For N786P, the wholly owned carriers have flown exactly what the group has told them they would fly. Now they have been told that they operate the "wrong types"!! Years ago mgt. said "rergional jets are a fad" and the wholly owns contnued to operate t-props. Money got tighter and tighter, their a/c got older and were not replaced. More used a/c where leased, and beleive me the older a/c are the worst as far as CX go. they all have about the same # of hours/cycles but the used ones seem to break more. T-props are on average have more complicated engine systems, and PDT and ALG have quite the mix of avionics/ radars etc. Hope that the group can make good and send some RJs to ALG,PDT,PSA.
WOs...RJs/Sjs
- Thread starter Light Years
- Start date
- Thread Starter
- #47
As the "Express" product matures in to a jet fleet, I think there should still be small turboprops in the sytem. There are still many markets that cannot be served with a jet, or anything larger than 19 seats. They are still valuable parts of our route network and important to the communities they serve. There will always be a role for the Air Midwest, Colgan Airs of the world. Ive said it previously, I think the Express name should be dropped. If your flying on a US Airways Group owned jet, whether its PSA or mainline or MidAtlantic, its a US Airways flight. The Express brand, or even better US Connection name should be used for commuter partners flying Beechcrafts etc. Contract RJs should also be branded as Connection with thier own logo on the tail, until hopefully they are replaced by group flying. With such a large part of our system going "Express", why put that name on it? There are very long RJ flights and short mainline flights- the Express name is obsolete and really does have a negative connotation to customers.
----------------
On 3/23/2003 8
46 AM N786P wrote:
If you look on a daily basis, and look at the number of xld. flights that PDT, ALG, PSA, have due to mechanical problems vs. the number at M/L for the number of A/C they operate,you'll see my point on the props vs. jet A/C on percentage of flight completions due to mechanical problems.
----------------
On 3/23/2003 8
46 AM N786P wrote: If you look on a daily basis, and look at the number of xld. flights that PDT, ALG, PSA, have due to mechanical problems vs. the number at M/L for the number of A/C they operate,you'll see my point on the props vs. jet A/C on percentage of flight completions due to mechanical problems.
----------------
This statement is a little far fetched! Completion factors at wholly owned carriers is not far off from mainline at all! It may seem like Express flights are often cancelled, but it must be kept in mind that Express has a significantly higher number of operating flights. As a backup to my argument, you can view PDT completion factor information here: http://63.238.184.42/enn/index.cfm
I don't have a location to find information regarding PSA or ALG, but I bet they are not too far off from the PDT numbers.
Yes januarys completion factors and even Febs were poor, look at where the regionals operate, the weather was very bad here in the northeast. I beleive that the wholly owned %s were close to mainline about 1% plus or minus each other. WHen a Dash100 cancels its'' 37 people max for one leg, I hope that the 737s and airbuss'' usually carry a few more, and therefore sit more people when they are down, right?
Furloughedagain
Senior
RJs wont make a difference. The customer base is fickle.
I was riding on Continental Express just a few days ago and overheard a number of my fellow-passengers commenting on the brand-new ERJ-Long Range (winglets).
Three little girls (12,13?) upon deplaning said it was the most frightening thing they''ve ever experienced.
A businessman, talking on his cell phone, griped about having to ride on "one of those commuter jets".
A passenger boarding in Cleveland asked the F/A when they would be getting "big planes".
My seatmate commented, "These things get smaller all the time, dont they?"
People complain about driving to hubs, so airlines start regionals.
People complain about Metroliners and Jetstreams so airlines get cabin-class aircraft.
People complain about props so the airlines get jets.
People complain about high airfares, so city-pairs get regional jets.
People complain about regional jets, but they''re not willing to pay increased cost of having Boeing 757 service from Pittsburgh to Altoona. (tongue-in-cheek)
The fact is people will complain regardless of what equipment you provide them with. As much as people might like it for airlines to be just like Greyhound (with fares to match) you simply cant have the combination of equipment, city-pairs, airfares, and service that customers want -- it cant be done.
I dont care if Jetblue or Southwest takes over the PLANET with K-mart airfares... they will never be able to offer service to the Huntsville, Altoona, Shreveport, Elmira, Fort Wayne... fill-in-the-name-of-the-small-city-here...
So yes, US Airways needs RJs to remain competitive, but those who believe that RJs will be the magic-genie which will suddenly heal all of US Airways ills and provide vast amounts of incremental revenue enabling the airline to grow in leaps and bounds --- they''re on crack.
RJs are simply one piece in the puzzle. The largest pieces of the puzzle have nothing to do with RJs: Customer Service, and Route-Network.
Until customer service becomes a priority, and until US Airways expands its network to become more than an east-coast regional it will not -- regardless of how many RJs Piedaghenymesatauqua flies -- be the success that its employees know it has the potential to be.
I was riding on Continental Express just a few days ago and overheard a number of my fellow-passengers commenting on the brand-new ERJ-Long Range (winglets).
Three little girls (12,13?) upon deplaning said it was the most frightening thing they''ve ever experienced.
A businessman, talking on his cell phone, griped about having to ride on "one of those commuter jets".
A passenger boarding in Cleveland asked the F/A when they would be getting "big planes".
My seatmate commented, "These things get smaller all the time, dont they?"
People complain about driving to hubs, so airlines start regionals.
People complain about Metroliners and Jetstreams so airlines get cabin-class aircraft.
People complain about props so the airlines get jets.
People complain about high airfares, so city-pairs get regional jets.
People complain about regional jets, but they''re not willing to pay increased cost of having Boeing 757 service from Pittsburgh to Altoona. (tongue-in-cheek)
The fact is people will complain regardless of what equipment you provide them with. As much as people might like it for airlines to be just like Greyhound (with fares to match) you simply cant have the combination of equipment, city-pairs, airfares, and service that customers want -- it cant be done.
I dont care if Jetblue or Southwest takes over the PLANET with K-mart airfares... they will never be able to offer service to the Huntsville, Altoona, Shreveport, Elmira, Fort Wayne... fill-in-the-name-of-the-small-city-here...
So yes, US Airways needs RJs to remain competitive, but those who believe that RJs will be the magic-genie which will suddenly heal all of US Airways ills and provide vast amounts of incremental revenue enabling the airline to grow in leaps and bounds --- they''re on crack.
RJs are simply one piece in the puzzle. The largest pieces of the puzzle have nothing to do with RJs: Customer Service, and Route-Network.
Until customer service becomes a priority, and until US Airways expands its network to become more than an east-coast regional it will not -- regardless of how many RJs Piedaghenymesatauqua flies -- be the success that its employees know it has the potential to be.
oldiebutgoody
Veteran
I hear all the complaining too, but I think there''s a reason. It''s really not the size, or the motor that counts. It''s the reliability. There is a perception by some (frequently perpetuated by the regionals that schedule aircraft turns so tight that by the end of the day NO kind of airplane could possibly be on schedule, especially with weather) that prop planes are less reliable, therefore less safe than jets. knowledgeable travellers, however, know the situation and are much more accepting of the props and smaller aircraft. It doesn''t matter what kind of plane it is, turboprop, RJ, SJ, or whatever. If it doesn''t fly on-time, it''ll get a bad rap.
----------------
On 3/25/2003 1:07:38 PM oldiebutgoody wrote:
There is a perception by some (frequently perpetuated by the regionals that schedule aircraft turns so tight that by the end of the day NO kind of airplane could possibly be on schedule, especially with weather) that prop planes are less reliable, therefore less safe than jets. ----------------
On 3/25/2003 1:07:38 PM oldiebutgoody wrote:
There is a perception by some (frequently perpetuated by the regionals that schedule aircraft turns so tight that by the end of the day NO kind of airplane could possibly be on schedule, especially with weather) that prop planes are less reliable, therefore less safe than jets. ----------------
I''ll vouch for that. We have some flights scheduled for 10 min turn times at some out stations. This after scheduling a connection with the minimum conx time allowed 25 mins. Now some days, you know PHL or CLT just arent going to get a plane out to make that connection and with everything full (Spring Break) for days, do you misconx 10-12 people or hold? If you hold, you''ve automatically busted the return flight on time and probably many of those conx too, but at least you can get (maybe) the people home the other way. Even if the inbounds are on time, it takes just 1 fueling, catering, weather delay and now the rest of the day is shot for on time or anything close to that. Then the plane sits for 50 minutes the last flight of the night (1040pm dept) for some unknown reason. I think an adjustment of scheduling on some lines of flight would make the "appearant" lack of reliability disappear.
Furloughedagain-
Excellent post, you hit the nail directly on the head, I'll add only this:
On the west coast they seem to have less problem realizing what you said, as Horizon is the only airline in this country with Dash 8 400's. I wish the Northeast would wake up and realize that safety, frequency and cost of flights should be their largest concern, not the type of airplane.
Excellent post, you hit the nail directly on the head, I'll add only this:
On the west coast they seem to have less problem realizing what you said, as Horizon is the only airline in this country with Dash 8 400's. I wish the Northeast would wake up and realize that safety, frequency and cost of flights should be their largest concern, not the type of airplane.
You are right it will be a combination of the routing and equipment that will make US sucessful in the future. Without question there good customer service needs to be great.
Yesterday I flew a Dash-8 from LGA to MHT. I take this flight often, and the plane is great. I sleep better on a dash8 for several reasons, it is more comfortable, and the noise of the prop and the silght vibtation makes me sleepy.
A while back US flew an RJ on the MHT to LGA route, and it was no faster than the Dash 8. So with lower operating costs, US should fly a cheaper to operate, and more comfortable plane on that route. I would also like to see the 400 on some routes as well.
While faster on longer routes the RJs might be a better choice. But I would much rather have the comfort of a Dash8 even if the flight time was slightly more.
So RJs on all Express routes are not the answer. But rather a mix of planes that provide safety, comfort, and cost that a particular route demands.
Yesterday I flew a Dash-8 from LGA to MHT. I take this flight often, and the plane is great. I sleep better on a dash8 for several reasons, it is more comfortable, and the noise of the prop and the silght vibtation makes me sleepy.
A while back US flew an RJ on the MHT to LGA route, and it was no faster than the Dash 8. So with lower operating costs, US should fly a cheaper to operate, and more comfortable plane on that route. I would also like to see the 400 on some routes as well.
While faster on longer routes the RJs might be a better choice. But I would much rather have the comfort of a Dash8 even if the flight time was slightly more.
So RJs on all Express routes are not the answer. But rather a mix of planes that provide safety, comfort, and cost that a particular route demands.
I hope for the sake of many smaller non-hub markets in the US Airways route system that it rethinks the all RJs and no turbo props by 2008 and operates a mixed fleet of RJs and Dash-8s beyond 2008.
I think that there will be turbo-props on express routes in the future. But they will be contract carriers, and as of this date none operate Dash-8s. The management state that they will not own any turbo-props by 2008, not that none would be flown in the system. It seems that a mix of equipment could be good with more adaptability to a flexible market. We all will see soon enough, anyway has not management changed their minds before.
- Thread Starter
- #57
Remember that Dave is from CoEx- a merger of a handful of airlines into a single wholly-owned, all jet entity. However they still have "Continental Connection" agreements with CommutAir and Gulfstream, which operate Beechcraft 1900s. I would imagine the same will happen here. This is ideal to maintain service in places like Atlantic City, Franklin/Oil City, Groton, Bluefield/ Princeton etc. There may also be a need for a slightly larger turboprop as well, because there are some markets that just cant justify the cost of an RJ or simply dont have the runway space. Anyone have any specific examples of such cities, or ideas on what turboprops service/agreements/aircraft US should keep after the network has been "RJ''d"?
CHO, TOL, SCE, LAN, BGM, TRI, LWB (in the summer), and ERI to an extent. TOL needs jet flights because of mail. ROA as well. CHO, SCE, ERI heavy year round. What U needs to do is schedule an RJ or even a 737 into ELM, ITH, ERI, GSO, GSP as the last flight of the day out of PIT and CLT. This would allow fof the overflow of PAX during peak times of the year (Xmas, Spring Break, SEP back to school). Alot of PAX get bumped off flights because of overflow. ELM and ITH and BGM ecspecially. MEM, BHM, and SBN should be jets all the time b/c of the business travel and major colleges. TYS, SDF, and LEX should be props (preferably D8 or D8300). TOL could use an RJ for mailas the last flight out of PIT. MESA ran one up till last June.
I work in PIT so I see these problems everyday.
I work in PIT so I see these problems everyday.
----------------
On 3/28/2003 7:00:48 PM Light Years wrote:
Anyone have any specific examples of such cities, or ideas on what turboprops service/agreements/aircraft US should keep after the network has been "RJ''d"?
----------------
On 3/28/2003 7:00:48 PM Light Years wrote:
Anyone have any specific examples of such cities, or ideas on what turboprops service/agreements/aircraft US should keep after the network has been "RJ''d"?
----------------
HHH! CLT-HHH is a extremely high yield market. In fact, on Sat. and Sun during peak times, they have back to back flights. This market will not be able to accomodate jet service due to the runway size. From the HHH website:
"Q. Why doesn''t US Airways Express have non-stop service or jet service to/from the Hilton Head Airport?
A. Hilton Head Airport respects the wishes of the Island''s residents. Therefore, when Beaufort County promised that the runway would not be extended to accommodate larger and louder aircraft the Hilton Head Airport became limited to smaller corporate jets and turboprop commuter planes. US Airways serves Hilton Head Island with the De Havilland Dash-8, a 37-seat (or 50-seat) cabin-class aircraft, which is as large as and provides as much seating space as most regional jets. The Dash-8 remains one of the quietest, most comfortable turboprop aircraft available to the regional airline market today. Hilton Head Airport is serviced by US Airways 6-14 times daily, depending on the time of year."
http://www.hiltonheadairport.com/faq.htm
I hear a lot about cost? The 1900 since comming into use has more than doubled in cost per ASM due to the change from 135 to 121 and is only getting worse. As of now even companies with very low cost such as Mesa can only afford to operate the 1900''s in subsidized markets ie. EAS.
As for the Dash-8 vs, the RJ cost issue, that is a moot pointe as well. The CRJ for example, costs no more per seat mile to operate than the Dash due to having more seats and no greater crew requirements and is much more flexible from an operations viewpoint. Ad to that the CRJ-700 and -900 and the cost is even lower due to available seating and common parts bin. The CRJ-900 operated by Mesa will be the first aircraft to have a lower cost per ASM than a Southwest 737... Both the CRJ-700 and -900 require less runway than the -200 which has no leading edge devices and require basically the same crew save an additional flight attendant. The aircraft both have usefull range in excess of 1700 NM., and cruise at speeds over MACH .82! Mesa recently did a flight to and from Aspen in a -700 which should satisfy most arguments as per performance.
Most agree that the ERJ is a substandard aircraft and over all a loser in the RJ market. This coupled with the fact that the three CRJ''s are a common fleet type while the ERJ''s are not, make the CRJ a clear winner. Commonality is key.
Best to all and no matter the RJ fleet which feeds U, lets hope they fill enough mainline seats to bring all the folks at both mainline and the WO''s back from furlough.
As for the Dash-8 vs, the RJ cost issue, that is a moot pointe as well. The CRJ for example, costs no more per seat mile to operate than the Dash due to having more seats and no greater crew requirements and is much more flexible from an operations viewpoint. Ad to that the CRJ-700 and -900 and the cost is even lower due to available seating and common parts bin. The CRJ-900 operated by Mesa will be the first aircraft to have a lower cost per ASM than a Southwest 737... Both the CRJ-700 and -900 require less runway than the -200 which has no leading edge devices and require basically the same crew save an additional flight attendant. The aircraft both have usefull range in excess of 1700 NM., and cruise at speeds over MACH .82! Mesa recently did a flight to and from Aspen in a -700 which should satisfy most arguments as per performance.
Most agree that the ERJ is a substandard aircraft and over all a loser in the RJ market. This coupled with the fact that the three CRJ''s are a common fleet type while the ERJ''s are not, make the CRJ a clear winner. Commonality is key.
Best to all and no matter the RJ fleet which feeds U, lets hope they fill enough mainline seats to bring all the folks at both mainline and the WO''s back from furlough.
