Guest Dash eight Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 Where's the direction.... Why is it that the company is still wasting money with paint jobs etc(ZIP) when we are supposedly under chapter 11???? It doesnt make sense that they pull Jazz out of profitable routes only for Tier three to take over those routes(1710 1730 yyz yxu yyz flight) Also Out East they pull jazz out of profitable routes only for air lab to start them back up using dash8s and they seem to be doing ok?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Airmail Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 Because Air Lab and Tier III have cost structures that can support the low yields on those routes and still remain profitable. It's the same equation which allows WJ, Canjet, Jetsgo to either break even or make a profit even when they charge extremely low fares on routes that were previously profitable for the mainline. So lower costs = greater flexibility = profitability = ability to serve any route/route combination around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inchman Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 How do you know that these routes are profitable? Do you have any facts to back up your supposition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dash eight Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 If the routes were not profitable then why would the lieks of Air lab and georgian take them on?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inchman Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 If the routes were profitable, why would the company give them away? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 D8, You may want to give that response just a tiny bit of thought, I am sure you will figure it out. Hint: Types, frequencies, salaries. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dash eight Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 Ok then why would jazz give away a five o' clock feed to yyz to georgian even though it was always busy with a 100 series?? and the 1900 is oversold on most occasions? Jazz seems like they are setting up the operation to fail by placing a dash8 300 on the ottawa flight mon to fri with an average of 15 or so pax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 Don't know the reasons D8, sorry. I HOPE that someone, somewhere has a good reason. You can bet that the motivation is the bottom line as opposed to employee suggestion, intention, loyalty, etc - as I suppose it should be... As for the 300 on the OW YZ [is it YZ or the island?] flip. Being YOW, I am actually surprised that we are not forced to service that with at least a 320. You know, we cannot have our government riding around in a turbo prop, even if it makes financial sense for a financially strapped, made in Canada airline... cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 Because Air Canada is in charge! Wherever AC is involved gold can be instantly changed into pure crap. AO, AA & ANO were all money makers and look where they're at now. ABC was destroyed by the AC machine long ago and yet I'll bet it's all the regionals fault not to mention labour in general. Get rid of the clowns at the top! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Doc Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 Because they may not have a Dash available during that time period. AC planning makes many decisions based on having and aircraft available AND positioned properly. It is not simply a matter of saying a Dash should fly it if there are non available or if one cannot be positioned effectively. Take a look at the loads. The YXU 1900 flt is not mostly oversold! Majority are less than 18 pax which makes the 1900 the ideal machine. The -300 on the Ottawa route. Perhaps they hope to build it, equipment positioning ..who knows, but I doubt it is 'to make it fail so they can put a 1900 on it'. In addition, if it averages 15 passangers then they should put a 1900 on it. Thats the best aircraft for the job if you have 15 pax. Number of seats and frequency are the biggest factors in determining the aircraft for a sector. Utilizing the right aircraft is crucial to survival, regardless of whether or not you like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CCY3 Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 Up until this date LabAir isn't running Dash 8's on the East Coast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dash eight Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 Well said defcon...! AO was profitable in central region and now look where we are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dash eight Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 Thanks CC what aircraft type ARE they operating? I thought they leased some dashs from JAZZ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rollingrock Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 Doc the 1900 doesn't make it the "ideal" machine on a route because the load falls to 18. Customers, especially business people, enjoy a bit of service and arn't happy with seeing a 1900 on the ramp, which eventually kills a route (ie. harrisburg). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PortTack Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 CRA made a lot of money as well. The only reason Air BC became unprofitable was the Tier III had been built under them first, and took away a lot of flying.....leaving a lot of staff with no layoff clauses. The Tier III was the invention of the number 2 man at Jazz now, Tapson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PortTack Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 Most of the Jazz dash's (3 I've seen for myself) were not sold but 12 month leases to Carribean Sun of Miami. The pilots picking up the aircraft told me about the leases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dash eight Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 Doc...? Where do you get your information on georgian load factor? The 1720 departure feed into toronto has always been a busy feed for connections both U.S and International Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest leftbase Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 Uhhh..humour me here..was that tongue-in-cheek, or... Why can we "not have our government flying around in a turboprop"? ?? And no, I'm not a driver with hurt feelings, I no longer have the pleasure of setting prop pitches, but I sure as heck have no problem being a pax in anything made by Bombardier! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inchman Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 Air Canada, United, Swissair, Sabena and US Air, Eastern and Pan Am used to be profitable, too. What do former profits have to do with anything? If a route is unprofitable at the higher tier today, money is saved by sending it to the lower tier where costs are lower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Airmail Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 Right! AC went out of its way to make the regional routes loose money! That's it! You cracked the code! It has nothing to do with the fact that customers aren't willing to pay high fares and the regionals don't have the cost structure to remain profitable charging low fares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dick Dastardly Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 Actually, Harrisburg was built with 19 seaters, Metro's in the late eighties, followed by Jetstreams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 Help me out here a little lb, humour you with what part? Government and turboprops? Well, you do know that ANYONE in the world can buy a Bombardier product [airplane product] cheaper than a Canadian or Canadian company can, don't you? Why is that do you suppose? You do know that up until a few days ago, AC was legislated to fly to unprofitable destinations on mandated frequencies do you not? Do you know why that is? 'A driver with hurt feelings'? What are you referring to? Problem setting prop pitches? What are you talking about? Problem being a passenger in anything made by Bombardier? Me neither. Last question. Have you ever, have your friends ever or do you know of; A Liberal, or Conservative member of an active sitting government ever sitting in economy class or travelling on a turboprop when a jet with a business class was available? If my tongue WAS in cheek, now it is back where it should be. cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 Help me out here a little lb, humour you with what part? Government and turboprops? Well, you do know that ANYONE in the world can buy a Bombardier product [airplane product] cheaper than a Canadian or Canadian company can, don't you? Why is that do you suppose? You do know that up until a few days ago, AC was legislated to fly to unprofitable destinations on mandated frequencies do you not? Do you know why that is? You do know that Air Canada is the only airline in Canada that MUST, by law, provide a multilingual service do you not? Why, any guesses? Do you know that Air Canada, by law, must maintain their corporate HQ in UL? Know why? You must surely be aware that Air Canada, again, by law, must maintain a maintenance base in WG? Any guess why? All these things cost AC money, yet they have no choice in these [a part of many more] matters. Why? 'A driver with hurt feelings'? What are you referring to? Problem setting prop pitches? What are you talking about? Problem being a passenger in anything made by Bombardier? Me neither. Last question. Have you ever, have your friends ever or do you know of; A Liberal, or Conservative member of an active sitting government ever sitting in economy class or travelling on a turboprop when a jet with a business class was available? If my tongue WAS in cheek, now it is back where it should be. cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 The fact remains, AO turned an average of 1M+ net per ac per year back to the sewer which used it to...? And, what about the YTZ op that AC sewered? On and on the list goes... BTW, AC has lost billions in a rather consistent manner. What's its excuse for remaining in business? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 "Air Canada, United, Swissair, Sabena and US Air, Eastern and Pan Am used to be profitable, too." AC hasn't been profitable more that two quarters of every eight since it's been almost public. Prior to that it was a net loser. "What do former profits have to do with anything? If a route is unprofitable at the higher tier today, money is saved by sending it to the lower tier where costs are lower." So why then is AC down guaging? Wouldn't it have been better to pass the work down to the next and profitable tier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.