Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > United
Pinnacle belly up and UAX? >

Pinnacle belly up and UAX?

Search

Notices

Pinnacle belly up and UAX?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 04-02-2012, 07:04 AM
  #11  
Gets Weekends Off
 
reCALcitrant's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 840
Default

From what I understand, of course I'm not a Harvard MBA, the RVSM on the planes are all lower than the 73 or Bus. If mngmt is smart (I know, I know) they'll let this happen and continue to shift flying back into mainline. The smaller airplanes are just not getting it done at a competitive price with fuel at 100/bbl. If I were king of the world, there wouldn't be a regional flying at my airline unless it had about 25 seats and served places where people are willing to pay a premium to fly out of for convenience.
reCALcitrant is offline  
Old 04-02-2012, 08:24 AM
  #12  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 439
Default

This will lead to another 1000 furloughs or airman, including some of our own that got furoughed from UAL.
El10 is offline  
Old 04-02-2012, 09:52 AM
  #13  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Posts: 400
Default

Originally Posted by El10
This will lead to another 1000 furloughs or airman, including some of our own that got furoughed from UAL.
dvhighdrive88 is offline  
Old 04-02-2012, 02:45 PM
  #14  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: 737NG Captain
Posts: 34
Default

Originally Posted by gettinbumped
It's Colgan flying. Sounds like Colgan will be shuttered.
Colgan's flying?

It's United's flying...
globochem is offline  
Old 04-02-2012, 04:27 PM
  #15  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Posts: 156
Default

Originally Posted by poor pilot
But this is great news for the industry.
Seriously? They will go to a lower bidder!!!!!
vtx531 is offline  
Old 04-03-2012, 03:51 AM
  #16  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: guppy CA
Posts: 5,171
Default

Originally Posted by El10
This will lead to another 1000 furloughs or airman, including some of our own that got furoughed from UAL.
Our furloughees can take the job at LCAL. There are only ~250 yet to be offered jobs at LCAL.
... and maybe, just maybe some of this flying will return to MAINLINE.
Andy is offline  
Old 04-03-2012, 04:02 AM
  #17  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: guppy CA
Posts: 5,171
Default

Originally Posted by reCALcitrant
From what I understand, of course I'm not a Harvard MBA, the RVSM on the planes are all lower than the 73 or Bus. If mngmt is smart (I know, I know) they'll let this happen and continue to shift flying back into mainline. The smaller airplanes are just not getting it done at a competitive price with fuel at 100/bbl. If I were king of the world, there wouldn't be a regional flying at my airline unless it had about 25 seats and served places where people are willing to pay a premium to fly out of for convenience.
I assume you mean RASM (revenue per available seat mile), not RVSM?
The CASM (cost per available seat mile) is higher on regional aircraft, but they cook the numbers to show that they get higher RASM on regional jets. It all depends on how you divide up the portions of a ticket that has multiple stops/aircraft changes. It's accounting sleight of hand for the most part.
Example: TUS-MCO. The trip is TUS-IAH (RJ) and IAH-MCO (mainline). Suppose the ticket is $150 each way. Now make the TUS-IAH leg cost $100 and the IAH-MCO leg cost $50 for accounting purposes.

We're back to a point in the business where most city pairs have more than enough daily frequency. Reducing 2 RJs to 1 737/A319 keeps the available seats to the city pair approximately neutral but reduces the cost. The loss is one daily flight for that city pair. But when you've got 6 or 7 daily RJ flights, the reduction to 5 or 6 RJs + 1 mainline will probably have minimal impact on passenger demand. It may even be greater for the mainline flight since many people prefer to fly on mainline aircraft.
Andy is offline  
Old 04-03-2012, 04:24 PM
  #18  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Default

Originally Posted by globochem
Colgan's flying?

It's United's flying...
You know what I mean.
gettinbumped is offline  
Old 04-04-2012, 05:39 AM
  #19  
Gets Weekends Off
 
cal73's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: 737 Captain
Posts: 872
Default

Pinna-Colg-mesaba may be losing large turboprop flying but the airplanes are not being parked. Some other regional carrier with a lower bid is getting em. This is not gonna mean mainline picking up the flying.
cal73 is offline  
Old 04-04-2012, 07:32 AM
  #20  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: IAH 737 CA
Posts: 690
Default

Originally Posted by cal73
Pinna-Colg-mesaba may be losing large turboprop flying but the airplanes are not being parked. Some other regional carrier with a lower bid is getting em. This is not gonna mean mainline picking up the flying.

Who else is currently flying them or already has the infrastructure in place to do it quickly? You would have to have a company that could almost do it overnight or a large portion of your turboprop flying out of EWR,CLE, and IAH will be unavailable for the summer. Unless they plan on dismantling the Pinnacle flying after the second quarter. Here fly your ass off for the summer and we will furlough you in the fall. I've heard this done at a certain carrier a few times before..............
EWR73FO is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices