Philippine333 wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

voxkel wrote:

An under-the-radar route for UA could be SFO-EZE. There is a large/growing tech industry in Argentina (MELI, Despegar) and Google's South America HQ is in EZE. CA has the second largest Argentine population in the States after Florida (though would imagine more concentrated in LA).

All of those factors represent small demand overall, combined with a tech sector that is in the early innings of a substantial pull back, combined with a long, thin route. AA's experience on LAX-EZE has shown the market isn't there. Argentina's economy, at 100% inflation, also a factor in why such a route is off the table.

The thing I'm wondering is, why are West Coast-South America flights on US carriers always failing compared to let's say, Texas or East Coast-South America? Is it just because more like the better services of LatAm carriers over US carriers to and from the West Coast?

An easy way to think of it is that pretty much all the demand to South America is East of the Mississippi with really only Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Houston being exceptions.

But in the case of SFO, the market skews to only two destinations: GRU and LIM. For LAX, the mass market is there but the fares suck. IAH is bigger than SFO but smaller than LAX to South America, but the fares are much higher and the geography is good for connections.

In the case of DFW, its just such a huge hub that it can make South America work but even it struggles. Its only daily year round flights to South America are GRU and BOG. SCL and EZE are less than daily in the summer and LIM and UIO were canned.

East of the Mississippi, ATL-South America isn't huge (it is bigger than DFW-South America), but it is very well located to capture markets from the Northeast and Central Florida to South America and it has a massive number of flights to feed them. But even it cant support GIG year round.

The true prizes to South America are South Florida and NYC.

This may have been asked before, but I’m not finding it anywhere and I figured this would be the best thread to ask.

Is there any method and or strategy to aircraft types on certain routes? Specifically I’m looking at my local airport JAX. To me it just seems more random than any other airline. When not being run on express, the same flight each day will be on 319,320, and all the 737 series including the 900. Where as say AA and DL generally put the same type on a specific route everyday. Do they really look at the loads for that specific day and choose the plane that fits or is it more so what ever plane is available at that time, does that run? Thanks in advance!

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Philippine333 wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

All of those factors represent small demand overall, combined with a tech sector that is in the early innings of a substantial pull back, combined with a long, thin route. AA's experience on LAX-EZE has shown the market isn't there. Argentina's economy, at 100% inflation, also a factor in why such a route is off the table.

The thing I'm wondering is, why are West Coast-South America flights on US carriers always failing compared to let's say, Texas or East Coast-South America? Is it just because more like the better services of LatAm carriers over US carriers to and from the West Coast?

An easy way to think of it is that pretty much all the demand to South America is East of the Mississippi with really only Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Houston being exceptions.

But in the case of SFO, the market skews to only two destinations: GRU and LIM. For LAX, the mass market is there but the fares suck. IAH is bigger than SFO but smaller than LAX to South America, but the fares are much higher and the geography is good for connections.

In the case of DFW, its just such a huge hub that it can make South America work but even it struggles. Its only daily year round flights to South America are GRU and BOG. SCL and EZE are less than daily in the summer and LIM and UIO were canned.

East of the Mississippi, ATL-South America isn't huge (it is bigger than DFW-South America), but it is very well located to capture markets from the Northeast and Central Florida to South America and it has a massive number of flights to feed them. But even it cant support GIG year round.

The true prizes to South America are South Florida and NYC.

I actually think IAH is the second most important US hub to SA (after MIA). It is the only city besides MIA that has a year round flight to GIG, and maintains daily flights to all other major destinations.

AA out of JFK needs to attract high yields passengers enough that they forgo saving money to fly via MIA. UA don’t have this issue.

EssentialBusDC wrote:

DBKissORD wrote:

Did anyone else notice that the third ORD-LHR round trip has disappeared for June July and August schedule but returns in September. It was available recently and disappeared. Seems odd for the busy summer travel season. I thought United was all in on LHR this summer. Is it a slots issue with other frequency increases?

Pretty sure London has instituted a passenger cap, so United can’t fly all that it wants to to LHR. My ch like AMS and how IAD was the sacrificial flight.

EWR-LHR will also see a daily frequency reduction for June, July and August, from 7 to 6 daily r/t, returning to 7 in September.

https://www.aeroroutes.com/eng/230227-ualhr

Can the 787-10 do LAX/SFO to LHR and other European destinations?

VC10er wrote:

Can the 787-10 do LAX/SFO to LHR and other European destinations?

Yes but it’s right on the edge of max payload range. It has the fuel capacity but may not have the ZFW to make it. Also will most likely not be able to carry any extra cargo.

Right now 12 hours is the top end of a -10.

CriticalPoint wrote:

VC10er wrote:

Can the 787-10 do LAX/SFO to LHR and other European destinations?

Yes but it’s right on the edge of max payload range. It has the fuel capacity but may not have the ZFW to make it. Also will most likely not be able to carry any extra cargo.

Right now 12 hours is the top end of a -10.[/quot

Interesting, thanks!

I remember that United used the -10 to South Africa from EWR. Is that a 12 hour flight nonstop? I did it once on SA, an A340 and we stopped in Dakar for fuel. I was frankly surprised to read that the -10 had the legs. I recall that flight felt like forever- but it was likely the woman next to me who wanted to talk the whole way!

VC10er wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

VC10er wrote:

Can the 787-10 do LAX/SFO to LHR and other European destinations?

Yes but it’s right on the edge of max payload range. It has the fuel capacity but may not have the ZFW to make it. Also will most likely not be able to carry any extra cargo.

Right now 12 hours is the top end of a -10.[/quot

Interesting, thanks!

I remember that United used the -10 to South Africa from EWR. Is that a 12 hour flight nonstop? I did it once on SA, an A340 and we stopped in Dakar for fuel. I was frankly surprised to read that the -10 had the legs. I recall that flight felt like forever- but it was likely the woman next to me who wanted to talk the whole way!

The -10 can fly as far as the -9. It just has to sacrifice people and cargo for gas. The -10 to JNB is an equipment sub so even if the flight was full for a -9 it still has 50 open seats. Basically a weight restriction

voxkel wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Philippine333 wrote:

The thing I'm wondering is, why are West Coast-South America flights on US carriers always failing compared to let's say, Texas or East Coast-South America? Is it just because more like the better services of LatAm carriers over US carriers to and from the West Coast?

An easy way to think of it is that pretty much all the demand to South America is East of the Mississippi with really only Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Houston being exceptions.

But in the case of SFO, the market skews to only two destinations: GRU and LIM. For LAX, the mass market is there but the fares suck. IAH is bigger than SFO but smaller than LAX to South America, but the fares are much higher and the geography is good for connections.

In the case of DFW, its just such a huge hub that it can make South America work but even it struggles. Its only daily year round flights to South America are GRU and BOG. SCL and EZE are less than daily in the summer and LIM and UIO were canned.

East of the Mississippi, ATL-South America isn't huge (it is bigger than DFW-South America), but it is very well located to capture markets from the Northeast and Central Florida to South America and it has a massive number of flights to feed them. But even it cant support GIG year round.

The true prizes to South America are South Florida and NYC.

I actually think IAH is the second most important US hub to SA (after MIA). It is the only city besides MIA that has a year round flight to GIG, and maintains daily flights to all other major destinations.

AA out of JFK needs to attract high yields passengers enough that they forgo saving money to fly via MIA. UA don’t have this issue.

It is.

For the same reason people go on about geography and hub location for Europe flights at UA, the same holds true for South and Central American flights at UA. IAH serves the market very well both for demand and location. While not as great as MIA it more than pulls its weight for S.A. and serves the market and connections very well. Yes a few large locations away from IAH get some flights (just like IAH for Europe) but IAH is where UA is going to funnel that traffic.

I know this sounds crazy, but a few years ago (2016?) my morning EWR-MCO was held at the gate for connecting passengers from Sao Paulo. It was not an insignificant number who made the connection.

STT757 wrote:

I know this sounds crazy, but a few years ago (2016?) my morning EWR-MCO was held at the gate for connecting passengers from Sao Paulo. It was not an insignificant number who made the connection.

Not crazy at all. Almost every Brazilian will make it to Disney World. It’s almost a right of passage. My other half is Brazilian and every time I ask him where he wants to go on vacation he says “Disney Worrrd” - and he’s been about 6 times!!!

VC10er wrote:

STT757 wrote:

I know this sounds crazy, but a few years ago (2016?) my morning EWR-MCO was held at the gate for connecting passengers from Sao Paulo. It was not an insignificant number who made the connection.

Not crazy at all. Almost every Brazilian will make it to Disney World. It’s almost a right of passage. My other half is Brazilian and every time I ask him where he wants to go on vacation he says “Disney Worrrd” - and he’s been about 6 times!!!

The "crazy" seems not so much about the attractiveness of Disney World as the back track from GRU via EWR to MCO. Disney mustvreally have some sway - or UA some crazy pricing

CriticalPoint wrote:

VC10er wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

Yes but it’s right on the edge of max payload range. It has the fuel capacity but may not have the ZFW to make it. Also will most likely not be able to carry any extra cargo.

Right now 12 hours is the top end of a -10.[/quot

Interesting, thanks!

I remember that United used the -10 to South Africa from EWR. Is that a 12 hour flight nonstop? I did it once on SA, an A340 and we stopped in Dakar for fuel. I was frankly surprised to read that the -10 had the legs. I recall that flight felt like forever- but it was likely the woman next to me who wanted to talk the whole way!

The -10 can fly as far as the -9. It just has to sacrifice people and cargo for gas. The -10 to JNB is an equipment sub so even if the flight was full for a -9 it still has 50 open seats. Basically a weight restriction

UA 787-10 did flew nonstop LAX-MEL and back for one time, that is more than 15 hours west and 14 hours east flying time.

Starting to see more 737 max AC swapping in where a 737NG was scheduled -- anecdotal example yesterday from PSP to ORD. Well past the days of free changes if you're booked on a max and uncomfortable

1kloudvoice wrote:

Starting to see more 737 max AC swapping in where a 737NG was scheduled -- anecdotal example yesterday from PSP to ORD. Well past the days of free changes if you're booked on a max and uncomfortable

Happened to me today, 73G scheduled ORD>CLE replaced by 7M9 - nice as I scored an upgrade b/c of it. I was amazed at how many scratches and black marks are on the ceiling from the roller bags hitting the ceiling when stowing them with the 1 bag per person sized overheads.

fun2fly wrote:

1kloudvoice wrote:

Starting to see more 737 max AC swapping in where a 737NG was scheduled -- anecdotal example yesterday from PSP to ORD. Well past the days of free changes if you're booked on a max and uncomfortable

Happened to me today, 73G scheduled ORD>CLE replaced by 7M9 - nice as I scored an upgrade b/c of it. I was amazed at how many scratches and black marks are on the ceiling from the roller bags hitting the ceiling when stowing them with the 1 bag per person sized overheads.

Oh man. Was this an older frame or did it have the NEXT treatment?

jonahsachs wrote:

fun2fly wrote:

1kloudvoice wrote:

Starting to see more 737 max AC swapping in where a 737NG was scheduled -- anecdotal example yesterday from PSP to ORD. Well past the days of free changes if you're booked on a max and uncomfortable

Happened to me today, 73G scheduled ORD>CLE replaced by 7M9 - nice as I scored an upgrade b/c of it. I was amazed at how many scratches and black marks are on the ceiling from the roller bags hitting the ceiling when stowing them with the 1 bag per person sized overheads.

Oh man. Was this an older frame or did it have the NEXT treatment?

For the record, two 737MAX9 flights today ORD-CLE, both with 2020 build, pre-NEXT aircraft N27520

calpsafltskeds wrote:

jonahsachs wrote:

fun2fly wrote:

Happened to me today, 73G scheduled ORD>CLE replaced by 7M9 - nice as I scored an upgrade b/c of it. I was amazed at how many scratches and black marks are on the ceiling from the roller bags hitting the ceiling when stowing them with the 1 bag per person sized overheads.

Oh man. Was this an older frame or did it have the NEXT treatment?

For the record, two 737MAX9 flights today ORD-CLE, both with 2020 build, pre-NEXT aircraft N27520

Older frame as noted. I think the a/c went CLE>ORD>CLE>ORD>CLE 2x RT's. Oddly enough, it was an EWR based crew. There was a 738 sitting at the D gates unused when I arrived also.

The main thing I noticed was how quiet it was sitting in 5F - almost no engine noise heard.

fun2fly wrote:

calpsafltskeds wrote:

jonahsachs wrote:

Oh man. Was this an older frame or did it have the NEXT treatment?

For the record, two 737MAX9 flights today ORD-CLE, both with 2020 build, pre-NEXT aircraft N27520

Older frame as noted. I think the a/c went CLE>ORD>CLE>ORD>CLE 2x RT's. Oddly enough, it was an EWR based crew. There was a 738 sitting at the D gates unused when I arrived also.

The main thing I noticed was how quiet it was sitting in 5F - almost no engine noise heard.

Does this wear and tear seem unusual for a ~4 old plane?

jonahsachs wrote:

fun2fly wrote:

calpsafltskeds wrote:

For the record, two 737MAX9 flights today ORD-CLE, both with 2020 build, pre-NEXT aircraft N27520

Older frame as noted. I think the a/c went CLE>ORD>CLE>ORD>CLE 2x RT's. Oddly enough, it was an EWR based crew. There was a 738 sitting at the D gates unused when I arrived also.

The main thing I noticed was how quiet it was sitting in 5F - almost no engine noise heard.

Does this wear and tear seem unusual for a ~4 old plane?

It’s the design of the pivot bins. Pretty easy to strike (and mark) the ceiling with rubber wheels and bumpers from roller bags when stowing them, especially on their side.

United Announces new Archer Route for Chicago Downtown to ORD

Source: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/ ... in-Chicago

Notes: United Airlines and Archer have selected O’Hare International Airport (ORD) to Vertiport Chicago as the next point to point route in which the two companies will utilize Archer’s electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft as part of their urban air mobility (UAM) network buildout

Wild stuff to see, if it ever happens! Best of Luck to Chicago, United and Archer!

Alex

UA pulling out of SPI. Cutting at least ORD from ERI.
June 2

https://www.yourerie.com/news/local-new ... l-airport/

ERI only has UA service to ORD, UA will be exiting the market.

Jshank83 wrote:

UA pulling out of SPI. Cutting at least ORD from ERI.
June 2

https://www.yourerie.com/news/local-new ... l-airport/

I wonder when the bleeding of these small markets will subside. UA is still withdrawing 50 seat planes over the next couple years, so I assume we can expect more for some time?

Jshank83 wrote:

UA pulling out of SPI. Cutting at least ORD from ERI.
June 2

https://www.yourerie.com/news/local-new ... l-airport/

That is kind of surprising to me because Im thought there had to be demand for people going from Chicago to the Capital of Illinois. But I've not really looked into that...

UA just doesn't have the backfill capacity in regional pilots and70/75-seaters to replace 50-seaters in its smallest markets. It was already down to 1x/daily in some of these markets, so going from 3x/daily on a 50-seater to 2x as DL has on its remaining CR2 markets just isn't an option.

It's a follow-on effect from the pulldown of ZW flying. Even though those markets are presently flown by SkyWest, there is a major regional reshuffling underway at ORD and the low-end 50-seat markets have born the brunt of the cuts dating from last year.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Jshank83 wrote:

UA pulling out of SPI. Cutting at least ORD from ERI.
June 2

https://www.yourerie.com/news/local-new ... l-airport/

That is kind of surprising to me because Im thought there had to be demand for people going from Chicago to the Capital of Illinois. But I've not really looked into that...

Amtrak runs 5 trains a day each way between Chicago and Springfield. It's a 3 hour journey without having to deal with TSA and without having to spend 45-75 minutes getting downtown from O'Hare. TSA + flying + getting to/from airport is roughly a wash compared to the train. And Amtrak advance purchase fares are $19.

If the United-Amtrak codeshare was still in place, I'd suggest all the Amtrak trains that originate/terminate in Union Station really should originate/terminate at the O'Hare Metra station to allow air<>rail connections onto shorthaul Amtrak Midwest services.

Looks like IAH-MUC is getting a boost for the summer. From June 22 to July 31, it is upgraded from a 763 to a 777.

adamblang wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Jshank83 wrote:

UA pulling out of SPI. Cutting at least ORD from ERI.
June 2

https://www.yourerie.com/news/local-new ... l-airport/

That is kind of surprising to me because Im thought there had to be demand for people going from Chicago to the Capital of Illinois. But I've not really looked into that...

Amtrak runs 5 trains a day each way between Chicago and Springfield. It's a 3 hour journey without having to deal with TSA and without having to spend 45-75 minutes getting downtown from O'Hare. TSA + flying + getting to/from airport is roughly a wash compared to the train. And Amtrak advance purchase fares are $19.

If the United-Amtrak codeshare was still in place, I'd suggest all the Amtrak trains that originate/terminate in Union Station really should originate/terminate at the O'Hare Metra station to allow air<>rail connections onto shorthaul Amtrak Midwest services.

AA also recently announced they are switching their SPI-DFW route to SPI-ORD

With the further drawdown of 50 seaters and cap on 76 seaters (and no A220), I think UA is going to end up abandoning a lot of smaller routes and markets. I wonder if this will hurt them in the long run compared to AA learning heavily on connections in DFW and CLT or DL having more 100-150 seat aircraft.

They've said as much in earnings calls and interviews. Markets will either be upgauged at reduced frequency or exited if they cannot support an upgauge.

adamblang wrote:

They've said as much in earnings calls and interviews. Markets will either be upgauged at reduced frequency or exited if they cannot support an upgauge.

Thing is there are a lot of markets UA has (especially out of DEN) that can’t anything more than a 50 seater 2x daily. Especially with no answer to DFW or ATL, the 50 seaters have to be around even if they are at reduced usage.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

adamblang wrote:

They've said as much in earnings calls and interviews. Markets will either be upgauged at reduced frequency or exited if they cannot support an upgauge.

Thing is there are a lot of markets UA has (especially out of DEN) that can’t anything more than a 50 seater 2x daily. Especially with no answer to DFW or ATL, the 50 seaters have to be around even if they are at reduced usage.

Wasn't the CRJ-550 supposed to be the answer to this?

LAXdude1023 wrote:

adamblang wrote:

They've said as much in earnings calls and interviews. Markets will either be upgauged at reduced frequency or exited if they cannot support an upgauge.

Thing is there are a lot of markets UA has (especially out of DEN) that can’t anything more than a 50 seater 2x daily. Especially with no answer to DFW or ATL, the 50 seaters have to be around even if they are at reduced usage.

I would wager most (all?) of those, ski towns notwithstanding, are SkyWest at-risk/EAS markets that United doesn't particularly care about or need to be in. The reality is that such low-density markets contribute very little to the system, and those that do can sustain an upgauge to a 70/76-seater, or already have.

Those are generally routes that will leave the UA* system if another contractor replaces SkyWest for the EAS subsidy.

Lamp1009 wrote:

Wasn't the CRJ-550 supposed to be the answer to this?

Yes, and it generally has been out of EWR, which has completely replaced all single-cabin RJ flying. If/when GoJet is able to fully staff its CR5s, we will probably see it do the same out of ORD, but they aren't even close to doing that right now, with nearly half the fleet parked due to a lack of pilots.

The CR5, as artificially weight-restricted, doesn't have the performance to do much out of DEN.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

adamblang wrote:

They've said as much in earnings calls and interviews. Markets will either be upgauged at reduced frequency or exited if they cannot support an upgauge.

Thing is there are a lot of markets UA has (especially out of DEN) that can’t anything more than a 50 seater 2x daily. Especially with no answer to DFW or ATL, the 50 seaters have to be around even if they are at reduced usage.

I've seen the stats posted on another site and many of these small markets, including EAS markets have load factors in the +/- 50% range or less. I know heads will explode on here but having tag or triangle flights would address many of the issues while still maintaining air service at minimum levels and also dealing with A/C and crew availability.

The tags would have the same number of take-off and landings/cycles as two separate flights, but it could be done with half the crew and frames. The pax who only have 2 flight options per day anyway aren't going to care if they have to make a quick enroute stop on the way to a hub.

Couple examples: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=den-mot-dv ... en-hys-sln

codc10 wrote:

Lamp1009 wrote:

Wasn't the CRJ-550 supposed to be the answer to this?

Yes, and it generally has been out of EWR, which has completely replaced all single-cabin RJ flying. If/when GoJet is able to fully staff its CR5s, we will probably see it do the same out of ORD, but they aren't even close to doing that right now, with nearly half the fleet parked due to a lack of pilots.

The CR5, as artificially weight-restricted, doesn't have the performance to do much out of DEN.

Problem is the CRJ550s are too premium heavy to really replace CR2/E145 flying

60% of the seats are F/Y+, which is unrealistic to fill from small markets.

Midwestindy wrote:

codc10 wrote:

Lamp1009 wrote:

Wasn't the CRJ-550 supposed to be the answer to this?

Yes, and it generally has been out of EWR, which has completely replaced all single-cabin RJ flying. If/when GoJet is able to fully staff its CR5s, we will probably see it do the same out of ORD, but they aren't even close to doing that right now, with nearly half the fleet parked due to a lack of pilots.

The CR5, as artificially weight-restricted, doesn't have the performance to do much out of DEN.

Problem is the CRJ550s are too premium heavy to really replace CR2/E145 flying

60% of the seats are F/Y+, which is unrealistic to fill from small markets.

And they don't even maintain the benefits of being premium heavy. I've flown on the CR5 a half dozen times now, and I have never been on a flight with it long enough to use their F bar. Some flights are so short they don't even serve water in F. That might as well be on an E145. The only big benefit they have is on carry on storage.

cosyr wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

codc10 wrote:

Yes, and it generally has been out of EWR, which has completely replaced all single-cabin RJ flying. If/when GoJet is able to fully staff its CR5s, we will probably see it do the same out of ORD, but they aren't even close to doing that right now, with nearly half the fleet parked due to a lack of pilots.

The CR5, as artificially weight-restricted, doesn't have the performance to do much out of DEN.

Problem is the CRJ550s are too premium heavy to really replace CR2/E145 flying

60% of the seats are F/Y+, which is unrealistic to fill from small markets.

And they don't even maintain the benefits of being premium heavy. I've flown on the CR5 a half dozen times now, and I have never been on a flight with it long enough to use their F bar. Some flights are so short they don't even serve water in F. That might as well be on an E145. The only big benefit they have is on carry on storage.

145s/200s don't have wifi/entertainment and 550s do. That to me is the bigger thing.

cosyr wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

codc10 wrote:

Yes, and it generally has been out of EWR, which has completely replaced all single-cabin RJ flying. If/when GoJet is able to fully staff its CR5s, we will probably see it do the same out of ORD, but they aren't even close to doing that right now, with nearly half the fleet parked due to a lack of pilots.

The CR5, as artificially weight-restricted, doesn't have the performance to do much out of DEN.

Problem is the CRJ550s are too premium heavy to really replace CR2/E145 flying

60% of the seats are F/Y+, which is unrealistic to fill from small markets.

And they don't even maintain the benefits of being premium heavy. I've flown on the CR5 a half dozen times now, and I have never been on a flight with it long enough to use their F bar. Some flights are so short they don't even serve water in F. That might as well be on an E145. The only big benefit they have is on carry on storage.

All of those things, to me, are a big deal. A F product is key, and it is a very comfortable one at that, with more pitch than any 737, which is great while holding at EWR or DCA for an EDCT. E+ is nice too, as is a stand-up cabin. Avoiding gate-checking bags is a time-saver, too.

Quantum leap forward over a CR2 or ERJ, IMO.

I also don't think the notion that it's "too premium heavy" holds much water. It is chiefly intended to mitigate the book-away factor (a real thing) in markets where United is competing with 50 seaters against AA and DL with large RJ or mainline jets, which allows capture of "some" premium segment. Even if there are few to no fare-paying premium passengers, the operating costs per block hour of a CR5/CR7 are only marginally higher than a CR2/ERJ. A lot is made about the higher CASM of a 50-seat version of the same tube against a 70-seater, but the real comparison has to be against the 50-seater it replaces, and the additional revenue-generating opportunities (including upsells) the CR5 offers over a 50-seater. In that respect, the non-crew economics are favorable.

Midwestindy wrote:

codc10 wrote:

Lamp1009 wrote:

Wasn't the CRJ-550 supposed to be the answer to this?

Yes, and it generally has been out of EWR, which has completely replaced all single-cabin RJ flying. If/when GoJet is able to fully staff its CR5s, we will probably see it do the same out of ORD, but they aren't even close to doing that right now, with nearly half the fleet parked due to a lack of pilots.

The CR5, as artificially weight-restricted, doesn't have the performance to do much out of DEN.

Problem is the CRJ550s are too premium heavy to really replace CR2/E145 flying

60% of the seats are F/Y+, which is unrealistic to fill from small markets.

Yeah, its this. I don't see how the CR5 is a suitable replacement for an ERJ/CRJ.

Markets like DEN-LAR/COD or IAH-LRD have high fares but cant support such a premium configuration.

Look at where the CRJ-500 is flying right now. Its not going in and out or subbing in small markets. Its in markets like BNA and STL not in markets like LBB or MOT.

I get that it may be a good replacement for the very few large markets where a 50 seater may still be flying but its a terrible replacement for smaller markets.

Jshank83 wrote:

cosyr wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

Problem is the CRJ550s are too premium heavy to really replace CR2/E145 flying

60% of the seats are F/Y+, which is unrealistic to fill from small markets.

And they don't even maintain the benefits of being premium heavy. I've flown on the CR5 a half dozen times now, and I have never been on a flight with it long enough to use their F bar. Some flights are so short they don't even serve water in F. That might as well be on an E145. The only big benefit they have is on carry on storage.

145s/200s don't have wifi/entertainment and 550s do. That to me is the bigger thing.

I find the Wifi rarely works, especially when you start the descent as soon as you reach 10,000 feet.

adamblang wrote:

They've said as much in earnings calls and interviews. Markets will either be upgauged at reduced frequency or exited if they cannot support an upgauge.

I understand that, but I wonder if they will regret that outlook. A few years ago Kirby was all-in on adding smaller markets to increase connecting flow. That strategy seems to have changed significantly since Covid. At some point, they will need these passengers to fill all the 737 and A321 on order.

sbaflyer wrote:

adamblang wrote:

They've said as much in earnings calls and interviews. Markets will either be upgauged at reduced frequency or exited if they cannot support an upgauge.

I understand that, but I wonder if they will regret that outlook. A few years ago Kirby was all-in on adding smaller markets to increase connecting flow. That strategy seems to have changed significantly since Covid. At some point, they will need these passengers to fill all the 737 and A321 on order.

The economics of serving those markets changes when regional pilots are commanding near-mainline wages. I think it’s good for the pilots, but proves to be some harsh reality for many communities that are in driving distance of larger airports and don’t generate the yield premium and/or volume to support larger jet flying from the mainline carriers.

The RJ model is predicated on low-cost labor. Without it, unit costs make the entire scheme unprofitable.

IAD-HND set to begin tomorrow March 25; UA's first IAD-Asia flight since the pandemic.

ScorpioMC3 wrote:

IAD-HND set to begin tomorrow March 25; UA's first IAD-Asia flight since the pandemic.

Wow and with great loads. Wonderful to see IAD regain a TPAC flight with UA.

sbaflyer wrote:

adamblang wrote:

They've said as much in earnings calls and interviews. Markets will either be upgauged at reduced frequency or exited if they cannot support an upgauge.

I understand that, but I wonder if they will regret that outlook. A few years ago Kirby was all-in on adding smaller markets to increase connecting flow. That strategy seems to have changed significantly since Covid. At some point, they will need these passengers to fill all the 737 and A321 on order.

I don’t believe there’s a way to regret this, as running these flights is becoming impossible. It really isn’t a strategy change, it’s a new fact of the industry. The economics have changed, they don’t have the staffing, and there’s no replacement aircraft available for the aging small RJ’s.

If you want to know what will happen to the non EAS cities that can’t support a larger plane, look at what Delta has done. They will lose service all together.

Sadly the next few years will not be kind to these small cities. I do hope some outside the box thinking can happen with triangle routes like Skywest is doing with EAS cities in the upper midwest.

codc10 wrote:

sbaflyer wrote:

adamblang wrote:

They've said as much in earnings calls and interviews. Markets will either be upgauged at reduced frequency or exited if they cannot support an upgauge.

I understand that, but I wonder if they will regret that outlook. A few years ago Kirby was all-in on adding smaller markets to increase connecting flow. That strategy seems to have changed significantly since Covid. At some point, they will need these passengers to fill all the 737 and A321 on order.

The economics of serving those markets changes when regional pilots are commanding near-mainline wages. I think it’s good for the pilots, but proves to be some harsh reality for many communities that are in driving distance of larger airports and don’t generate the yield premium and/or volume to support larger jet flying from the mainline carriers.

The RJ model is predicated on low-cost labor. Without it, unit costs make the entire scheme unprofitable.

At that point it probably is better to go for the A220 or E2 and still pay just above the now high regional wages. The end of the ubiquitous regional flying seems to be upon us and things may revert back to the old school airline regional flying, if the airlines keep their pipelines or Congress lowers the 1500 hour rule.

PoorSailorsAir wrote:

sbaflyer wrote:

adamblang wrote:

They've said as much in earnings calls and interviews. Markets will either be upgauged at reduced frequency or exited if they cannot support an upgauge.

I understand that, but I wonder if they will regret that outlook. A few years ago Kirby was all-in on adding smaller markets to increase connecting flow. That strategy seems to have changed significantly since Covid. At some point, they will need these passengers to fill all the 737 and A321 on order.

I don’t believe there’s a way to regret this, as running these flights is becoming impossible. It really isn’t a strategy change, it’s a new fact of the industry. The economics have changed, they don’t have the staffing, and there’s no replacement aircraft available for the aging small RJ’s.

If you want to know what will happen to the non EAS cities that can’t support a larger plane, look at what Delta has done. They will lose service all together.

Sadly the next few years will not be kind to these small cities. I do hope some outside the box thinking can happen with triangle routes like Skywest is doing with EAS cities in the upper midwest.

Maybe these small town folk will see the value of improved and expanded rail service and vote accordingly. The 135 guys are having a hard time finding pilots too, Boutique is checking the drain and they had a large network.