United Eyeing Nwa Stronghold

[NWA/AMT]

Does NWA give you UAL's numbers? I'll say it again, Cos HAS THE NUMBERS. IT'S HIS JOB.

[post="194528"][/post]​

Saying you have the numbers is one thing, and, apparently, providing them is another. Making a claim to outside information is only valid if you share it.

And NWA actually figured out long ago that if they could get AMFA on property, they could man the airline with significantly less mechanics.

Anyone who read the farmout language the IAM negotiated in 1993 would realize that NWA had planned a reduction in their manpower quite a while ago and that it was coming regardless of who the union was.

They also figured out (rightly) that serving minot would be more lucrative than serving L.A.

They fly to both.

But just between us, I'd think after the bailout from minnesota with the lawyers on the steps of the courthouse to file the BK papers, you'd realize that timing is the factor that has had the most influence of all.

What we realize is that allowing yourselves to be manipulated by external forces whose objectives aren't in your best interest is a bad idea.

 

[Bigsky]

NWA continues to strengthen it's stronghold

NWA Cargo to Expand Service to China
Monday October 25, 12:06 pm ET
Additional All-Cargo Flights to Shanghai Planned


EAGAN, Minn., Oct. 25 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- NWA Cargo, the cargo subsidiary of Northwest Airlines (Nasdaq: NWAC - News), plans to expand its all-cargo freighter service between the United States and China as a result of the July bilateral agreement between the two nations.
ADVERTISEMENT


The U.S. Department of Transportation recently awarded Northwest six additional weekly flights to China, for a total of eight. NWA Cargo anticipates using the new frequencies to add freighter service to Shanghai to meet the growing demand for heavy cargo between the United States and China.

By next year, Northwest plans to offer eight weekly all-cargo frequencies between Shanghai, China's largest air-cargo market and leading manufacturing center, and the NWA cargo hub at Anchorage, Alaska -- providing same-day connections to four destinations across the continental United States.

"As a leader in trans-Pacific passenger and cargo service, Northwest looks forward to expanding its China cargo capacity in an air-freight market that is forecasted to be the fastest-growing U.S. trade market," said Phil Haan, Northwest's executive vice president international, alliances and information technology and chairman of NWA Cargo.

"These additional frequencies will enhance options for shippers, providing our customers with quicker and more convenient access to China's largest market," added Jim Friedel, president of NWA Cargo. "We look forward to providing even more service in the future with our application for eight additional U.S.-China all-cargo frequencies available in 2006."

NWA Cargo currently offers three-times-weekly freighter service to Shanghai from Northwest's hub at Tokyo.

Northwest has been committed to the China market for more than 57 years, having started service to China in 1947. Northwest launched its first U.S.- Shanghai freighter service in 1999.

NWA Cargo is the largest cargo carrier among U.S. combination passenger and cargo airlines. NWA Cargo's fleet of 12 dedicated Boeing 747 freighter aircraft fly from key cities throughout United States and Asia and connect at the carrier's cargo hub in Anchorage, Alaska, facilitating the quick transfer of cargo between large cities on both sides of the Pacific. NWA Cargo also transports freight aboard the passenger fleet of Northwest Airlines to more than 250 cities worldwide.

For more information about NWA Cargo, please visit the NWA Cargo Web site at http://www.cargo.nwa.com .

 

[Just Plane Crazy]

NWA continues to strengthen it's stronghold

NWA Cargo to Expand Service to China
Monday October 25, 12:06 pm ET
Additional All-Cargo Flights to Shanghai Planned
EAGAN, Minn., Oct. 25 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- NWA Cargo, the cargo subsidiary of Northwest Airlines (Nasdaq: NWAC - News), plans to expand its all-cargo freighter service between the United States and China as a result of the July bilateral agreement between the two nations.
ADVERTISEMENT


The U.S. Department of Transportation recently awarded Northwest six additional weekly flights to China, for a total of eight. NWA Cargo anticipates using the new frequencies to add freighter service to Shanghai to meet the growing demand for heavy cargo between the United States and China.

By next year, Northwest plans to offer eight weekly all-cargo frequencies between Shanghai, China's largest air-cargo market and leading manufacturing center, and the NWA cargo hub at Anchorage, Alaska -- providing same-day connections to four destinations across the continental United States.

"As a leader in trans-Pacific passenger and cargo service, Northwest looks forward to expanding its China cargo capacity in an air-freight market that is forecasted to be the fastest-growing U.S. trade market," said Phil Haan, Northwest's executive vice president international, alliances and information technology and chairman of NWA Cargo.

"These additional frequencies will enhance options for shippers, providing our customers with quicker and more convenient access to China's largest market," added Jim Friedel, president of NWA Cargo. "We look forward to providing even more service in the future with our application for eight additional U.S.-China all-cargo frequencies available in 2006."

NWA Cargo currently offers three-times-weekly freighter service to Shanghai from Northwest's hub at Tokyo.

Northwest has been committed to the China market for more than 57 years, having started service to China in 1947. Northwest launched its first U.S.- Shanghai freighter service in 1999.

NWA Cargo is the largest cargo carrier among U.S. combination passenger and cargo airlines. NWA Cargo's fleet of 12 dedicated Boeing 747 freighter aircraft fly from key cities throughout United States and Asia and connect at the carrier's cargo hub in Anchorage, Alaska, facilitating the quick transfer of cargo between large cities on both sides of the Pacific. NWA Cargo also transports freight aboard the passenger fleet of Northwest Airlines to more than 250 cities worldwide.

For more information about NWA Cargo, please visit the NWA Cargo Web site at http://www.cargo.nwa.com .

[post="194614"][/post]​

Don’ compare NW Cargo to NW Airlines. They are two separate entities owned by the same mother company. Look at LH and LH Cargo. Own Profit Centers, employees etc. etc. etc.

In addition, what other airline passenger airline has dedicated Freighters in their fleet except NW? UA used to but their management was not able to separate the Cargo from the PAX. Would they have been able to do that they still would be in the all Freighter business!

So back to the original issue, UA is still a more competitive, and with a larger presence on the pacific (including all of their ability to fall back onto their Alliance services) than NW.

 

[NWA/AMT]

Don’ compare NW Cargo to NW Airlines. They are two separate entities owned by the same mother company. Look at LH and LH Cargo. Own Profit Centers, employees etc. etc. etc.

[post="194684"][/post]​

NWA Cargo may be a separate company within NWA INC but the planes are flown by NWA pilots, maintained by NWA mechanics, and loaded by NWA ground crews.

In addition, what other airline passenger airline has dedicated Freighters in their fleet except NW?

JAL, KAL, Singapore, Air China, just to name a few.

UA used to but their management was not able to separate the Cargo from the PAX.

Northwest currently operates two former UAL 747-200 freighter conversions.

So back to the original issue, UA is still a more competitive, and with a larger presence on the pacific (including all of their ability to fall back onto their Alliance services) than NW

Back to the original response: So was Pan Am. Being the biggest or being #1 sound great, but we're in this for the long haul and are more interested in being profitable than in bragging rights.

 

[Cosmo]

Just post the link for Cosmo's #s and be done with it. PUBLISHED information disputes the "cooked" numbers.

North by Northwest:

Your ignorance about me, what I know, and what I post in this forum is really getting tiresome. Let me make this so clear that even you will understand:

1. I DO NOT work for United or any other airline.

2. I DO work for an aviation consulting firm based in Washington, DC.

3. I DO have access to airline data that you don't because it's not publicly released (as Busdrvr said, it's part of my job). You need to accept the fact that others (including me) may have some information that you don't, and move on.

4. I DID provide the source for the 2nd quarter 2004 Pacific yield numbers that showed United at 9.59¢ and Northwest at 8.83¢, a difference of 0.76¢ in United's favor. I'll give the source again -- page 7 of the Friday, October 8, 2004, edition of Aviation Daily, a well-known and respected publication for those who REALLY deal with the economic side of the airline industry. But it requires a subscription that costs $1,985 annually, and it can't be linked electronically. If you can't afford it, that's just too bad!

5. You DID NOT provide a valid comparison when you claimed these numbers were "cooked" because you responded with a data table from BTS that showed Domestic data, not Pacific data. So in reality, it was YOU that "cooked" the comparison since you chose to ignore the word "Domestic" at the top of the data table you provided and then you obviously hoped that nobody would notice your chicanery.

6. The fact that BTS does not publish the Pacific data electronically DOES NOT mean that it doesn't exist. It simply means that you can't access it easily, although it is public information that is filed quarterly in airline Form 41 reports that are supplied to the DOT. You can subscribe to Aviation Daily (see above) and/or various other airline data sources, or visit the DOT headquarters at 7th and D Streets, SW, in Washington, DC, to see this data.

7. From the same source, United's Atlantic yield was 10.26¢ while Northwest's Atlantic yield was 10.06¢, a difference of 0.20¢ in United's favor. This small advantage was most likely due to United's high-yield LHR routes.

8. But to be fair, from the same source, Northwest's Domestic yield was 15.71¢ while United's Domestic yield was 10.83¢, a large difference of 4.88¢ in Northwest's favor and most likely due to a smaller proportion of Northwest's route system having LCC competition. Northwest had by far the highest Domestic yield of all the legacy majors, with US Airways recording the next highest Domestic yield at 13.95¢. And Northwest's Domestic yield advantage translated into a similar, albeit somewhat smaller, system yield advantage over United as well (Northwest @ 13.06¢ vs. United @ 10.51¢).

9. IMHO, when comparing Northwest against United, Northwest has a slightly better operation in Japan, but United clearly has a better overall Transpacific operation, and the disparity is growing. That's simply my opinion, and while you may not agree (and I don't really care if you do or not), most knowledgeable observers of the airline industry DO agree with me. That's just the way it is!

Finally, as WorldTraveler has said previously, it's commendable that you are such a strong supporter of your company. But no amount of ranting on your part (and that's what it was -- ranting) will change the FACTS as outlined in points 1-8 above. Frankly, it just makes you look stupid. So get over it already!

 

[JetClipper]

Cosmo:

Great post! However, I do have a couple of comments/questions.

6. The fact that BTS does not publish the Pacific data electronically DOES NOT mean that it doesn't exist. It simply means that you can't access it easily, although it is public information that is filed quarterly in airline Form 41 reports that are supplied to the DOT. You can subscribe to Aviation Daily (see above) and/or various other airline data sources, or visit the DOT headquarters at 7th and D Streets, SW, in Washington, DC, to see this data.

Do you know if this information is available via the web? Not that I'm looking for ammunition to question your posts/numbers; I'm simply curious.

9. IMHO, when comparing Northwest against United, Northwest has a slightly better operation in Japan, but United clearly has a better overall Transpacific operation, and the disparity is growing. That's simply my opinion, and while you may not agree (and I don't really care if you do or not), most knowledgeable observers of the airline industry DO agree with me. That's just the way it is!

I guess "better" is in the eye of the beholder. I myself "wondered aloud" about NWA's NRT strategy in a previous post, but I would have to say Northwest's record in the Pacific speaks for itself.

That being said, you mentioned that "most knowledgeable observers of the airline industry DO agree with me"; do you have any articles/links you can post to back this assertion up?

 

[North by Northwest]

"Finally, as WorldTraveler has said previously, it's commendable that you are such a strong supporter of your company. But no amount of ranting on your part (and that's what it was -- ranting) will change the FACTS as outlined in points 1-8 above. Frankly, it just makes you look stupid. So get over it already! " As previously stated, exactly who's doing the ranting? How interesting that you are STILL unable to link "your" facts. Frankly, I take offense to your personal attacks with the term "stupid", folks have been kicked off of this board for less. I understand that frustration can set in when others don't automatically buy into your point of view and you are unable to back it up with just HARD ol'fashion FACTS. I don't give a flying peacock as to where or WHO you work for. Just BECAUSE YOU say it , does not make it the gospel. Prove it, or shut the ^%$^%$ UP! Let just get down to the basics. Who is INSOLVENT and Who ISN'T? Post the LINK or SHUT UP! :down: I would ....like to clear one thing up in this discussion. When one refers to Pacific yield at NWA it means ASIA (ex-cluding the Asian Sub-continent of India). I believe Ual includes it's non-Asian destinations of Australia, is that correct? So. Mr. Cosmo, if you can post the yield comparisons for Asia between the two and you prove me wrong, I will eat humble pie (am sure that won't be the case). And one more thing. Please stop the ranting...makes you look amaturish.

 

[Cosmo]

Do you know if this information is available via the web? Not that I'm looking for ammunition to question your posts/numbers; I'm simply curious.

The BTS web site is the only place that I've been able to find this Form 41 information electronically but, as I noted before, that site seems to be limited to Domestic data only. That said, the international data may exist somewhere else on the web, but I haven't found it.

I guess "better" is in the eye of the beholder. I myself "wondered aloud" about NWA's NRT strategy in a previous post, but I would have to say Northwest's record in the Pacific speaks for itself.

Please note that I did preface this point with "IMHO". But clearly, Northwest has done very well in the Pacific over the years, and its NRT hub is the main reason. That's why I've never advocated that Northwest reduce or dismantle its NRT hub; I've only suggested that adding routes that bypass Japan would strengthen its Pacific operations while keeping Northwest competitive with other U.S. and foreign airlines that are already (or will soon be) doing precisely that. As I have posted previously, I believe that a more balanced array of U.S.-Japan and U.S.-beyond Japan nonstops is perhaps the one trait of United that Northwest should at least begin to emulate.

But North by Northwest vehemently disagrees, disparaging United at every turn and saying that Northwest will add (or restore) non-Japan nonstops when it is ready. While United certainly has its faults and problems, IMHO its Pacific operations are not among them. So I would argue that Northwest had better be ready to add non-Japan flights real soon, or it will start to lose serious Pacific market share percentages to other carriers that DO add such flights (and yes, United is one of those carriers).

That being said, you mentioned that "most knowledgeable observers of the airline industry DO agree with me"; do you have any articles/links you can post to back this assertion up?

No, I don't have any such articles at the moment. So while I'm sure that I've seen such comments, until I can provide an article or link, I agree that it's proper to call it just my opinion. So I'll have to amend my comment to read "... I believe most knowledgeable observers of the airline industry DO agree with me."

 

[Cosmo]

How interesting that you are STILL unable to link "your" facts.

You apparently cannot comprehend written English. I told you PRECISELY where my information came from. You do realize, don't you, that there is more to life than what you see on a computer screen?

Do you not believe that there is information about airlines that you don't have access to, while there are others (such as myself) that do? Do you not believe that maybe, just maybe, there is information about airlines that is not available electronically on the web?

Frankly, I take offense to your personal attacks with the term "stupid" ...

It's a tough world out there, Sparky. I have my opinion of you (or at least your electronic persona), and I'll leave it to others to judge for themselves.

I understand that frustration can set in when others don't automatically buy into your point of view and you are unable to back it up with just HARD ol'fashion FACTS. I don't give a flying peacock as to where or WHO you work for. Just BECAUSE YOU say it , does not make it the gospel. Prove it, or shut the ^%$^%$ UP! Let just get down to the basics. Who is INSOLVENT and Who ISN'T? Post the LINK or SHUT UP! :down:

Remind me again -- who's ranting?

 

[North by Northwest]

"As I have posted previously, I believe that a more balanced array of U.S.-Japan and U.S.-beyond Japan nonstops is perhaps the one trait of United that Northwest should at least begin to emulate.

But North by Northwest vehemently disagrees, disparaging United at every turn and saying that Northwest will add (or restore) non-Japan nonstops when it is ready" Cosmo, Northwest was a leader in non-stops to destinations to Asia and not only to Tokyo. Take away Australia and United has never out ranked NWA in Asia. Furthermore, I have never disagreed with you in the view point that a two pronged approched of the NRT Hub and Non-Stops is best. We have done that and will do it again when the time is right. We have the ability to use NRT in revenue generating ways that United cannot. We are the solvent airline that has out lasted them all, so therefore history would indicate that we have a superior understanding of how to operate an Asian operation. Good for United if they think they can MAX revenue to Asia with non-stops. Only time will tell. That does not mean that Northwest should wack out and jump on an idea just because some other co. is doing it. Particularly a company operating in bankruptcy. Prudent deployment is a Northwest trademark that is invaluable.

 

[North by Northwest]

"It's a tough world out there, Sparky. I have my opinion of you (or at least your electronic persona), and I'll leave it to others to judge for themselves" Back atcha FIDO!

 

[Just Plane Crazy]

NWA Cargo may be a separate company within NWA INC but the planes are flown by NWA pilots, maintained by NWA mechanics, and loaded by NWA ground crews.
JAL, KAL, Singapore, Air China, just to name a few.

[post="194753"][/post]​

Please forgive me for not being as detailed as I should have been. I was referring to US carriers only.

Northwest currently operates two former UAL 747-200 freighter conversions.
Back to the original response: So was Pan Am. Being the biggest or being #1 sound great, but we're in this for the long haul and are more interested in being profitable than in bragging rights.

[post="194753"][/post]​

But PanAm did not have the backing of an Alliance like UA has it now.

 

[NWA/AMT]

But PanAm did not have the backing of an Alliance like UA has it now.

[post="195108"][/post]​

Nor did it need one, it was the single largest airline in the free world and had access to markets NWA did not have to make up for its losses in the Pacific. Yet NWA survived and thrived because it concentrated on running it's own operation rather than emulating its competitor.

Unlike many, I don't think it's necessary for NWA to somehow 'beat' UAL, nor do I wish the employees of UAL ill. I have worked closely with many UAL employees over the years and still have many friends among their ranks. As I said before, we at NWA are more interested in being profitable in our own operations, something Cosmo's figures confirmed, than we are in modeling ourselves after any other carrier or doing something just because someone else is doing it.

If UAL can return to profitability by flying point-to-point in the Pacific, more power to them, but neither you, nor I, nor Cosmo are going to convince NWA to do so unless they are sure they can be profitable doing that while not drawing too much traffic out of the NRT hub. NWA's yield management and strategic planning folks have proven to be very adept at such analysis and I'm willing to leave the decision in their hands.

I'd love to see a fleet of red-tailed 777s jetting off to far-flung, exotic destinations, but in the current environment I think it unlikely, particularly when the increased yield derived from such operations is balanced against the cost of the aircraft necessary to operate them.

 

[Just Plane Crazy]

I'd love to see a fleet of red-tailed 777s jetting off to far-flung, exotic destinations, but in the current environment I think it unlikely, particularly when the increased yield derived from such operations is balanced against the cost of the aircraft necessary to operate them.

[post="195184"][/post]​

Why not A330’s or A340’s?

 

[JFK777]

A330-200 can only fly from the west coast to Japan nonstop, the key word. A330-200 CAN"T fly from DTW or MSP to Japan, much less any other "exotic" Asian city. A340 can but that is another subject altogether. 777-200LR is NW answer with some 7E7 as the junior partner. NW use of A330 across the Pacific is unique but I hope temporary. They are really for flying to Amsterdam, KLM hub.