Whew...

[BoeingBoy]

Travis,

Spot on vis a vis the 318 & 73-600. They were both designed before the "grown up" RJ's. The earlier 73-500 had some marketability with airlines that already had 737's as a filler for the 90/100-seat market (US & AMR got the F100, TWA got the 717, UAL & CAL got 500's).

On the other hand, the "cost" jury's still somewhat out on the 190 - hasn't been in operation long enough yet. Certainly it'll have segment costs lower than bigger planes - that's a given with similiar technology era equipment. To me the bigger questions are:

1 - do we really need a plane within 20 seats of a 319?

2 - will the seat mile costs also be less, especially after the maintenance honeymoon is over and heavy checks start being required (a honeymoon any new airplane would have)?

3 - if #2 is yes, is it enough less to offset the extra cost of another fleet type? A common type-rating with the 170 doesn't do any good unless we also operate 170's, admittedly a possibility. Of course the other possibility is getting the 195 - there's a true 320/73-300 replacement - and paying 190 pay instead of 319/737 pay.

Jim

 

[FCYTravis]

1 - do we really need a plane within 20 seats of a 319?

Well, given that the 86-seat Mesa RJs are already widespread throughout the system, I would argue that the EMB-190 is just one of those with a few First Class seats added. You get the ability to upsell a semi-premium product, much as UA does with explus, you keep the upgrading elites happy and you do it for a reasonable cost premium over the Messup jets.

Major cities like CVG, IAH and MSP are *all RJ* service today because of the drawdown of the fleet and the elimination of the 100-seaters. Want to fly PHL-MSP? Get ready to scrunch into an Air Whiskey CRJ-200. That's your only option. Hopefully that will change with the E190s.

 

[SoftLanding]

Travis,

Spot on vis a vis the 318 & 73-600. They were both designed before the "grown up" RJ's. The earlier 73-500 had some marketability with airlines that already had 737's as a filler for the 90/100-seat market (US & AMR got the F100, TWA got the 717, UAL & CAL got 500's).

On the other hand, the "cost" jury's still somewhat out on the 190 - hasn't been in operation long enough yet. Certainly it'll have segment costs lower than bigger planes - that's a given with similiar technology era equipment. To me the bigger questions are:

1 - do we really need a plane within 20 seats of a 319?

2 - will the seat mile costs also be less, especially after the maintenance honeymoon is over and heavy checks start being required (a honeymoon any new airplane would have)?

3 - if #2 is yes, is it enough less to offset the extra cost of another fleet type? A common type-rating with the 170 doesn't do any good unless we also operate 170's, admittedly a possibility. Of course the other possibility is getting the 195 - there's a true 320/73-300 replacement - and paying 190 pay instead of 319/737 pay.

Jim

Jim,

great post!

Many of the US Airways pilots also question the validity of another aircraft type, especially when we have 70-90 seaters flying around our system.

Is saving $30/hour enough to offset the negative? I have not been able to find numbers supporting a total new aircraft type...(All other employees are on mainline scales).

But I guess it makes sense it you look at replacing our B737 fleet, around 110-115 aircarft...maybe...

 

[FCYTravis]

OK, but here's the question: Would you rather have another aircraft type, or more 86-seat flying outsourced to Messup?

Someone was going to fill that 90-100-seat market, and it was either going to be mainline pilots with mainline E190 equipment, Republic pilots with E190 equipment that should have been mainline - or worst case, Mesa pilots with even more sardine-can CRJ-900s. What's the transition agreement say, they can operate like 90 of those things? God, please no.

From my perspective as a passenger, mainline pilots flying mainline E190 equipment is far and away the best option.

 

[Rico]

Jim,

I am betting that a fair portion of it relates to the company's questioning if those extra twenty seats on a given route segment are worth the extra labor costs of salary and an additonal F/A.

As much as I hate it, I know that the Mesa CRJ-900's have been full on many of the routes they fly on. They suck, they are uncomfortable, and it is a goofy looking thing to have 80 some odd people stading around in the jetway waiting for their carry ons, but...

They are flying full.

Trade that senario for a much more comfortable cabin, overhead space, first class, and mainline quality, while still filling the plane at the same operating costs as having Mesa do it, well... That makes more sense to me.

Much like adding the B757's into the fleet rather than additional widebodies makes sense on given routes. The E-190 is a Good addition for now.

IMO the E-190 will be a replacement aircraft, just an eventual replacement for the CRJ-900, not the 737 or 319.

But, we both know damn well that if the E-190 is a success, then the E-195 will soon be coming along to replace the 737's. Then the "too many fleet types" issue favors more Embraers, and fewer Boeing types.

Trust me, I would prefer more of the Boeings and Airbuses on the property, I do not plan to return to Airways to fly right seat in the E-190 (even though I liked the plane). I will bypass until I could return to a larger aircraft and payscale. I know where you are coming from, I just have a feeling that this is the way things are headed.

Rico

 

[BoeingBoy]

Travis,

I was looking at it from the pilot and cost standpoint vs the 320 and didnt' even think about the passenger perspective vs the CRJ-900. You're certainly right in that respect.

Rico,

I know we've had this discussion before - filling an airplane but having no growth opportunities unless you take a bigger plane off another route vs allowing room for market growth even if it means less than full loads.

As I've said before, from a marketing/LF standpoint the ideal will be to have a fleet of airplanes to cover every demand - say planes that seat from 30 to 300 in 10 seat increments. Then roll out the plane that fits the demand. From a cost/complexity standpoint, however, that makes absolutely no sense (aside from being literally impossible with the planes available).

So a compromise has to be reached. If you're flying planes half full, you losing money. If you're flying planes full, you're probably leaving money on the table by not having more seats to sell. You concede market growth to your competitors unless you're able to finance bigger airplanes as the market grows. The key is finding the right compromise. It's purely a guess, but 75-85% average load factors annually is probably the sweet spot. It should be enough to make money, but still allow room for market growth.

Jim

 

[FCYTravis]

What I think we've all forgotten is that traditionally, mainline fleets *had* a 100-seat aircraft. The "100-seat gap" is a recent phenomenon.

For US it was the F100, and before that the shorty DC-9s.

But then the RJ began its rise, and the "old-tech" 100-seaters began to show their age. It didn't help that Fokker imploded and left its aircraft as orphans. Nobody was building a "next-generation" 100-seat jet, unless you count the "let's pretend it's not a DC-9" 717. Throw in 9-11 and whammo, the first jets out the door everywhere were the passé 100-seaters, replaced by trendy new high-frequency RJ service burning cheap gas and flown by bottom-payscale pilots.

"Why fly three R/Ts a day on 100-seaters when you can do five R/Ts a day with CRJs? Fewer seats, better yields and more frequent BloFare service!"

Fast forward to 2004, and Independence Air sets out to prove once and for all that... the RJ is a gas-guzzling, uncomfortable, high-CASM joke that, when unbundled from a guaranteed-profit fee-for-departure structure, is a guaranteed airline failure.

Airlines around the country start asking, wait a minute, you mean we don't have a single aircraft available larger than a 70-seat CRJ-700 and smaller than a 125-seat A319? You mean we're paying companies a profit margin on flying 50-seat business jets with a break-even load factor of somewhere over 100 percent? You mean passengers are revolting at the thought of flying 2,000 miles in a winged sardine can with only enough overhead bin space for a can of soda? Holy cow, where's the F100 when you need it?

At least, that's how this Seat 2D-on-a-V-fare aviation analyst sees it.

 

[PhillyAir5]

Just to catch up on some of this discussion...

Are you all saying that the E-190 will likely take over the CRJ market? I remember seeing alot of 737 flights to MSP and even IND as early as last year. Now most, if not all are on CRJ's. I know the CRJ is a "regional" aircraft, but how regional is MSP or DTW for that matter?

 

[FCYTravis]

People like me are hoping that they'll displace the CRJ back to markets the CRJs are really suited to serve - ELM-PHL, DAY-DCA, etc.

(Yes, yes, I know DAY used to be a micro-hub and saw mainline jets to SFO, but OK, from a non-connecting standpoint, DAY-DCA is probably a CRJ market.)

 

[PhillyAir5]

People like me are hoping that they'll displace the CRJ back to markets the CRJs are really suited to serve - ELM-PHL, DAY-DCA, etc.

(Yes, yes, I know DAY used to be a micro-hub and saw mainline jets to SFO, but OK, from a non-connecting standpoint, DAY-DCA is probably a CRJ market.)

Agreed. Case in point, PHL to BUF.

I'm also interested to see what PHL does with expanding its terminal space. I know they've concentrated efforts on renovating the "non" US terminals, but IMO B & C are in need of renovation as well. Does all the financing for renovation fall solely on PHL or does US help with that cost. I know the city of Philadelphia had a major surplus this past year, and their were discussions of adding runways and renovating terminals. The 9th busiest airport deserves a little make over IMO.

 

[BoeingBoy]

What I think we've all forgotten is that traditionally, mainline fleets *had* a 100-seat aircraft. The "100-seat gap" is a recent phenomenon.

And before that there was the "70-seat gap" at nearly all the major airlines.

Before that there was the "50-seat gap" in the jet fleets.

We currently have the "250-seat gap" between the 767 & 330.

And, of course, there's the airlines that don't have the "100-seat gap" - NWA with the DC-9, UAL & CAL with the 737-500 (the former probably replacing the "gap" plane and the latter two probably creating the "gap" in the nearer term).

And, last but not least, the airline that had the "100-seat gap", closed it, then reopened it - AMR with the F100.

My point - the presence of a gap doesn't necessarily mean it has to be filled, but ff there is a need don't use two airplanes of the same size when one will do - the CRJ700/E170 or CRJ900/E190.

Obviously, the ideal would be an aircraft that doesn't, and never will, exist - a single type with models ranging from 50 to 400 seats, as economical to operate at the smaller end as the current RJ's while at least as economical at the large end as the current crop of widebodies.

Lacking that, your point is well taken, in the sense that replacing some of the numerous smaller RJ's while filling a gap can be a good thing.

Unfortunately, that's not what's being done here - at least in the nearer term. Very few of the smaller RJ's are going away anytime soon - last I saw just the handful of remaining Mesa jets under the "old" US contract will be gone this spring. 123 CRJ-200's and 30 ERJ-145's will be remaining - 153 50-seaters. That's what - double the size of "highly profitable" FlyI?

Throw in 14 CRJ-700's and you have 157 RJ's seating 70 seats or less. Without counting the E170's, which are really in a different class.

I'd be totally in favor of getting a mixture of E170/190's, flying them at mainline where the common type rating, training, maintenance, spare parts, etc keeps the cost down. But by all means, use them to replace a large part of those 153 50-seaters that are economically unjustifiable in today's economic environment.

Who knows? That may be Parker's plan.....

Jim

 

[PhillyAir5]

Jim,

It just seems to make more sense economically to shorten the fleet of an airline by using a serviceable jet. Case in point, the potential for the E-170 and E-190. I'm curious to see if both these 70 and 90 seat jets will still fly under the "express" name in the future. It seems to make sense, from an economic standpoint at least, to use these aircraft as the workhorses of the future. In your opinion, is it a mistake that US has stayed away from Boeing? And do you see the Embraer slowly becoming today's workhorse 737?

 

[Rico]

Jim,

IMO the E-190's we first get will be growth aircraft, both in numbers and in terms of new routes. Quite simply there is a lot of new revenue out there that we could tap into with those aircraft flying into the Midwest from both the East and West. I call em "Half-Con" Flights.

A good Example is OMA. It is already a HP Station, and is a city of decent enough size to support E-190 flights to the East and West Coast. There already exsists a large "Star Alliance" customer base established by United.

It is my opinion that Mr parker plans to use the initial purchase to shore up our midwestern route structure. Future E-190 or E-170 purchases would hopefully replace the E-170 and CRJ-170 operations of our "partners" as their contracts come up. I Also think that in that time frame, years from now that they will seriously consider the E-195 bas a direct replacement for the remaining 737 fleet. Mind you, what I am talking about is over a long time span, not this coming year.

I think the trend would be to replace both the 50 seat and larger RJ's at the small end, and the 737's at the large end with essentially one aircraft type, and then use Airbuses for everything else.


Long term, that makes sense, and it is what the whole idea behind "families" of aircraft is supposed to allow.


Rico

 

[FCYTravis]

You'll never see all the 50-seat RJs replaced. They do have a place in the fleet system, flying the routes like DAY-DCA, ELM-PHL. Although certainly some of those could be more economically served with props (Q200/400s for PDT, anyone?)

The 50-seat RJ has a role to play, but it's a dramatically smaller one than present.

But Air Wisconsin owns part of the new US. They sure aren't going to be cut back. That leaves Chautauqua and PSA to cut...

 

[BoeingBoy]

In your opinion, is it a mistake that US has stayed away from Boeing? And do you see the Embraer slowly becoming today's workhorse 737?

Guess it depends on the definition of "workhorse".....

The 195 is about as large as the "E-jet" family can reasonably grow, so can an aircraft type seating from roughly 70 to 120 be a "workhorse"?

Only time will tell, but my guess is that the roughly 120 to 180 seat range will be "workhorse" domestically, meaning the 737 (including it's follow-on that Boeing is starting work on) and the A320 family. But I suspect there'll be quite a good number of 70-100 seat planes flying also. Right now the Embraer is the only manufacturer covering that range but who knows what airplanes the future will hold.

Jim

Rico,

Obviously the first 190's will be growth airplanes, but remember that GE can take more 737's back beginning in 2007 (June, I think). What happens then will determine how many 190's will be growth and how many replacement.

Your guess is as good as mine as far as the role of the 190's, especially initially. I can only point to the CRJ900's role when they came East - almost all replacement service. So if GE takes back more 737's something has to fill the void. They can take back 11 737's over basically a years time - about the delivery schedule for the 190's.....

Jim

[Oops - somehow I got both posts combined....]

You'll never see all the 50-seat RJs replaced. They do have a place in the fleet system, flying the routes like DAY-DCA, ELM-PHL. Although certainly some of those could be more economically served with props (Q200/400s for PDT, anyone?)

Which is why I said "...use them to replace a large part of those 153 50-seaters..."

You're right - Air Wisconsin isn't going anywhere soon. Neither is CHQ - though that's only 15 or so E-145's we're committed to, it was part of the whole Republic agreement. We're contractually committed to both until the 2011-2013 timeframe.

Jim

[Doubly oops - I did it again...]