Eagle vote 70% NO with 92% participation

It's already profitable. Look at the amount of money held at the top executive level at some of these regionals...
 
No, it's not profitable, and it can't be made profitable with a simple fare increase like you claim. If Delta decided tomorrow to increase fares by $5 to cover an increased fee paid to the regionals, then United wouldn't match the increase and would instead launch a giant advertising campaign to point out how their fares are $5 cheaper than Delta's. The load factors on Delta would drop through the floor, and Delta would pull back their fare increase in a split second. Contrary to popular belief, pilots don't know how to run airlines better than experienced airline managers do. They know what they're doing with yield management, and you don't. Sorry.
 
Hehe, I agree. There are some economics to this regional business business that require higher wages to retain pilots. However, and I don't believe this completely, but there's a possiblilty that out of your 3000 pilots maybe 300-600 that just love the flying, love the company, love living in base, and reserve at mainline (starting all over) is repulisive to them. That gives the company some bargaining with this fraction of pilots. It'll look scary when 2400 pilots run for the door but the company could right size the fleet and things be fine even though every indication looks like the sky is falling.

Although, with the legacy payscales and work rules I'm not convinced you'll find 3-600 pilots in a 3000 pilot group.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
No, it's not profitable, and it can't be made profitable with a simple fare increase like you claim. If Delta decided tomorrow to increase fares by $5 to cover an increased fee paid to the regionals, then United wouldn't match the increase and would instead launch a giant advertising campaign to point out how their fares are $5 cheaper than Delta's. The load factors on Delta would drop through the floor, and Delta would pull back their fare increase in a split second. Contrary to popular belief, pilots don't know how to run airlines better than experienced airline managers do. They know what they're doing with yield management, and you don't. Sorry.
Click to expand...

The one thing I've noticed about just about EVERY SINGLE PILOT I've ever met, is they think they have an informed opinion on EVERYTHING. Don't they know that only my opinions are correct?
 
TWP said:
The one thing I've noticed about just about EVERY SINGLE PILOT I've ever met, is they think they have an informed opinion on EVERYTHING. Don't they know that only my opinions are correct?
Click to expand...
I substitute your reality for mine. Bazinga!
 
PeanuckleCRJ said:
Currently 50 seaters are being replaced by 115 seaters, and at a company that doesn't think that less than 10 pilots per plane is proper staffing. So... well your math is considerably off thus far. :)

Oh, and drawing conclusions off of what Trip7 says isn't super accurate... he was on the Delta thread at APC the other day saying that malaria is no worse than the flu. (sorry bro... that was quite the faux pas!)
Click to expand...

Haha. I had to let that one go. Having that debate with actual Africans that live in and/or from Africa would yield a much different result.

Every single member of my immediate family has had malaria. Apparently we've all been moments from death and will have life long after effects!
 
ATN_Pilot said:
No, it's not profitable, and it can't be made profitable with a simple fare increase like you claim. If Delta decided tomorrow to increase fares by $5 to cover an increased fee paid to the regionals, then United wouldn't match the increase and would instead launch a giant advertising campaign to point out how their fares are $5 cheaper than Delta's. The load factors on Delta would drop through the floor, and Delta would pull back their fare increase in a split second. Contrary to popular belief, pilots don't know how to run airlines better than experienced airline managers do. They know what they're doing with yield management, and you don't. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Heh, nobody knows how to run an airline. Even the ones that do make money just get lucky for a couple years.
 
Who says they have to increase fares to pay for higher feed costs? Yes, they will pay more and could end up making slightly less money per quarter but that's the cost of doing business. We're not talking about companies in the red, these are profitable companies.

No different than paying your aircraft cleaners. It's a service provided, it won't make money on its own. But if you want clean aircraft you'll pay the cost, it's part of doing business. Similarly feed might or might not make money, but if you want those customers fed into your network you pay the going cost.
 
Just a thought, but do people really believe that 115 seaters will replace 2 or 3 50 seaters? Think about service to terrible little towns all across the midwest. There are currently 2-3 flights out per day, with at least one in the morning and one in late afternoon. The reason is that the majority of the tickets bought in these places are not people going to Disney World - they are people that travel for business. So, if some airline cuts service from 3 flights to 1, they will only get air travelers that are looking for that departure time. If there isn't one available, they will likely just jump on the next airline rather than wait until the next day. So, it is likely that the airlines will be forced to still offer multiple flights a day, just to be competitive. Bigger equipment, more seats, same number of passengers.

I was recently in one of those terrible places, traveling for business. It was an Air Whisky flight in and out. The gate agent made an announcement that every passenger on the airplane had zone 1 boarding, as everyone was a business traveler with that level of miles required to have zone 1 boarding. All 40+ of us were business travelers, and likely chose the flight based on the time that we needed to depart only. When I traveled for business a great deal, I had silver status on one airline and gold on 2 more. People book tickets because of times of departure and arrival. As the "frequent flier" benefits are cut more and more, they care much less about brand loyalty. Just my $.02 from my personal observations.
 
Baronman said:
Who says they have to increase fares to pay for higher feed costs? Yes, they will pay more and could end up making slightly less money per quarter but that's the cost of doing business. We're not talking about companies in the red, these are profitable companies.

No different than paying your aircraft cleaners. It's a service provided, it won't make money on its own. But if you want clean aircraft you'll pay the cost, it's part of doing business. Similarly feed might or might not make money, but if you want those customers fed into your network you pay the going cost.
Click to expand...

Oy. This is why airline executives mock pilots and think we're a bunch of ignorant yokels who couldn't run a lemonade stand, much less an airline.

Airlines pay aircraft cleaners because if they don't have clean airplanes, then they won't have passengers, and they won't make money. That is a cost of doing business.

Paying more for something than it produces in revenue is not a cost of doing business. It's a waste. You are basically asking airlines to voluntarily reduce their profit margins in order to pay you more money when they have other more profitable options available to them instead. I'm sorry, but businesses are not a charity. If they can produce more profit without you, then that's exactly what they'll do (and should do).
 
Boyington said:
Just a thought, but do people really believe that 115 seaters will replace 2 or 3 50 seaters? Think about service to terrible little towns all across the midwest. There are currently 2-3 flights out per day, with at least one in the morning and one in late afternoon. The reason is that the majority of the tickets bought in these places are not people going to Disney World - they are people that travel for business. So, if some airline cuts service from 3 flights to 1, they will only get air travelers that are looking for that departure time. If there isn't one available, they will likely just jump on the next airline rather than wait until the next day. So, it is likely that the airlines will be forced to still offer multiple flights a day, just to be competitive. Bigger equipment, more seats, same number of passengers.

I was recently in one of those terrible places, traveling for business. It was an Air Whisky flight in and out. The gate agent made an announcement that every passenger on the airplane had zone 1 boarding, as everyone was a business traveler with that level of miles required to have zone 1 boarding. All 40+ of us were business travelers, and likely chose the flight based on the time that we needed to depart only. When I traveled for business a great deal, I had silver status on one airline and gold on 2 more. People book tickets because of times of departure and arrival. As the "frequent flier" benefits are cut more and more, they care much less about brand loyalty. Just my $.02 from my personal observations.
Click to expand...

What you describe is exactly the reasoning that airline executives have been using for years for RJ service to small markets. Many of them have always been loss leaders. But the problem has become that the losses they're taking on many of the routes are now just losses, and not loss leaders. The extra revenue that those connecting passengers bring in to their other profitable routes isn't offsetting the costs of the incredibly expensive RJs like it used to. They've just become too expensive. It worked when oil was $30/bbl. It doesn't work when oil is at $80/bbl.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
What you describe is exactly the reasoning that airline executives have been using for years for RJ service to small markets. Many of them have always been loss leaders. But the problem has become that the losses they're taking on many of the routes are now just losses, and not loss leaders. The extra revenue that those connecting passengers bring in to their other profitable routes isn't offsetting the costs of the incredibly expensive RJs like it used to. They've just become too expensive. It worked when oil was $30/bbl. It doesn't work when oil is at $80/bbl.
Click to expand...

My point is that the flying may become more diversified, but will likely not have fewer flights servicing the same area. At the very least, it will not be cut by 2/3. 4 flights instead of 5, sure. But 1 flight instead of 3, never.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Actually, you might see 0 instead of 3 to some markets.
Click to expand...

You're 100% correct. Twice in recent months I've done ferry work that required significant drive time from a B/C airport with an equal sized city out to the middle of nowhere. Then when I get to Nowhere, USA the airport is a D/E and set up for regional service. Terminal, vacant TSA stations, luggage turnstiles, etc... Then the locals tell me that XYZ airline used to serve them now they make the same drive I just did when they want to get out of Dodge.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
You know, folks, when you replace 50 seaters with 150 seaters, and there is no capacity increase, the number of jobs just shrunk by two thirds. Sure, the jobs that are left are better jobs, but a lot of people are left out in the cold.

Not saying that it's not a good thing. Just pointing out that everything won't be roses like some people think.
Click to expand...

And that's completely ok.

The people that are prepared to take advantage of the opportunity will succeed. The ones that have not, will not.

Better jobs, fewer butts needed for those seats, the "Age 90, NOW!!!!" crowd loses steam.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top