United Eyeing Nwa Stronghold

Just Plane Crazy said:
Why not A330’s or A340’s? :D
[post="195326"][/post]​

I didn't mean to imply a preference. Considering that NWA currently operates the A330, the Airbus option would be more likely. The A340 with CFM56 engines would be the most likely choice, I would think.
 
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.

JFK777

Of course the A330-200 is not the first choice when choosing an aircraft for the U.S. to Asia flights due to the fact that it's range, while greater than the A330-300, does limit the cities that it can serve. But the A330-200 flies from the west coast to Japan just fine and so far seems to fit well as regards to capacity demands with the west coast to Japan market. PDX is good example. Bigger isn't always better as UAL is still trying to figure out.

Now that most of NWA's passenger B747-200's are either retired or awaiting freighter conversions, NWA does need to find a new Pacific aircraft to augment the -400 operations. The A330-200 is certainly not the answer. My guess is that they'll probably go with the A350 or the B7E7. Hopefully it will be the latter.

Back to NW vs. UA in the Pacific. If you're just talking Asia, NWA is hands down the clear winner as NWA serves 15 cities throughout Asia compared to UAL's 9 cities. As far as the entire Pacific, NWA carries more passengers but UAL edges out NWA in RPK's because of the Australia routes. Then there's the very lucrative freight business which is no contest. For US carriers, NWA is edged out only by Fedex as they carry more freight in terms of weight in the Pacific region than UPS. From Jan through April in the Pacific it was NWA 619,569,000 FTK's and UAL 265,907,000 FTK's.

So I would say NWA isn't too worried. I guess NWA's main concern would be that recently UAL has become the LCC of the Pacific but NWA deals well with LCCs.

cheers

bigsky
 
bigsky,

I would agree with you about NWA dealing effectively with the LCCs whether they be domestic (F9, SWA, ATA, etc..) or international (UAL). The trouble with UAL dumping capacity on the Pacific is that everybody's yields will suffer. But then again that was their strategy domestically. Its a shame that weak companies under the protection of BK can essentially weaken an entire industry.
 
C54, apparently you haven't been paying attention, UAL's PAC RASM is higher than NWA's. That hardly equates to "dumping". PAC capacity is appropriate. UAL has west coast hubs while WA doesn't. Putting the 330 on the SFO trips was a wise move. NWA lowers CASM while reducing capacity, resulting in a more "premium" revenue mix. Likewise, UAL operating a 400 from Minny to NRT would be stupid due to the lack of feed.
And BTW, I'd consider the ailine that coninues to expand in it's domestic markets despite ever dwindling ticket prices AND LF's to be the idiotic A-Holes preventing recovery for the industry.... Any ideas who tht could be?
 
By once again flooding the market with cheap seats to Asia, I think UAL will be hurting themselves the most. Even after flooding the market with cheap seats their load factors in the Pacific were only 83.6% while NWA load factors remained at a high 87.3%. As mentioned earlier, Asians are very sensitve to those ugly BK filings and respect for UAL has been definitely damaged in that part of the world. So it might be prudent for UAL to stick with a strategy of holding their own (matching capacity with demand) in this region rather than taking on NWA in what they do best.

cheers

bigsky
 
Busdrvr said:
that coninues to expand in it's domestic markets despite ever dwindling ticket prices AND LF's to be the idiotic A-Holes preventing recovery for the industry.... Any ideas who tht could be?
[post="195941"][/post]​

You pick. That statement applies to almost every carrier in the domestic market. But just for good humor, my guess is TED.
 
Big Sky, I just check one fare, SFO-HKG next week UAL with one stop was double NWA's price (same route). Nonstop, UAL was even higher. Generally the lower fare guys are considered the "dumpers"...
 
So now were fighting over who has the highest fares?? Wasn't gouging the very reason the majors ended up in this situation in the first place?
 
I wouldn't call it "gouging" but instead making money. Try doing that today out of JFK with Jetblew "look ma, I'm an airline pilot" guys and gals working for second year truck driver wages. Don't want to see the same thing happen at UAL.

cheers

bigsky
 
Bigsky said:
Try doing that today out of JFK with Jetblew "look ma, I'm an airline pilot" guys and gals working for second year truck driver wages. Don't want to see the same thing happen at UAL.

cheers

bigsky
[post="195974"][/post]​

bigsky,

It's too late. UAL management is going to make the narrow-body pilots wish for the "jetblew" pay scale in the near future unfortunately.
 
Busdrvr said:
C54, apparently you haven't been paying attention, UAL's PAC RASM is higher than NWA's. That hardly equates to "dumping". PAC capacity is appropriate. UAL has west coast hubs while WA doesn't. Putting the 330 on the SFO trips was a wise move. NWA lowers CASM while reducing capacity, resulting in a more "premium" revenue mix. Likewise, UAL operating a 400 from Minny to NRT would be stupid due to the lack of feed.
And BTW, I'd consider the ailine that coninues to expand in it's domestic markets despite ever dwindling ticket prices AND LF's to be the idiotic A-Holes preventing recovery for the industry.... Any ideas who tht could be?
[post="195941"][/post]​
SAN FRANCISCO (CBS.MW) - UAL Corp., the parent of United Airlines, reported a narrower third-quarter loss Thursday but soaring fuel costs and intense competition is pressuring its on-going cost reduction program.

UAL, operating under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and parent of the world's second largest airline, posted a loss of $274 million, or $2.38 a share. Last year, the company lost $367 million, or $3.47 a share.

Revenue for the Elk Grove Township, Ill., company rose to $4.39 billion from $4.01 billion.

UAL said its yields continue to weaken as expenses rise on an increase in the number of seats its offering. Total expenses rose 10 percent to $4.4 billion. Passenger traffic rose 11 percent on an 8 percent capacity increase.

In the quarter, revenue per available seat mile fell 2.5 percent to $9.78. Expenses per available seat mile -- the average cost of flying an aircraft seat one mile - rose 1 percent to 9.96 cents.
United is working on a new business plan, expected to be disclosed in about a month, that it says will involve more than $1 billion in additional cost savings. In addition to cutting wages and benefits again, it also has been reported to be poised for as many as 6,000 job cuts from its work force of 62,000.

The company cited a "strong possibility" that it will fail to meet the requirements of its bankruptcy lenders in the fourth quarter, citing the record fuel prices and continued weakness in the revenue environment. It said it is in discussions with its lenders, who are likely to give the airline more time by renegotiating the terms to avoid a default.

Through nine months of 2004, UAL had a net loss of $980 million, or $8.77 per share, compared with a year-earlier loss of $2.33 billion, or $23.28 per share. Revenue rose 11 percent to $12.4 billion from $11.1 billion.

With all do respect Mr.Bus, you are due a RE-WRITE. Non-stops are great if they are planned correctly. Ual could learn a few things from an ol'pro like Northwest.
 
"Ual could learn a few things from an ol'pro like Northwest."

You mean like determining which airport to actually land at? Or how to hull loss an A320 in a low speed fender bender? Whatever....
 
BigSky,

I know UA DOESN"T fly to some Asia cities, but look at what NW flies to that UA doesn't: Guam & Manila to name 2. NW flies resort traffic to Guam, why? Do they have a plane sitting for 12 hours at NRT? UA flies to Capital cities with business trafffic not tourists. Tokyo, HKG, KIX, PVG, TPE SIN, PEK, ICN, BKK, and other are the cities that drive ASia's economies. Guam seems like a nice place but a beach in Asia is better in Bali.
 
Busdrvr said:
"Ual could learn a few things from an ol'pro like Northwest."

You mean like determining which airport to actually land at? Or how to hull loss an A320 in a low speed fender bender? Whatever....
[post="196063"][/post]​
Well....no. How about "How not to almost ram a 747 into a mountain (San Bruno) or along the lines of "How to pay your bills 101". Perhaps, "How not to worry about other solvent airline companies when yours is in the toilet". "Old pros" don't almost run out of fuel over the Pacific either. ...Associated Press story as published in the
San Francisco Chronicle Saturday, March 20, 1999
(referring to incident #406180)

Headline: Mishandled takeoff prompts new training for long-haul pilots

Author: GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer

© 1999 Associated Press
© 1999 San Francisco Chronicle

(03-20) 00:52 EST WASHINGTON (AP) -- A United Airlines jumbo jet that lost power in an engine during takeoff from San Francisco dipped low enough that its thunderous roar set off car alarms and sent airport neighbors scurrying for cover.

The pilot of the Boeing 747 so badly mishandled the recovery last summer that the plane cleared the 1,576-foot-high San Bruno Mountain, a few miles to the north, by only 100 feet, government and airline officials said.

``Pull up! Pull up!'' shouted other pilots in the cockpit, as the electronic voice in the plane's ground-proximity device warned: ``Terrain! Terrain!''

Now the Federal Aviation Administration has ordered new training for the airline's long-haul pilots. While all pilots must make at least three takeoffs and landings every 90 days, the crews that fly United's long trips must now make at least one set of them in a real plane, not the flight simulators routinely used.

The problem is a simple one: Long trips entail a lot of flying but only one set of takeoffs and landings. Also, airlines send along two crews to guard against pilot fatigue, so pilots sitting at the controls for departure aren't the ones there for arrival.

Because of that division of labor, the pilot flying United Flight 863 last summer had made only one takeoff and landing in a real plane during the previous year. When real trouble hit, government and airline investigators found, he reacted wrongly.

Details on what happened on June 28 at San Francisco International Airport surfaced Friday in The Wall Street Journal. Because the pilots reported the incident through a voluntary self-disclosure program, neither the airline nor the government would comment extensively.

The newspaper's account was gleaned through interviews and information gained via the Freedom of Information Act.

The flight was to be flown in one of the most modern planes in the sky, the Boeing 747-400. It is distinctive because it has a lengthy upper deck and turned-up wing tips.

The plane was destined for Sydney, Australia, with 307 people aboard. Up on the flight deck, there were two sets of pilots, one to relieve the other in flight. Both sets normally rest in bunks just off the flight deck.

As Flight 863 lifted off the runway for its 14-hour, 25-minute journey, it was hit with one of the most practiced airplane emergencies, a failed engine. The plane's right inboard engine, one of four mounted on the wings, stalled. The co-pilot, who was flying the plane, correctly responded by shutting it down.

What he did next created near-fatal problems.

Because it was overpowered on the left, the plane started to turn to the right. The correct response would have been stepping on the left rudder pedal, which would straighten the nose. Instead the pilot aboard Flight 863 turned the control wheel to the left. That deployed panels on the plane's wing, reducing its lift.

Suddenly the stick began to shake, an automatic warning indicating a loss of lift is imminent. ``Push down! Push down!'' the extra flight crew yelled, which would have implemented a tactic to gain speed.

By then the plane was off course and headed for San Bruno Mountain. Now the ground-proximity device was belching its warning.

Although the plane cleared the mountain, it startled nearby residents.

``I thought I was going to have to go under the couch,'' the Journal quoted one as saying
FYI Bus, NWA's 747-400 program is the FAA Industry Template. Love ya!