Airlines Facing Survival Of Fittest

USA320Pilot

Veteran
May 18, 2003
8,175
1,539
www.usaviation.com
Airlines facing survival of fittest

WASHINGTON (Star-Telegram) - The ongoing expansion of discount airlines will continue to put intense pressure on the major carriers, possibly resulting in additional bankruptcies and consolidation over the next few years, industry experts said at an airline conference Wednesday.

But there will be survivors, industry observers said. The airlines that overcome the competitive challenges will be those that can get their costs under control. But some experts argued that other wrenching changes to the industry are needed before the large airlines can reach long-term profitability.

Today, traditional carriers must give passengers a reason to choose them over their low-fare rivals, some of which offer amenities like satellite television and leather seats and have developed loyal followings, said Michael Levine, a law professor at Yale University who is a former executive of Northwest and Continental airlines.

"Most [airline executives] don't seem to understand that you need some kind of strategic advantage," said Levine, who was involved in deregulating the industry in the late 1970s as an official with the U.S. Civil Aeronautics Board. "Just having airplanes isn't enough."

The conference, organized by Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, featured a slate of industry figures who spoke on the effect that discount airlines like Dallas-based Southwest Airlines are having on larger carriers like American and United Airlines.

Most agreed that the havoc discounters have wreaked on their larger counterparts during the past three years is likely to continue, given ambitious expansion plans announced recently by airlines like JetBlue Airways, Spirit Airlines and AirTran Airways.

That expansion is even having an effect at Dallas/Fort Worth Airport, which is dominated by Fort Worth-based American and does not typically feature deeply discounted fares. AirTran has recently been expanding its D/FW presence, and executives with Spirit and JetBlue have said they hope to begin serving the airport within the next few years.

"The low-cost carriers are now targeting the long-haul markets," said Daniel Kasper, a transportation analyst and managing director of consulting firm LECG. The trend is "ominous" for the major airlines, he said, because they traditionally make more money on longer routes such as coast-to-coast flights.

But it would be a mistake for the large carriers to abandon their traditional hub-and-spoke business model, Kasper said. By funneling passengers from small communities through hub airports, airlines bring in revenue that would otherwise be lost.

"The problem is not the [business] model, the problem is the costs," he said, arguing that airline expenses must be reduced to compensate for cheaper air fares.

All of the major carriers have been working to reduce costs. United and US Airways filed for bankruptcy protection to renegotiate contracts and gain concessions from employees.

American is working to cut $4 billion in annual costs through labor cuts and more efficient operations. It reached a voluntary concessions deal with union employees last year that kept the carrier out of bankruptcy.

And executives at struggling Delta Air Lines, which has some of the highest labor costs in the industry, have recently been hinting that bankruptcy could be the only solution to the airline's woes.

But the cost cuts enacted so far haven't been enough to bring the airlines back to sustained profitability. The industry is projected to lose more than $1 billion this year, in part because of heavy competition and high fuel prices.

Robert Gordon, an economics professor at Northwestern University who studies the airline industry, said airlines should boost international travel, which is one of the industry's most profitable segments. He also suggested increased use of cost-efficient regional jets, preferably flown by affiliate airlines that have lower labor costs.

Several experts said that traditional fare pricing, which often features more than 25 fares for a single flight, must be simplified.

Still, some of the six major carriers may not endure, said Patrick Murphy, a partner with consulting firm Gerchick-Murphy Associates who focuses on aviation and transportation. He expects more mergers.

Levine, the Yale professor, said he can envision more bankruptcies, especially if the economy takes another downturn.

The traditional carriers are "a bunch of folks clinging to an iceberg, drifting south," he said. "Some are lower on the ice than others, but even they will eventually meet the fate of all icebergs that drift south."
 
USA320Pilot said:
But it would be a mistake for the large carriers to abandon their traditional hub-and-spoke business model, Kasper said. By funneling passengers from small communities through hub airports, airlines bring in revenue that would otherwise be lost.
I agree only to a very limited extent. Were it still 1985, I'd agree strongly, but several significant changes have occurred in the past twenty years. People fly much more now than they did back then, which means that the market for air travel has risen substantially. While in 1985 there was only sufficient business to support point-to-point among the top dozen cities, today there is sufficient business to support point-to-point among more like fifty cities.

This means that the hubs would remain useful only to connect the smallest communities to the rest of the network. The unanswered question is whether the cost of supporting service to those smallest communities will be willingly borne by their residents. How close does a substitute airport need to be in order to eliminate the feasibility of service to the small community?
 
Dear Fellow Employee:

Star Telegram said: “The ongoing expansion of discount airlines will continue to put intense pressure on the major carriers, possibly resulting in additional bankruptcies and consolidation over the next few years, industry experts said at an airline conference Wednesday. But there will be survivors, industry observers said. The airlines that overcome the competitive challenges will be those that can get their costs under control.â€

USA320Pilot comments: There are many things management has down that I disagree with and I have told Dave Siegel this a number of times, but the comment above I agree with him on.

The cost differential between network carriers and the LCCs is to large to compete and either US Airways finds a way to compete as a stand-alone business enterprise or the company will simply disappear.

The “Going Forward Plan†outline makes sense and strengthens the airline card for the upcoming industry consolidation. Provided labor and management come to agreement on new labor accords, there is every reason to believe US Airways will be involved in the upcoming consolidation and David Bronner has indicated the Arlington-based company can be the surviving carrier.

It’s clear from Dave Siegel’s webcast that the company is going to seek America West contracts as their benchmark. Furthermore, employees will have to decide if this contract offer or unemployment is better because the relentless and growing LCC pressure, especially in Philadelphia, provide no other option except unemployment.

During his webcast Siegel said, "I can stand up here and say that I didn't ask for enough" concessions from employees. We're going to have to pay our people differently. We're going to have to improve our productivity. And we're going to have to look at what benefits we offer."

Siegel went so far as to encourage employees to leave the company if new work contracts aren't agreeable, rather than to fight the change. "If it doesn't work, I'd encourage you to support the change, and then go on and find something else," he said. "It's better to have a job when you're trying to find another job."

In my opinion, we all share disappointment and frustration at what has happened to our profession, but Siegel’s comments about reaching an agreement and then deciding our future is valid. It’s clear with the number of furloughees accepting J4J positions the job market is poor. Therefore, I believe for the naysayers it would be better to accept the new terms and then seek other employment while we have pay, benefits, medical insurance, and DC or other retirement plan contributions.

After all of the emotion, it serves no useful purpose to burn the airline to the ground.

Siegel and David Bronner have indicated after the “Going Forward Plan†is implemented US Airways will be involved in M&A activity, therefore, burning the place to the ground will only permit furloughed employees from other companies to fly, handle, and work our flights.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot
 
I think the comments in this article are both right and wrong. The costs of the majors are too high. But, the fact is you could give every labor group at U the same contract as SW, and we would still cost more. Our business model is not as efficient, and inherently generates more costs. So, in order to get our costs to where we can compete with the LCCs, we are going to have to change the business model, something management is unwilling to do. The only way to compete with the current model, is to lower our labor costs to the point that we are well below the LCCs.
 
In fact, if you gave the labor group the same contract as HP, you'd still be losing money if you don't change the structure at the same time.
 
Mweiss:

Mweiss said: “In fact, if you gave the labor group the same contract as HP, you'd still be losing money if you don't change the structure at the same time.â€￾

USA320Pilot comments: That’s true, but labor participation is required to change the structure. You cannot have one without the other.

Regards,

USA320Pilot
 
US Airways is truly at a crossroad.

Certainly without a reduction of costs (CASM), the company will continue to hemorrhage cash until there is nothing left. I don't know of anyone who believes that the current management team is truly incompetent enough to let this scenario play out. (despite rhetoric to the contrary).

The true crossroad that lies before US Airways is one of "one-upmanship" and "mutually assured destruction".

From the management side, it has become obvious that the company is postponing changes in structure and policy in order to perpetuate losses. The purpose being to create an econiomic enviornment so dire as to have "labor" panic at the chance of losing seniority and it benefits, and capitulating to whatever is "needed" to preserve the company.

Each labor group has a laundry list of inefficiencies, and failed past practices, that they would like to have changed in order to conserve cash flow and lower costs. Yet, these suggestions and opportunities to operate more efficiently and cost effectively are dismissed out of hand, by management, as being "not practical".

The factoids presented in the media about US Airways are telling and damning. The employees believe quite readily, based on their own suggestions being ignored, that the company has the option to lower CASMs approximately 2 cents at any time, yet chooses not to. Also, all of the other Airlines have lowered their non-labor costs, yet US Airways has increased their non-labor costs, apparently equal to the concessions of their employees.

With these aces up their sleeves, management is now threatening the most dire consequences if the labor groups do not concede more, once again. Confident that when labor has given "enough", that there are many options that will be invoked that can pull the company out of the fire.

On the labor side, it is an exercise in frustration.

After strong refusal statements following the previous concession proposals, labor, concerned for the post 9-11 economy, did indeed relent. Labor realizes that this past pattern is the motivation for the management to continue with its concession campaign, and confidence that labor will wear down and finally give in. The frustration of labor is that the company is mistaken.

Labor knows that the company could be operated more efficiently right now, but doesn't, for the sole purpose of pressuring labor.

The previous concessions given were deep and hit each employee hard. Most employees regret the economic condition that they have voted themselves into, and feel that anymore concessions would be equal to being unemployed. It is this conviction, that any more concessions would be equal in financial consequences to unemployment, that has tied the hands of labor leaders and is being miss calculated by management.

There are those who are in an economic positions to ride out a greatly diminished income in order to attain retirement, but they are not the majority, the majority are of the mindset of go for broke. Because either unemployment or concession is an equal loss for them.

We all know the rhetoric. If you can't stand the concessions, then leave the company. Leave behind flight benefits. Leave behind a chance of health benefits. Leave behind decades of personal investment. So that we can leave any remaining value to a couple of millionaires. The answer is no.

We take very seriously the admonition of the PHL ALPA MEC. Sabers will rattle, times will get hard, but the company will only do what it has already planned to do. They're just going to have to do it with the present labor contracts in place.
 
USA320Pilot said:
USA320Pilot comments: That’s true, but labor participation is required to change the structure. You cannot have one without the other.

Regards,

USA320Pilot
To a certain extent, that is true. But, nothing we do or concede will fundementally change the airline. The hub and spoke system is broken, labor cannot fix that. The fare system of the majors is broken, labor cannot fix it. The multiple fleet type is not labors fault. We can help but we are just a patch. Only management can change the system. And if they are not going to make the changes necessary, why should we subsidized a broken system that will fail with or without our concessions?
 
repeet,

I was informed by a coworker of yours, that your shop provided a cheaper and faster repair on a certain rotable that the company currently vendors out at a cost of over $1,000 and we can do this work in-house for a cost of $300. And the company refused to let your shop fix this part.

This fact proves your previous post about the company making the holes bigger in the ship to make it sink faster.
 
Those who will survive are not those who can keep their costs under control; but more importantly CREATE a demand for a unique product that they offer the customer.

USAirways has neither, and no future vision is in sight. :blink:
 
700UW
Posted on Apr 9 2004, 12:01 PM

repeet,
I was informed by a coworker of yours, that your shop provided a cheaper and faster repair on a certain rotable that the company currently vendors out at a cost of over $1,000 and we can do this work in-house for a cost of $300. And the company refused to let your shop fix this part.

Yup, just one of dozens.

And yes we have the doumentation for all of them "rat holed" around, just waiting for the right person, persons, or Goverment Agency, to ask us to prove it.
 
Amazing, the management in this company has no clue, the two individuals in you're shop have said they have provided tons of proof that with minimum investment we could do so much more work, cheaper and more efficient but the company chooses to spend more money and have a longer turn cycle on the rotables.
 
It's obvious that Seigle and 320pilot want to bust the unions or whip them into lapdogs for management. Management's seeming paralysis on structural changes just reinforce this. 320pilot just wants his paycheck to continue for as long as possible. If following Siegel's suggestion to agree or quit is revolting, demeaning, and arrogant. If you're going to agree with threats like that, why even have a union . . . . which brings us back to the REAL objective of Siegel . . . . putting lipstick on his pig.
 
USA320Pilot said:
Siegel and David Bronner have indicated after the “Going Forward Planâ€￾ is implemented US Airways will be involved in M&A activity, therefore, burning the place to the ground will only permit furloughed employees from other companies to fly, handle, and work our flights.
Bronner has said that if the company started making money, he might consider an additional investment. Bronner has said that he will sell asssets rather than bleed to death.

Bronner has retained Morgan Stanley to shop parts of the airline around.

Let's tell the whole story here, shall we?
 

Latest posts