RJ Wars
- Thread starter Center_Mid
- Start date
[ QUOTE ]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Sky West one of the highest paid pilot groups in the CRJ?
I believe you are wrong on that. I believe CMR has the highest paid CRJ drivers. Regardless, if they made $50/hr more than any other RJ drivers out there, that wouldn't make up for the nearly 5 cent difference. If it takes 1 hr to fly a 300 mile leg, in order to make up for 5 cents of CASM you need $.05X50seatsX300miles= $750. I very much doubt that Skywest pilot crew makes $750/hr more than CMR/ASA/ACA/etc.
And where did you get the Delta figures?
Delta's latest SEC filing.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Sky West one of the highest paid pilot groups in the CRJ?
I believe you are wrong on that. I believe CMR has the highest paid CRJ drivers. Regardless, if they made $50/hr more than any other RJ drivers out there, that wouldn't make up for the nearly 5 cent difference. If it takes 1 hr to fly a 300 mile leg, in order to make up for 5 cents of CASM you need $.05X50seatsX300miles= $750. I very much doubt that Skywest pilot crew makes $750/hr more than CMR/ASA/ACA/etc.
And where did you get the Delta figures?
Delta's latest SEC filing.
[ QUOTE ]
I was hoping you would post a link.
[/ QUOTE ]
http://investor.delta.com/EdgarDetail.cfm?CompanyID=DAL&CIK=27904&FID=950144-03-8644&SID=03-00
DELTA AIR LINES, INC.
STATISTICAL SUMMARY
(unaudited)
Six Months Ended
June 30,
Operating Cost per
Available Seat Mile (cents) 10.42
I hope that helps.
I was hoping you would post a link.
[/ QUOTE ]
http://investor.delta.com/EdgarDetail.cfm?CompanyID=DAL&CIK=27904&FID=950144-03-8644&SID=03-00
DELTA AIR LINES, INC.
STATISTICAL SUMMARY
(unaudited)
Six Months Ended
June 30,
Operating Cost per
Available Seat Mile (cents) 10.42
I hope that helps.
kellwolf
Piece of Trash
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how you figure that. A B737 carries 120, an RJ carries 50.
[/ QUOTE ]
It also depends on what 737 you're talking about as well as which airline. Different configurations can adversely affect the ASM. For example, 737-200 at airline A holds 122 while a 737-700 holds 137. While over at airline B they may opt for a different class seating or remove rows to increase the leg room. This lowers the capacity and ups the amount of people ya need to make it profitable. If one of the longer 737s is being flown, then you have to tack on the cost of another FA as well.
[ QUOTE ]
B737 uses 7000lbs/hr/side
RJ uses 3000lbs
[/ QUOTE ]
Not sure, but hopefully in a couple of years I can either agree or disagree.
[ QUOTE ]
It is much cheaper to operate 7 RJs on a city pair per day than 3 B737s
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm guessing you're only looking at city PAIRS here and not downline stations. I've always wondered how flights from say FLL to MCO (and vice versa) can possibly be profitable if there are only 30 people on a 737. However, when the plane stops in MCO and goes on to say BWI totally full, then I can see where it starts to kinda make up for it. I guess you COULD run nothing but RJs from FLL to MCO and feed them into the bigger jets, and I think that may be what JetBlue is planning on doing in the future. It would all depend on the maintenance contract I guess since they would have to either train all the maintenance on two a/c or specialize.
I don't see how you figure that. A B737 carries 120, an RJ carries 50.
[/ QUOTE ]
It also depends on what 737 you're talking about as well as which airline. Different configurations can adversely affect the ASM. For example, 737-200 at airline A holds 122 while a 737-700 holds 137. While over at airline B they may opt for a different class seating or remove rows to increase the leg room. This lowers the capacity and ups the amount of people ya need to make it profitable. If one of the longer 737s is being flown, then you have to tack on the cost of another FA as well.
[ QUOTE ]
B737 uses 7000lbs/hr/side
RJ uses 3000lbs
[/ QUOTE ]
Not sure, but hopefully in a couple of years I can either agree or disagree.
[ QUOTE ]
It is much cheaper to operate 7 RJs on a city pair per day than 3 B737s
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm guessing you're only looking at city PAIRS here and not downline stations. I've always wondered how flights from say FLL to MCO (and vice versa) can possibly be profitable if there are only 30 people on a 737. However, when the plane stops in MCO and goes on to say BWI totally full, then I can see where it starts to kinda make up for it. I guess you COULD run nothing but RJs from FLL to MCO and feed them into the bigger jets, and I think that may be what JetBlue is planning on doing in the future. It would all depend on the maintenance contract I guess since they would have to either train all the maintenance on two a/c or specialize.
Mr_Creepy
Well-Known Member
Ok first thanks for the link. Unfortunately that information is not for MD88s but the entire Delta fleet! That includes low price goliaths like 777s, 767ERs, MD11s, L1011s, etc.
We need to compare apples and apples to get an accurate reading here. Soebody out there must have up to date on CASMs on RJs .vs. B737s and MD88s? anyone? Buehler?
Also, I have never seen a B737-700 configured to 137 seats. Even Southwest cattle class is ony 132 by my count.
Midway's were mostly 112 coach and 8 FC. We had three that were 100 coach and 12 FC.
Not saying it isn't there, I just wasn't aware of such a tightly packed 700.
We need to compare apples and apples to get an accurate reading here. Soebody out there must have up to date on CASMs on RJs .vs. B737s and MD88s? anyone? Buehler?
Also, I have never seen a B737-700 configured to 137 seats. Even Southwest cattle class is ony 132 by my count.
Midway's were mostly 112 coach and 8 FC. We had three that were 100 coach and 12 FC.
Not saying it isn't there, I just wasn't aware of such a tightly packed 700.
stuckingfk
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Ok first thanks for the link. Unfortunately that information is not for MD88s but the entire Delta fleet! That includes low price goliaths like 777s, 767ERs, MD11s, L1011s, etc.
Delta Air Lines has only 8 B777, 59 B767ERs, and 14 MD-11s, most of the MD-11s are parked in the desert and no L1011s, these aircraft operate predominatelyt international flights, with the associated added costs of international flights, landing fees, taxes, meal service, and more highly compensated flight deck and cabin crews, etc. OTOH Delta has 120 MD88s, 16 MD90s, 52 B737-200s, 26 B737-300s, 71 B737-800s, 121 B757-200s. I don't think that you will find that the CASM shifts by nearly 50% from 15cents to just over 10 cents based on a handful of aircraft. Skywest has a fleet wide CASM of 15.3 cents, ACA has 15.5 vs. Delta's 10.42 cents, or Alaska's 8.25 (an airline that flies narrow bodied jets). If you want to draw the conclusion that 75 widebodied aircraft drove down the CASM of 406 narrow bodied aircraft in the domestic Delta fleet 50% I think you are mistaken.
However, if you are wanting to argue that the 777 is so remarkably cheaper on a CASM basis due to it's size, than wouldn't your logic hold true for the MD-88 vs the RJ?
Aircraft efficiency is driven much more by the inherent efficiencies of scale and utilization rates versus crew cost. As a rough example, DAL's total costs are approximately $15BB, of that approximately $1.5BB is crew cost. A 10% shift of crew cost has a fleet CASM effect only .1cents. If DAL pilots made 500% more than they do today, the DAL fleet CASM would equal that of Skywest. Crew cost is not the overriding issue on each aircrafts CASM. Your point that the 777, L1011, MD-11 and 767er and other wide bodied aircraft are super efficient is interesting. I was wondering what your logic was on that, could it be economy of scale?
While trying to pin down the CASM industry wide for MD-88 sized aircraft might be nearly impossible, perhaps a bell weather for the MD88 and similar aircraft might be Alaska with a reported CASM of 8.25 cents. That is significantly less than any RJ carrier. Skywest, a large CRJ carrier reports a CASM of 15.3 cents and ACA 15.5. At the end of the day, I have not found a single regional carrier flying CRJs that has a CASM that is near 8.25cents. Quite simply the CASM of an RJ is significantly higher than the CASM of most any mainline jet. The segment cost might be lower, but the seat cost is higher. That makes the RJ the ideal aircraft for thinner markets, but not such a good choice for larger markets.
Ok first thanks for the link. Unfortunately that information is not for MD88s but the entire Delta fleet! That includes low price goliaths like 777s, 767ERs, MD11s, L1011s, etc.
Delta Air Lines has only 8 B777, 59 B767ERs, and 14 MD-11s, most of the MD-11s are parked in the desert and no L1011s, these aircraft operate predominatelyt international flights, with the associated added costs of international flights, landing fees, taxes, meal service, and more highly compensated flight deck and cabin crews, etc. OTOH Delta has 120 MD88s, 16 MD90s, 52 B737-200s, 26 B737-300s, 71 B737-800s, 121 B757-200s. I don't think that you will find that the CASM shifts by nearly 50% from 15cents to just over 10 cents based on a handful of aircraft. Skywest has a fleet wide CASM of 15.3 cents, ACA has 15.5 vs. Delta's 10.42 cents, or Alaska's 8.25 (an airline that flies narrow bodied jets). If you want to draw the conclusion that 75 widebodied aircraft drove down the CASM of 406 narrow bodied aircraft in the domestic Delta fleet 50% I think you are mistaken.
However, if you are wanting to argue that the 777 is so remarkably cheaper on a CASM basis due to it's size, than wouldn't your logic hold true for the MD-88 vs the RJ?
Aircraft efficiency is driven much more by the inherent efficiencies of scale and utilization rates versus crew cost. As a rough example, DAL's total costs are approximately $15BB, of that approximately $1.5BB is crew cost. A 10% shift of crew cost has a fleet CASM effect only .1cents. If DAL pilots made 500% more than they do today, the DAL fleet CASM would equal that of Skywest. Crew cost is not the overriding issue on each aircrafts CASM. Your point that the 777, L1011, MD-11 and 767er and other wide bodied aircraft are super efficient is interesting. I was wondering what your logic was on that, could it be economy of scale?
While trying to pin down the CASM industry wide for MD-88 sized aircraft might be nearly impossible, perhaps a bell weather for the MD88 and similar aircraft might be Alaska with a reported CASM of 8.25 cents. That is significantly less than any RJ carrier. Skywest, a large CRJ carrier reports a CASM of 15.3 cents and ACA 15.5. At the end of the day, I have not found a single regional carrier flying CRJs that has a CASM that is near 8.25cents. Quite simply the CASM of an RJ is significantly higher than the CASM of most any mainline jet. The segment cost might be lower, but the seat cost is higher. That makes the RJ the ideal aircraft for thinner markets, but not such a good choice for larger markets.
davetheflyer
New Member
[ QUOTE ]
You are forgetting pr diem. 1.30/hr.
Since most FOs are placed on TDY for the first six months or so they are getting 24 hr pr diem, or about $30 a day.
[/ QUOTE ]
That would change things a bit. It seems that the normal way of doing things is to keep reserve pilots in domicile, so they aren't earning per diem unless they are actually working. If Mesa does this differently, it would be advantageous to their pilots.
As to the amount of work on reserve, I'd say that is cyclical as well. I've seen it go from flying on every reserve day to having reserves fly 10 hours per month at my company. The bottom line is that you can't count on anything above guarantee.
You are forgetting pr diem. 1.30/hr.
Since most FOs are placed on TDY for the first six months or so they are getting 24 hr pr diem, or about $30 a day.
[/ QUOTE ]
That would change things a bit. It seems that the normal way of doing things is to keep reserve pilots in domicile, so they aren't earning per diem unless they are actually working. If Mesa does this differently, it would be advantageous to their pilots.
As to the amount of work on reserve, I'd say that is cyclical as well. I've seen it go from flying on every reserve day to having reserves fly 10 hours per month at my company. The bottom line is that you can't count on anything above guarantee.
Mr_Creepy
Well-Known Member
Actually the 777 is not cheaper because of size, although that helps. It's mostly cheaper because there are virtually no costs on the plane other than fuel for the first seven years, with the contract Boeing and Delta negotiated.
kellwolf, I know you work there. I've only flown Midway 700s and I don't see how you could stuff 137 seats in them. It doesn't figure mathematically either. 22 rows of 6 seats is 132. 23 is 138. Is there a 5 seat row? The exit row maybe?
Anyway - I'd like to see actual CASMs for similar routes. Lets leave hi-yield int'l flying out of it. Anyone know someone in accounting at an airline that can give us some real #'s?
kellwolf, I know you work there. I've only flown Midway 700s and I don't see how you could stuff 137 seats in them. It doesn't figure mathematically either. 22 rows of 6 seats is 132. 23 is 138. Is there a 5 seat row? The exit row maybe?
Anyway - I'd like to see actual CASMs for similar routes. Lets leave hi-yield int'l flying out of it. Anyone know someone in accounting at an airline that can give us some real #'s?
Mr_Creepy
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Aircraft efficiency is driven much more by the inherent efficiencies of scale and utilization rates versus crew cost. As a rough example, DAL's total costs are approximately $15BB, of that approximately $1.5BB is crew cost. A 10% shift of crew cost has a fleet CASM effect only .1cents. If DAL pilots made 500% more than they do today, the DAL fleet CASM would equal that of Skywest. Crew cost is not the overriding issue on each aircrafts CASM. Your point that the 777, L1011, MD-11 and 767er and other wide bodied aircraft are super efficient is interesting. I was wondering what your logic was on that, could it be economy of scale?
[/ QUOTE ]
It may be only 10% of costs but it is almost 50% of non-fixed costs.
My logic on the larger aircraft is that they fly under seven year MX contracts with 8-10 year interest moratoriums since they are hard to sell. Nobody gets a deal like that on RJs right now, since Bombardier can't make them fast enough.
Aircraft efficiency is driven much more by the inherent efficiencies of scale and utilization rates versus crew cost. As a rough example, DAL's total costs are approximately $15BB, of that approximately $1.5BB is crew cost. A 10% shift of crew cost has a fleet CASM effect only .1cents. If DAL pilots made 500% more than they do today, the DAL fleet CASM would equal that of Skywest. Crew cost is not the overriding issue on each aircrafts CASM. Your point that the 777, L1011, MD-11 and 767er and other wide bodied aircraft are super efficient is interesting. I was wondering what your logic was on that, could it be economy of scale?
[/ QUOTE ]
It may be only 10% of costs but it is almost 50% of non-fixed costs.
My logic on the larger aircraft is that they fly under seven year MX contracts with 8-10 year interest moratoriums since they are hard to sell. Nobody gets a deal like that on RJs right now, since Bombardier can't make them fast enough.
[ QUOTE ]
"Actually the 777 is not cheaper because of size, although that helps. It's mostly cheaper because there are virtually no costs on the plane other than fuel for the first seven years, with the contract Boeing and Delta negotiated."
But with only 8 B777s in DAL's fleet, the argument that they somehow skew the CASM of 406 narrow bodied aircraft by 50% seems a bit of a stretch if not a mathematical impossibility. Sure they have maintenance contracts, but the overwhelming number of DAL aircraft do not. Other factors that go into DALs CASM that don't show up in Skywest or ACA is a $1BB for an RJ maintenance facility, $400MM for the BOS concourse, the DAL contribution to the ATL runway, and a host of other costs associated with running an airline vs a small jet provider service.
I'm not sure how many Skywest or ACA aircraft are under maintenance contracts, but as predominately RJ carriers with a CASM of 15.3cents and 15.5 cents vs. DAL at 10.42 or Alaska at 8.25, it seems obvious that the original point that the "known fact" that mainline MD88 and other similar mainline aircraft are more productive and efficient on a per seat basis is obvious.
If you want to talk about segment cost, that's one thing, but if you want to discuss the efficient and low cost transportation of passengers, than the CASM of larger narrow bodied jets like the MD88, 737-800 and 757 is far less than that of a CRJ50.
"Anyway - I'd like to see actual CASMs for similar routes."
I've yet to see them ever published, but I doubt you will find a significant deviation from the aggregate.
"Lets leave hi-yield int'l flying out of it."
Alaska Airlines: CASM 8.25
"Actually the 777 is not cheaper because of size, although that helps. It's mostly cheaper because there are virtually no costs on the plane other than fuel for the first seven years, with the contract Boeing and Delta negotiated."
But with only 8 B777s in DAL's fleet, the argument that they somehow skew the CASM of 406 narrow bodied aircraft by 50% seems a bit of a stretch if not a mathematical impossibility. Sure they have maintenance contracts, but the overwhelming number of DAL aircraft do not. Other factors that go into DALs CASM that don't show up in Skywest or ACA is a $1BB for an RJ maintenance facility, $400MM for the BOS concourse, the DAL contribution to the ATL runway, and a host of other costs associated with running an airline vs a small jet provider service.
I'm not sure how many Skywest or ACA aircraft are under maintenance contracts, but as predominately RJ carriers with a CASM of 15.3cents and 15.5 cents vs. DAL at 10.42 or Alaska at 8.25, it seems obvious that the original point that the "known fact" that mainline MD88 and other similar mainline aircraft are more productive and efficient on a per seat basis is obvious.
If you want to talk about segment cost, that's one thing, but if you want to discuss the efficient and low cost transportation of passengers, than the CASM of larger narrow bodied jets like the MD88, 737-800 and 757 is far less than that of a CRJ50.
"Anyway - I'd like to see actual CASMs for similar routes."
I've yet to see them ever published, but I doubt you will find a significant deviation from the aggregate.
"Lets leave hi-yield int'l flying out of it."
Alaska Airlines: CASM 8.25
"It may be only 10% of costs but it is almost 50% of non-fixed costs."
First of all, all employee costs account for about 35% of overall costs. Of that less than 1/3rd is related to pilot costs. That equates to a about 10% of total cost. It is an insignificant factor when comparing CASM, particularly on dissimilar aircraft. A much greater impact on the CASM of similar aircraft is utilzation. Are you flying it 12 hours a day or 8. As I have pointed out, for every 10% of crew compensation, the net effect on CASM is one tenth of one penny, or approximately 1% of CASM.
"My logic on the larger aircraft is that they fly under seven year MX contracts with 8-10 year interest moratoriums since they are hard to sell."
That all depends on when you bought them and what deal you wrangled. Most DAL MD11s and 767ers have been on the property for over 7 years, so that pretty much makes the maintenance contract issue moot, except for 8 B777s, but I think you will find that that is hardly enough to skew the CASM of 406 narrow bodied aircraft by the fifty percent CASM advantage they have over CRJs.
" Nobody gets a deal like that on RJs right now, since Bombardier can't make them fast enough."
I think you will find very few new CRJ50 orders beyond the next couple of years. The next new growth segment according to the Boyd Group, of the industry will be in the over 70-110 seat aircraft similar to the E170/190.
[/ QUOTE ]
First of all, all employee costs account for about 35% of overall costs. Of that less than 1/3rd is related to pilot costs. That equates to a about 10% of total cost. It is an insignificant factor when comparing CASM, particularly on dissimilar aircraft. A much greater impact on the CASM of similar aircraft is utilzation. Are you flying it 12 hours a day or 8. As I have pointed out, for every 10% of crew compensation, the net effect on CASM is one tenth of one penny, or approximately 1% of CASM.
"My logic on the larger aircraft is that they fly under seven year MX contracts with 8-10 year interest moratoriums since they are hard to sell."
That all depends on when you bought them and what deal you wrangled. Most DAL MD11s and 767ers have been on the property for over 7 years, so that pretty much makes the maintenance contract issue moot, except for 8 B777s, but I think you will find that that is hardly enough to skew the CASM of 406 narrow bodied aircraft by the fifty percent CASM advantage they have over CRJs.
" Nobody gets a deal like that on RJs right now, since Bombardier can't make them fast enough."
I think you will find very few new CRJ50 orders beyond the next couple of years. The next new growth segment according to the Boyd Group, of the industry will be in the over 70-110 seat aircraft similar to the E170/190.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's true. RJs will replace the low frequency routes currently covered by 737s and similar.
The big guys will still be around doing the long haul stuff.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hey John. That's true for the moment, but lets think about this frequency issue a little more. Back in '97-'01, pre-9/11, most of the large airports were having frequency issues with the 737/320 class aircraft doing quick turns and overloading the system. I can't tell you how many times I flew circles around Big Sur at SFO waiting for a slot on a perfectly clear day. Now, by substituting 50-70 seat RJs, schedule convenience can be maintained while being more efficient with the lighter loads. As the loads are starting to return, and assuming they go back to the previous target growth numbers, I believe the RJs will essentially be self limiting because they will have to exceed the previous frequency numbers by up to 50% to haul the same number of people. I know UAL was told, at numerous large airports during the freq. issues of the late '90s, that their 737/320 schedules were overloading the system. What could very well happen is that as the loads return, more 737/320 size aircraft will resume their previous flying while the current RJs then start to replace the aging turboprop fleets as their markets can support 50-70 seat aircraft. I really think the boom cycle is coming back around again and the only problem might be too many carriers overloading the ATC and airport capacities.
It's true. RJs will replace the low frequency routes currently covered by 737s and similar.
The big guys will still be around doing the long haul stuff.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hey John. That's true for the moment, but lets think about this frequency issue a little more. Back in '97-'01, pre-9/11, most of the large airports were having frequency issues with the 737/320 class aircraft doing quick turns and overloading the system. I can't tell you how many times I flew circles around Big Sur at SFO waiting for a slot on a perfectly clear day. Now, by substituting 50-70 seat RJs, schedule convenience can be maintained while being more efficient with the lighter loads. As the loads are starting to return, and assuming they go back to the previous target growth numbers, I believe the RJs will essentially be self limiting because they will have to exceed the previous frequency numbers by up to 50% to haul the same number of people. I know UAL was told, at numerous large airports during the freq. issues of the late '90s, that their 737/320 schedules were overloading the system. What could very well happen is that as the loads return, more 737/320 size aircraft will resume their previous flying while the current RJs then start to replace the aging turboprop fleets as their markets can support 50-70 seat aircraft. I really think the boom cycle is coming back around again and the only problem might be too many carriers overloading the ATC and airport capacities.
Mr_Creepy
Well-Known Member
You would think so! BUt look at LGA (LaGarbage.) Rather than decrease the small stuff, they've increased it. ACJet is flying a whole bunch of Dorkjets in there. USAirways has a zillion RJs and Dash 8's.
I agree with you in common sense, but commom sense never seemed to run an airline
I agree with you in common sense, but commom sense never seemed to run an airline
