BAW716 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2028 posts, RR: 27
Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1942 times:
The answer is: I don't know.
It would require an analysis of the unit cost and unit revenue generated on that segment. If DL ran a MD90 BUF-ATL and those three flights generated a margin of 0.04 cents per rpm, compared to DLX running 9 flights with the CRJ running those flights at 0.053 cents per mile. Nine flights at 70 pax per a/c is 630 seats per day. DL MD90 is 160 seats x 3 is 480 seats.
Since DLs unit margin is less than DLX, then it makes better sense to operate the CRJs. However, let's reverse things and say that the MD90s produced a unit margin of 0.053 c/rpm v. 0.04 c/rpm on the CRJs, with the same number of flights. DL would be better served to add one more MD90 frequency if it can fill 95% of those seats on a daily basis. DL 160 x 4= 624 x 0.053 You gain a little more pure margin by having the 3rd MD90 run the aircraft.
So, my call is going to be predicated on reviewing all the numbers. If all the numbers remain, using DLX is still more expensive option.
David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
764 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 624 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1940 times:
Usually it is more cost effective to use larger aircraft. RJs tend to be rather expensive per seast mile.
The other issue is cutomer goodwill though. Le tme use FAR as an example. We have four UAX CRJs to DEN and three UAX CRJs to ORD. Also, NW has around six mainline and two or three regional aircraft (ARJ, SF3, etc.) into MSP. People up here strongly prefer NW and they mainly do so because of the larger aircraft. Personally I would fly NW rather than UAX, but since I usually connect to UA transatlatic flights in ORD, I of course am stuck on those CRJs.
IMHO CRJs cause customer dissatisfaction, higher cost and congestion at the bigger airports such as ORD. For Fargo I would much rather see one or two 737-sized aircraft into bothe ORD and DEN and an additional CRJ service to each one. This would be the perfect compromise.
KBUF737 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 779 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1895 times:
sometimes for pax comfort you have to give up amenities like flight convenience. And the airline itself may have to realize that its b=usiness plan is better with less flights on bigger planes than many flights on many more little planes.
Cloudboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 828 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1884 times:
Unfortunately it is not a purely mathmatical question. In pure numbers, using larger planes would result in lower costs, since you have lower costs for items such as pilots, equipment, gates, and all the operational overhead.
On the other hand, having more frequent flights may actually increase the passenger load, because you are now offering better choices for time. You are also spreading your passenger load more evenly.
Yet you can also counter that by the fact that in current configurations many passengers prefer larger aircraft.
So there is a huge amount of guess work and passenger research thrown into something like this.
"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
Ejmmsu From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1692 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1872 times:
DL is the mother of the regional jet here in the US. They were the first US airline to buy them in bulk, and they have by far the most RJ's of any US airline. With fuel where it is at, this is one of the main reasons they are in deep doo-doo. Its just too expensive these days to compete with LCC's when there are so many RJ's in the fleet.
When DL retired their DC9's and turboprops, they decided to replace all of them with CRJ's. DL would be much, much better off if that order had instead been for a mix of 717's CRJ's and new turboprops. Of course, hindsight is 20/20.
Quoting KBUF737 (Thread starter): It seems that when DL used a route system focused on more mainline with less options to connect that they were a much more profitable airline, or is it simply speculation to say that?
The data supports it my friend, and I think you are right on. Its why airlines like AA and NW, and LCC's have weathered the storm a little better.
"If the facts do not conform to the theory, they will have to be disposed of"