Or if you want to look at the positives for AirTran.
They create a market with a smaller plane at less risk to their bottom line. They create more demand for their product and maybe send Midwest to the crapper. People of this board seem to think that if you can fly an RJ into an airport that means you can somehow fill a 737, 717, 320, etc.
If these flights work, eventually they'll be able to send 717's on these routes.
Has anyone taken business classes here?
That's a good thought.
I saw a that maybe 3% of my time flying the RJs doing that.
But, let's put this in historical perspective:
1) AWAC flew for AirTran (even saw a CRJ in those colors in TLH). It was a signed long term deal, terminated about what seemed the 12 month point. Costs were about the same as the 717, and less revenue from what I heard
2) ACA gave UAL the finger, turned the airline into the cash burning machine known as Independence Air, or Flyi IIRC, ACA had about 200 jets, and a bunch of cash in the bank. One of the leading regionals at that time.
3) ExpressJet branded services
All of which has occurred within the last 10 years, and 1 and 2 were during boom years, not this crap economy we have now.
So, summing it up, a 50 seat jet has it's niche in the industry. However, by far and large, the capacity is mismanaged and is more of a cost leader than a revenue center.
This is one of the first returns to yield flying from fee-for-departure flying you'll see.
Obviously we have seen XJT in some agreements (was it the Delta on the west coast?) for yield flying.
RAH is obviously going into at-risk flying
Skywest is entering the arena.
It's tough out there guys. At-risk, or yield, flying means one thing is coming. Phrases like: "Sharpen our pencils", "tighten our belts" and more bluntly "contain costs to be competitive".
Hang on, and strap in...it's gonna get ugly!!
Oh...and I wonder what AirTran pilots think about all this?