Canjet

green bastard · Post by **green bastard** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:37 pm

I must pick up and dust off this thread. This saga is far from over, its just a little busy right now. The best is yet to come.
GB

invertedattitude · Post by **invertedattitude** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:56 am

It's really a sad thing to see it going this way.

KR has the power and money to create a great airline, yet he seems to have messed everything up.

I'll say it again, RJ's and domestic service, keep those same old CJA load factors and boom you're making money.

Four1oh · Post by **Four1oh** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 7:35 am

Inverted, if it's that easy why have so many airlines failed?

eastdude · Post by **eastdude** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:06 am

Invert,
Loads were never the problem, they were great actually. Good out east, west and south. The LGA and Florida skeds were running well in regards to loads. The only base which happens to be in your neck of the woulds that was never doing so hot was YQM other than that thr load factor on the sked routes was pretty good.

CanadaEH · Post by **CanadaEH** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:29 am

I'll say it again, RJ's and domestic service, keep those same old CJA load factors and boom you're making money.

Unless Canjet (flying RJ's) signs capacity purchase agreements - a la Jazz with Air Canada - that won't work. The trip costs of an RJ are very high and wouldn't be able to match the lower costs of a 737 or Airbus. It's not as easy as flying an aircraft just to make load factors look good. It's all about making money, and you're just not going to do that as a scheduled carrier; especially in Canada where the market is so thin.

rickenbacker · Post by **rickenbacker** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 3:27 pm

I have heard that at CJ 23 pilots have been hired, completed groundschool, went to Miami for sim training and then promptly left for greener pastures. I think it's time to start looking after the lawn!!!

Flaps30Greenlight · Post by **Flaps30Greenlight** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 5:04 pm

23 pilots...when?

rickenbacker · Post by **rickenbacker** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 7:55 pm

That's since they started the charter version....CJ2.5.

uwillpay · Post by **uwillpay** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:50 am

Good for them!

The company has only themselves to blame for the way they treated GS and his salary continuance. Still drearily working it's way throught the process I'm told...what a joke...justice delayed=justice denied etc etc especially when trying to support a young family and DEPENDING on the company to keep its word.

When I hear 23 guys grabbed training and bolted it just makes me smile..nope, under normal circumstances don't condone it at all...but sometimes, you reap what you sow there Kenny!!

Stick-Shaker · Post by **Stick-Shaker** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:25 am

Holy crap! 23! That is incredible especially when you consider the relatively small pilot group. That must be almost 40%-50% of the total recalled at CJ 2.5.

flyin' fish · Post by **flyin' fish** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:40 am

over 50 have either left or didn't return. 23 is a little high for the number of people coming back then quitting, it's more like 10. But give it time, it'll get to 23+ in no time.
Heard there's an initial groundschool starting up.

55+ · Post by **55+** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:35 pm

flyin' fish wrote:over 50 have either left or didn't return. 23 is a little high for the number of people coming back then quitting, it's more like 10. But give it time, it'll get to 23+ in no time.
Heard there's an initial groundschool starting up.

Sad to say but we did a couple of trips within the maritimes over to NL and made out o/k without the services of CanJet. If you pick your time in advance $$$$$ can be saved. Not to suggest of course, if CJ were back into sked ops, one wouldn't take a look but if not we will make out just fine............

invertedattitude · Post by **invertedattitude** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 4:05 pm

CanadaEH wrote:
I'll say it again, RJ's and domestic service, keep those same old CJA load factors and boom you're making money.
Unless Canjet (flying RJ's) signs capacity purchase agreements - a la Jazz with Air Canada - that won't work. The trip costs of an RJ are very high and wouldn't be able to match the lower costs of a 737 or Airbus. It's not as easy as flying an aircraft just to make load factors look good. It's all about making money, and you're just not going to do that as a scheduled carrier; especially in Canada where the market is so thin.

People said the exact same thing about WestJet when it started....

CanadaEH · Post by **CanadaEH** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:15 pm

People said the exact same thing about WestJet when it started....

How so? Westjet wasn't flying RJ's and had a CASM almost half that of its competition.

captain thicknjuicy · Post by **captain thicknjuicy** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:00 am

they down to the end of the pilot list yet? i predicted that this is the month that canjet starts to have severe problems with the pilot shortage. i heard that their scheds are pretty damn tight already. sounds all too familiar

anymore news on new contracts for the summer or next winter?

bmc · Post by **bmc** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:15 am

invertedattitude wrote:
CanadaEH wrote:
I'll say it again, RJ's and domestic service, keep those same old CJA load factors and boom you're making money.
Unless Canjet (flying RJ's) signs capacity purchase agreements - a la Jazz with Air Canada - that won't work. The trip costs of an RJ are very high and wouldn't be able to match the lower costs of a 737 or Airbus. It's not as easy as flying an aircraft just to make load factors look good. It's all about making money, and you're just not going to do that as a scheduled carrier; especially in Canada where the market is so thin.
People said the exact same thing about WestJet when it started....

It's not hard to get high load factors. That's the easy part. Filling it with good yield on a year round basis has always been the challenge.

If there is money to be made, someone would be flying it.

invertedattitude · Post by **invertedattitude** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:15 am

The idea that "If there was money to be made someone would be flying it" Is about as foolish as saying "If they weren't making money, they wouldn't be flying it"

bmc · Post by **bmc** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:21 pm

invertedattitude wrote:The idea that "If there was money to be made someone would be flying it" Is about as foolish as saying "If they weren't making money, they wouldn't be flying it"

I guess that's why you're not running an airline. Smart airline operators fly money making routes. If they weren't making money, they wouldn't be flying. That's how airlines eventually go out of business.

Is it really that difficult to understand?

invertedattitude · Post by **invertedattitude** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:41 pm

bmc wrote:
invertedattitude wrote:The idea that "If there was money to be made someone would be flying it" Is about as foolish as saying "If they weren't making money, they wouldn't be flying it"
I guess that's why you're not running an airline. Smart airline operators fly money making routes. If they weren't making money, they wouldn't be flying. That's how airlines eventually go out of business.

Is it really that difficult to understand?

You just made my point.

Airlines fly routes that don't make money, and they don't fly routes that could make money.

Your view on the subject is black and white.

Four1oh · Post by **Four1oh** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:35 pm

Everything seems black and white to you I/A. Kinda like your opinion on how many flights a day Moncton SHOULD be getting.

Hey, also, when Westjet started, what was the price of oil? Who was the competition back then? Answer that, and you'll see a big difference between Canjet and Westjet(back in the day)

Huge Hammer · Post by **Huge Hammer** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 4:40 pm

Airlines fly routes that don't make money, and they don't fly routes that could make money.

Can you name 2 of each and what you're basing your opinion on?

Crankit · Post by **Crankit** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:53 pm

Inverted attitude everytime I read what you write you dont make alot of sense on here. Are you a Pilot or what do you do. Where do you get your information, your all over the place.

bmc · Post by **bmc** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:57 pm

Crankit wrote:Inverted attitude everytime I read what you write you dont make alot of sense on here. Are you a Pilot or what do you do. Where do you get your information, your all over the place.

I have to agree with this.

Airlines will fly certain routes at a loss if there is network contribution. YVR-YYJ may, and I honestly don't know, may be a money losing fly if AC flies it, but the long haul flow and network contribution offsets it.

Sure I'm black and white on the topic. Why should an airline continue to operate money losing routes? So they can expedite their extinction? What's your gray zone on this? I'm really intrigued.

Unless you're a throw back to the good old days of government subsidized airline operation, I can't follow your alleged logic.

Your comment about airlines not flying routes that could make money is valid but only to the extent that the routes under discussion have historically never made money. Oil is not cheap these days. Taxes, fees, user charges in Canada re beyond reasonable, and the markets Canjet flew are thin. Where's magic in that being a wise place to put capacity? Wouldn't it be financially less risky to take your capital and buy lottery tickets?

Again, if there is a market worth flying in Canada, somebody is already flying it. The air travel market if pretty mature in Canada. There are some recent new markets from northern Alberta to Newfoundland driven by oil prices. Beyond that, what new year round seasonal jet markets are yet to be discovered that haven't been flown before? I admit to not living in Canada for nine years and not really knowing, but when I see smart established operators suspending service, I doubt they are doing so because they're making too much money on those routes.

invertedattitude · Post by **invertedattitude** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 5:02 am

Huge Hammer wrote:
Airlines fly routes that don't make money, and they don't fly routes that could make money.
Can you name 2 of each and what you're basing your opinion on?

Well according to CanJet people YQM never made any money yet the flew it more than once on a daily basis.

And before this year YQM-CUN seasonally would have made gobs of cash yet nobody has flown it until this year despite the airlines being told by travel agencies for years they wanted this market, and lo and behold when they've started it, you can hardly buy a seat out of YQM.

Simple examples.

bmc · Post by **bmc** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 5:17 am

Canadian Airlines operated B767's with a breakeven load factor of 110% for a long time.

While it is an example to support I.A's argument, it's not smart business.

Also, keep in mind that full airplanes do not necessarily mean profitable flying. It's easy to fill an airplane. The challenge is filling an airplane with good money.

It's all well and good to identify market potential that is either untapped or underserved. At the end of the day, you have expensive airplanes that need to be in the air 12-14 hours a day to pay their keep. Ideally, those hours are cash positive. If not, there comes a day when you stop flying them.