CASM Data from MIT - 1995 thru 2006
- Thread starter nycbusdriver
- Start date
safety stud
Senior
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2006
- Messages
- 417
- Reaction score
- 15
Wheres the synergy... 🙄
vantheman63
Senior
Wow, I'll tell ya...if these charts are correct...and I have ZERO reason to believe they aren't, it's only a matter of "when" not "if" there will be a collapse of US.
It's also just AMAZINGLY fascinating to see that carriers like CO and UA have MUCH lower CASM's......all the while, delivering MUCH better service.
I quit flying US for anything other then, "there's no other way to get from point A to point B" in June....and fly CO and UA almost everywhere....and they have the real bells and whistles that US management lied to us travelers and said we were getting....And their costs are lower?
Looks to me like more management incompetence.... :down:
Pretty interesting.
It's also just AMAZINGLY fascinating to see that carriers like CO and UA have MUCH lower CASM's......all the while, delivering MUCH better service.
I quit flying US for anything other then, "there's no other way to get from point A to point B" in June....and fly CO and UA almost everywhere....and they have the real bells and whistles that US management lied to us travelers and said we were getting....And their costs are lower?
Looks to me like more management incompetence.... :down:
Pretty interesting.
Pacemaker
Senior
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2002
- Messages
- 475
- Reaction score
- 0
US Airways....last to the party, first to leave. Once the economy slows the red ink will flow and the retreat behind the northeast Maginot Line will resume. The LAS hub & domicile will close and PHX will be severely downsized to a focus city ala PIT.
Looks like 1990 all over again.
Looks like 1990 all over again.
Pacemaker
Senior
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2002
- Messages
- 475
- Reaction score
- 0
2005 was when merger related expenses began to be felt. Prior to that AWA costs were among the lowest in the industry.
But this is what US Airways does - swallow smaller, lower-cost airlines (PSA, Piedmont). The airlines merge and presto! You still have a high cost airline. Except that now the territory once owned by the heretofore low-cost victim (California, the Southeast, now the Southwest) shares the burden of this same unsustainable industry-leading cost structure. So said airline is no longer able to compete in that territory, and inevitably cedes the region to a lower-cost competetor. In this case, it will be Southwest (again) that comes out the winner when US Airways (again) gives up the west coast.
It won't only be PIT pilots & F/A's commuting to PHL.
But this is what US Airways does - swallow smaller, lower-cost airlines (PSA, Piedmont). The airlines merge and presto! You still have a high cost airline. Except that now the territory once owned by the heretofore low-cost victim (California, the Southeast, now the Southwest) shares the burden of this same unsustainable industry-leading cost structure. So said airline is no longer able to compete in that territory, and inevitably cedes the region to a lower-cost competetor. In this case, it will be Southwest (again) that comes out the winner when US Airways (again) gives up the west coast.
It won't only be PIT pilots & F/A's commuting to PHL.
'busdriver, there is only one answer to those stats!
Cut payroll and have another round of executives bonuses!
It's worked so far
It'd be funny if it weren't so sad. Although I'd say all of those numbers are attributable to management, even Ray Charles can see management has no excuse for 2002 - 2006 - they had BK labor contracts in place.
Given those numbers,and the BOD tolerance of them (where else except on mahogany row can you absolutely screw the pooch by the numbers and get a freakin' raise?), one wonders if another game entirely was afoot?
Say, union busting?
Look at how GM used the threat of BK (after studying the Wolf/Siegel/Parker play book, I'm sure) to force the union to take an underfunded VEBA (and look how well it turned out at Caterpillar).
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/caterpillar-w...927161409990016
The US virus is spreading.
Cut payroll and have another round of executives bonuses!
It's worked so far
It'd be funny if it weren't so sad. Although I'd say all of those numbers are attributable to management, even Ray Charles can see management has no excuse for 2002 - 2006 - they had BK labor contracts in place.
Given those numbers,and the BOD tolerance of them (where else except on mahogany row can you absolutely screw the pooch by the numbers and get a freakin' raise?), one wonders if another game entirely was afoot?
Say, union busting?
Look at how GM used the threat of BK (after studying the Wolf/Siegel/Parker play book, I'm sure) to force the union to take an underfunded VEBA (and look how well it turned out at Caterpillar).
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/caterpillar-w...927161409990016
The US virus is spreading.
These numbers don't appear to be stage length adjusted. Given that US has a shorter average stage length (relative to the other legacies), I think a stage length adjusted CASM would show more favorable results.
And if you don't want to adjust CASM, you can look at the RASM numbers where US is the clear revenue leader.
And if you don't want to adjust CASM, you can look at the RASM numbers where US is the clear revenue leader.
Dont call me Shirley
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 3,270
- Reaction score
- 306
As has been pointed out before, low labor costs don't necessarily mean low costs overall. Someone once suggested that the ticker symbol be LLCC, not LCC.
Flyer31,
I agree with you 100%, When it comes to the number crunchers,
"Figures don't Lie, Only Liars Figure".
They can contort the numbers any way they want to , Same Ole, Same Ole..
Pacemaker
Senior
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2002
- Messages
- 475
- Reaction score
- 0
CASM is out of control in large part because of stage-length. Management continues the failed past practice of running a legacy airline using 120-seaters on a Comair route-structure.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 16,512
- Reaction score
- 5,865
They're not, although stage length adjusted CASM is also available at the MIT site.
Right again.
FWIW, the MIT site appears to just be a consolidation of the BTS data in one spot, with some breakdowns of the data that aren't readily available on the BTS site - MIT has done quite a bit of drawing data from various BTS databases and consolidating it for easy access. Of course, the BTS data is all submitted by the airlines so however the airlines break the numbers down into catagories carries over to the MIT site.
Jim
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
14.13 13.89 13.93 13.74 13.90 15.67
OK, just look at US's line - this is the best they can do to control costs with BK contracts in place?
Puh-leeze! A drunken sailor is more thrifty.
What these CASM numbers tell be is management pissed the employees' sacrifice away (after securing performance bonuses, but that's obviously money wasted too, isn't it?) and will be back for more.
Fuel is getting ready to bite hard, IMO.
14.13 13.89 13.93 13.74 13.90 15.67
OK, just look at US's line - this is the best they can do to control costs with BK contracts in place?
Puh-leeze! A drunken sailor is more thrifty.
What these CASM numbers tell be is management pissed the employees' sacrifice away (after securing performance bonuses, but that's obviously money wasted too, isn't it?) and will be back for more.
Fuel is getting ready to bite hard, IMO.
Similar threads
