SkyWest

Now that I've introduced myself to the moderators...

All kidding aside. There really are many great companies to work for out here and some, ...well not so much. I guess it all depends on how you feel about it. (love the little faces)

Here's my question to all of you: Some of our companies are big enough that we aren't really operating as regional carriers. We are operating as national carriers flying regional equipment. Will this stand as the domestic model of the future? ... Or, will we actually see a reduction in RJ flying? I've heard a-lot of talk about both scenarios but I'm starting to wonder. I get a little concerned when we stuff everyone in the back of a 50 and fly from Houston to Ft. Myers and back on a hot day. It kind of suggests that this is where the future of the industry is headed. Our company (for example) keeps plugging away with the CRJ-200 and they don't seem to be letting up. We do fly the -700 (66 and 65 pax for Delta and United and 5 copies of a 70 pax for AAG.) and -900 (76 pax for Delta) but the "50" seems to be far-and-away the weapon of choice. I just can't understand why this is. The CR7 and 9 are far more efficient than the -200. It's not scope, at least not that I can see. Can the system really handle an ever increasing volume of 50 seat RJs flying around on these national routes? It seemed like the original intent was to focus our jets on smaller communities. Why does it appear more desirable to our mainlines to operate 3 fifty seat RJs instead of a 2-class 177 seat 737NG into a place like Burbank? These flights are ALWAYS full. Don't get me wrong, I love having the work, but there's got to be a better way to keep us all employed.

cencal83406

I hate having the work. I think regionals like us should stick to regional flying, stuff that hardly requires pressurization, let alone turbojet aircraft. I cringe when I see larger and larger equipment at places that fly for others, rather than for themselves. Regionals should not be careers, no matter how good they might treat you.

SkyWest

There's a-lot to be said for that. It should be a-lot easier for me to think about "moving up" and getting out of here. The reality is though, it's not that black-and-white anymore. This is where I need to be in this stage of my career but it's pretty comfy and not beyond the realm of possibility for the long-haul. Good point.

RgrMurdock

are you really complaining about a regional carrier not flying bigger equipment? Let the domestic flying be done by the legacy carriers. Skywest would never pay what a legacy carrier would flying a crj7 or 9. I wish they would scope out everything. Put me on the street so I could get hired for much more pay later.

SkyWest

I'm not complaining about anything. I am wondering if we're trying to cram too many people into too many little RJs instead of admitting that there should be larger gauge (such as a 737, ...in reality) on some of these routes. That said, if we're going to go ahead and do it, I'd think it should probably be a 2 or 3-class CRJ-700 (or similar) with just under 70 seats. I'm pretty positive, they're not going to do any of this anymore without RJs. I just think they should at least use slightly bigger aircraft and they should definitely go back to focusing higher volume on regional routes. Denver to New Orleans isn't something we really have any business doing. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy doing it. My point is, if I could continue to do my level of work by way of focusing more flying where RJs belong, I'd do it. By today's standards, the CRJ-200s are a little less effective than I think they ought to be. Do it with something that's better for the carriers, pilots, and passengers, that's all. Beyond that, I really just want to hear where the rest of us are at on this issue. The discussion always seems to be anchored in the way it was in the past, instead of the way it is now. I feel like we might missing out on some valuable insight because of this paradigm.

thepotato232

Not sure I have anything intelligent to add to this conversation, but I've never let that stop me before...

In response to your comment about your company not being "scoped out" of more -700 & -900 flying, are you sure you're not running up against the contracting companies' "Large RJ" limitations? If that's not the issue, the short answer is that the -200s are paid for. Same reason there were Red Tail DC-9s flying into their 40s. But you're quite right in that 50 seat RJs are regularly being used for missions well outside their envelope of profitability. Of course, that's only a problem if you're the one paying for the gas.

For my part, I flew 19 seat turboprops until I found that pilots of said pinwheels faced an unfriendly job market dominated by RJ pilots. I sent my resume to just about every jet operation in the States (including yours), and found myself in the uncomfortable position of flying for one Brian Bedford in aircraft that never should have been scoped out of mainline ops. My existential crisis of flying an 86 seat "RJ" from Philly to Houston was thankfully cut short by furlough. I was lucky enough to find expat work, and the flying jobs I've done since have been in an environment where the "Mainline vs Regional" gulf never materialized to the same extent. It's a trip.

Karee- ahem, Mr. Murdock, I think SkyWest here is simply pointing out the inherent lunacy in having turned over half of domestic US flight operations to contractors that operate 50-seat jets in such a way that makes them loss leaders.* I think we can all sympathize.

*(I learned that term in a textbook ten years ago, always wanted to use it.)

rickair7777

To some extent they probably do this just because the labor is that much cheaper. But RJ's also offer a significant competitive advantage: Frequency.

Pax actually like having many choices in departure time. At one point my home town had like 6-7 daily J's to the DAL hub...sure made the commute easy. You could put all those pax on one 747 and it would be cheaper to do just one flight but you would lose a lot of customers to other airlines.

But as fule costs and landing slot congestion increase the cost of RJ's will probably outweigh the benefits and we'll be back to 2-3 daily NB's or even one WB. Bigger airplanes cost less per seat and obviously don't use as many landing/departure slots.

threeighteen

Or even DEN to SBA, GRR, SNA, SBA, ICT, MCI, etc...

United used to fly the 727/737 on routes like DEN<->MBS, profitably, after de-regulation.

I miss the days when United actually flew mainline flights into Denver that weren't to/from another hub... And when they actually flew the 747 into Denver... the only scheduled one is LH now. There's not one United-operated flight to Europe from DEN... they've all been outsourced...

Yeah, I loved the old DEN....

BlueMoon

They would probably dump a lot of the CRJ-200's if they could, but they signed a long contract just prior to Delta going into bankruptcy and Delta needed the cash.

Mason32

Still, for a great many routes that rarely if ever fill all 50 seats, these RJ's make perfect sense. Carrying 50 on a 50 seater is more economical than carrying 50 on a 76 seater, or on a 124 seater...

a wise mane once said...

"Nobody ever lost money flying an airplane that was too small"

-Bob Crandall


Thus far he has been proven correct.