a little bit longer, not by much. Given the fact that SJ are on a fee per departure, we (should/have to) get our operating costs for guppies to be lower per departure than an SJ. With lower costs, I can compete against low fare carriers. I will need the extra capacity (737 instead of SJ) in order to do this. We have to get our costs down in order to live and fight another day. Yes, we as the employees are cleaning up certain people’s mess. Can't do much about that now. We have to survive and thrive. This way we'd guarantee ourselves and our customers mainline flying. The fare environment is not going to fix itself in the near future (2 to 3 years), no matter what people say. It's going to suck, but I'd take that over the alternative.
Don't forget the RASM part of the equation. I agree with you about SJ being expensive a/c to operate. It depends how much I can squeeze out of that capacity. Yes SJ's are expensive, but I stand to lose more money flying a guppy (per departure) with a 60% load vs. flying more SJ flights with 85% loads. It's all in the mix and capacity. The problem is I'm in a cash conservation mode. The company will take a $500 loss per departure on an SJ vs. $2000 loss per departure on a guppy. Take a market that has 4 737 trips. We lose $8000 per day. We convert to 8 SJ's and lose $4000 a day. I still lose money, but I'll at least live a little bit longer, not by much. Given the fact that SJ are on a fee per departure, we (should/have to) get our operating costs for guppies to be lower per departure than an SJ. With lower costs, I can compete against low fare carriers. I will need the extra capacity (737 instead of SJ) in order to do this. We have to get our costs down in order to live and fight another day. Yes, we as the employees are cleaning up certain people’s mess. Can't do much about that now. We have to survive and thrive. This way we'd guarantee ourselves and our customers mainline flying. The fare environment is not going to fix itself in the near future (2 to 3 years), no matter what people say. It's going to suck, but I'd take that over the alternative.
Similar threads
- chipmunn
- American Airlines
