NW Orders 72 RJ's... WITH F

 
Old Oct 9, 06, 11:05 am
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Columbus OH
Programs: DL Diamond, CO Gold, US Silver, Natl Exec, Hertz #1, Avis Preferred, Elite w/ All US Hotel Programs
Posts: 399
NW Orders 72 RJ's... WITH F

Great news for those of us who use our CO status for NW upgrades... NW has ordered a mix of E175s and CR9s with a 12F/64Y configuration, a great F:Y ratio especially when compared to CO's 735 config. FWIW, CO's 733 and 73G have 12F and 112Y seats.

I hope CO management takes note: it is possible to fly long range, passenger friendly RJ's when you equip them correctly. NW will operate half of these planes as through their new "Compass" identity which is certainly an advantage that CO does not have with their pilots' scope clause. The remaining planes will be operated by a regional affiliate.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061005/cgth064.html?.v=51

Last edited by TVCMH; Oct 9, 06 at 11:14 am
TVCMH is offline  
Old Oct 9, 06, 11:12 am
  #2  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Programs: Continental Gold Elite, United Premier Executive
Posts: 6,766
I'm sure CO has noted this acquisition of planes by NWA, financed on the backs of its employees.
HeathrowGuy is offline  
Old Oct 9, 06, 11:13 am
  #3  
Moderator: United MileagePlus
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Clinging to the edifices of a decadent past. (IAH, DEN, YKF)
Programs: (ಠ_ಠ)
Posts: 8,717
Originally Posted by TVCMH
...NW has ordered a mix of E175's and CR9's with a 12F/64Y configuration, a great F:Y especially considering CO's 735 config.
More F on an NW RJ than a CO 737?

What can you do but chuckle.

I think there's scope issues w/r/t to CO's pilot's contract. In other words, if CO were to opt for the EMB/CR9 they'd have to be flown by mainline pilots who cost more (don't know if there's any scope clause with the FA's) and as a result potential cost savings are not as attractive.

Still though, I've flown on the EMBs (with UA) and find them to be quite pleasant. I certainly hope CO can work out a deal where they can acquire some and use them to replace those damnable 2+ hour ERJ flights.

As for Compass - I'd guess they'd be the ones operating them. NW has fought a strong battle to get the unions to acquiesce to Compass (and Compass' subsequent low cost structure) and one would think NW would want to take advantage of this.
J.Edward is offline  
Old Oct 9, 06, 11:31 am
  #4  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Programs: DL SM Plat, B6 TrueBlue, UA MP, AAdvantage
Posts: 10,008
The CO scope clause is very unlikely to ever be modified and the likelihood of adding FC seats to the EMB135/145 with their one f/a, one galley and one lav is very, very low indeed...
TWA Fan 1 is offline  
Old Oct 9, 06, 11:35 am
  #5  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: DL Silver, HH Diamond, IHG Plat, BW Diamond
Posts: 26,233
So a CO flyer is more likely to upgraded on a NW RJ than most CO flights.
Jaimito Cartero is offline  
Old Oct 9, 06, 11:38 am
  #6  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: DCA
Programs: Kommissar Giga-Posting Direktor, PWP; Fasano Nouveau Aristocrat; CO Platinum; BD Gold; MR Gold
Posts: 18,733
Originally Posted by TWA Fan 1
The CO scope clause is very unlikely to ever be modified and the likelihood of adding FC seats to the EMB135/145 with their one f/a, one galley and one lav is very, very low indeed...
I believe the CO brass have stated unequivocally that F will never be introduced on the existing regional fleet.
CO 1E is offline  
Old Oct 9, 06, 11:48 am
  #7  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Programs: DL SM Plat, B6 TrueBlue, UA MP, AAdvantage
Posts: 10,008
Originally Posted by CO 1E
I believe the CO brass have stated unequivocally that F will never be introduced on the existing regional fleet.
CO 1E, You know I have been very vocal in my differences of opinion with CO brass but this is one area where I agree with them 100% for a variety of reasons.

The bottom line, these planes are just too small to legitimately hold anything approaching true FC.
TWA Fan 1 is offline  
Old Oct 9, 06, 12:01 pm
  #8  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NYC
Programs: CO Plat, Starwood Plat, Hyatt Plat, Hilton Diamond, CO Pres. Plus, Hertz #1 Gold
Posts: 1,175
Originally Posted by HeathrowGuy
I'm sure CO has noted this acquisition of planes by NWA, financed on the backs of its employees.
As opposed, with all due respect, to CO not getting its unions to accept pay cuts?
From NYC is offline  
Old Oct 9, 06, 12:23 pm
  #9  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: DCA
Programs: Kommissar Giga-Posting Direktor, PWP; Fasano Nouveau Aristocrat; CO Platinum; BD Gold; MR Gold
Posts: 18,733
Originally Posted by TWA Fan 1
CO 1E, You know I have been very vocal in my differences of opinion with CO brass but this is one area where I agree with them 100% for a variety of reasons.

The bottom line, these planes are just too small to legitimately hold anything approaching true FC.
And, given the fact that the RJ's are now either money losers or not big money makers, the view of CO brass makes even more sense. Reducing the number of seats would only make RJ operations less profitable, unless CO RJ routes could suddenly command a fare premium.
CO 1E is offline  
Old Oct 9, 06, 12:28 pm
  #10  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: DCA
Programs: AA EXP, LT Gold, UA LT 1K, Bonvoy LT Titan, Avis PC, Hilton Gold
Posts: 9,007
The CO Express RJ at narrow tube aircraft - not really suitable for anyother seating arrangement. The NW RJ's are bigger - wider aircraft - where putting F in makes sense.
cova is offline  
Old Oct 9, 06, 12:32 pm
  #11  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Programs: DL SM Plat, B6 TrueBlue, UA MP, AAdvantage
Posts: 10,008
Originally Posted by cova
The CO Express RJ at narrow tube aircraft - not really suitable for anyother seating arrangement. The NW RJ's are bigger - wider aircraft - where putting F in makes sense.
Agreed. Of course, given CO's scope clause larger RJ's just isn't in the cards for CO.
TWA Fan 1 is offline  
Old Oct 9, 06, 12:33 pm
  #12  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Francisco/Tel Aviv/YYZ
Programs: CO 1K-MM
Posts: 10,382
RJ's generally are fine on poorly served medium-short haul routes (what they were intended for). RJ's may cost more per ASM but when CO can charge $200 a leg rather than $100 for a longer haul competitive route, they make a lot of sense!
entropy is offline  
Old Oct 9, 06, 12:51 pm
  #13  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Programs: DL Plat, CO Gold, Avis First, HH Silver
Posts: 624
Originally Posted by TWA Fan 1
The CO scope clause is very unlikely to ever be modified and the likelihood of adding FC seats to the EMB135/145 with their one f/a, one galley and one lav is very, very low indeed...
"in the near future"...if there is anything the airline business has shown in recent years, it's that there is no such thing as no change. If/when the operating realities of the 134/145 become so burdensome as to threaten the well being of the company, that part of the contract will come back under negotiation, for certain. CO and it's unions have both shown that they're willing to compromise to keep the company relatively healthy, since it works in everyone's favor. This situation won't be any different. For right now however, CO is humming along just fine, if not spectacularly, so there won't be any changes near term.

In the long run however, everyone else in this market will be operating 70 seaters and restricting <50 seats to new-gen turboprops once more. CO will be the odd ones out, losing serious money on regional domnestic operations, and then it will come back onto the table, hopefully with a solution that's good for both the pilots and the health of the airline.
Lemurs is offline  
Old Oct 9, 06, 1:18 pm
  #14  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bay Area, CA
Programs: UA Plat 2MM; AS MVP Gold 75K
Posts: 34,945
Originally Posted by CO 1E
And, given the fact that the RJ's are now either money losers or not big money makers, the view of CO brass makes even more sense. Reducing the number of seats would only make RJ operations less profitable, unless CO RJ routes could suddenly command a fare premium.
You're forgetting the fact that CO is a network carrier. While non-stops obviously make more money than connections, not having F on an RJ could influence someone to fly another carrier.

OMA-DTW in F, connecting to DTW-CDG in WBC sounds more appealing than OMA-EWR in Y, connecting to EWR-CDG in BF.
channa is offline  
Old Oct 9, 06, 1:48 pm
  #15  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SJC
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 3,686
I wouldn't be so quick to discount NW's math on this.

While they are indeed pushing this at a cost to employees (in reducing wages, etc), they've had a lot of time to sit and run their numbers on this. I don't think they are in a position where they would have agreed to something that was a money loser when they were going to get hammered and look bad in the eyes of labor anyway.

Steve
sllevin is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread