Change your strategy, Davey

[phasersonstun2]

With the 5% deferral allegedly being returned, (I''ll believe it when it''s on my pay stub) we should turn our collective efforts toward encouraging Mr. Seigel to include us in on his ''vision'' for the future. So far, Dave may be a candidate for LASIK. 400 RJ''s speaks to flat or shrinking market conditions, such as what we have now, but as anyone who has been around for twenty plus years knows, things change quickly.

Historically, passenger demand in this industry changes direction like a tornado and management reacts like a lava flow. With the current management short-sighted RJ strategy, we are being set up to be a perennial 100 seater, potentially missing out on higher yields and broader markets. Their excuse is labor costs. If you truly want lower labor costs, increase long haul flying to decrease the average hourly cost. Want a clue? Ask UAL, Delta or NWA, who dumped short haul in the early eighties in order to do just that. RJ''s are needed, but if you intend to make them your bread and butter, you better set a small dinner table.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

400 RJs to feed virtually NOTHING of a mainline operation spells certain failure for U. There has NEVER (if you can think of one, let me know) been a major hub-and-spoke mature network carrier to survive with a largely east coast franchise. Maybe US Airways should just change its name to Carribean Airways and get it over with. Then, we can stop cleaning the planes and start letting them wreak like sweatty passengers, ala Air Jamaica. And while we're at it, we'll pack 20-30 more into each plane. Maybe free rum punch (and later we can charge $10 for it, while complaining that we can't raise prices while giving worse service than you get on Greyhound).

 

[Hello Newman]

Well said Phaser...
The purpose of adding RJ's to the fleet shouldv've
been to supplement service when loads didn't justify
a 737 or an Airbus. Not to replace bigger planes altogether. We've dumped more routes on Mesa than they can handle and whats the result? Increased Mtc
delays and cancellations. At this rate, there won't be a need for any airplane with over 100 seats, we
won't be able to fill even those....

 

[SalesGuyCCY]

I disagree! The purpose is to fill in at times when you don't need a 737, etc...you can have more frequencies--better for business travelers and fill planes, at lower cost...can also feed hubs to Europe, Caribbean, etc., much better AND make some money. Not to mention getting rid of those noisy uncomforable Dash-8s.

You could also start serving some OA hubs like DCA-ORD that US does not serve nonstop now.....

 

[AP Tech]

"Dave" is doing nothing more than building a large commuter airline such as he did at CAL. In the near future we will have more RJ's than large equipment and we will be primed for the sale. Then "Dave" can stuff his pockets and move on to his next victim!!!

 

[PHL]

----------------
On 8/1/2003 10:59:22 AM phasersonstun2 wrote:

Ask UAL, Delta or NWA, who dumped short haul in the early eighties in order to do just that. RJ's are needed, but if you intend to make them your bread and butter, you better set a small dinner table.

----------------​

UAL's Express partner, ACA, is a HUGE feeder operation for them at Dulles to many short haul markets. Never mind that they aren't even RJ's. If/when ACA does go on it's own, UAL could be hurting (see Chip's commentary). But, having that network in place over the years had helped UAL achieve big operational profits (until everyone went red).

Similarly, Delta has been able to match demand with seats with Comair - a Delta Express carrier.

CO, too, has been very successful with their RJ operation feeding CLE, EWR and IAH. Spinning it off to it's own subsidiary in an IPO was also a sign that the express operations are a needed component in a route structure.

It's already been debated and beaten to death that U was late to the game with the RJ's when the other big network carriers were building them up by the hundreds. But it's really simple - a business has to match it's supply to demand. If demand picks up "like a tornado", then a decision will have to be made to add more RJ flights in that market, or step it up to mainline. But, if you've been reading the reports from all the airlines, people aren't buying those expensive tickets anymore. And, that isn't likely to pick up in a near enough future to turn put anyone in the black. So, the cost cuts will continue....

 

[Hello Newman]

----------------
On 8/1/2003 956 PM SalesGuyCCY wrote:

I disagree! The purpose is to fill in at times when you don't need a 737, etc...you can have more frequencies--better for business travelers and fill planes, at lower cost...can also feed hubs to Europe, Caribbean, etc., much better AND make some money. Not to mention getting rid of those noisy uncomforable Dash-8s.

You could also start serving some OA hubs like DCA-ORD that US does not serve nonstop now.....
Salesguy, read my post again.....slowly
----------------

 

[ITRADE]

----------------
On 8/1/2003 11:08:31 PM A&P Tech wrote:

"Dave" is doing nothing more than building a large commuter airline such as he did at CAL. In the near future we will have more RJ's than large equipment and we will be primed for the sale. Then "Dave" can stuff his pockets and move on to his next victim!!!

----------------​

Well, interesting point you make. Isn't Continental one of the airlines most likey to see an early return to profitability?

 

[High Iron]

----------------
On 8/1/2003 11:27:51 PM ITRADE wrote:

----------------
On 8/1/2003 11:08:31 PM A&P Tech wrote:

"Dave" is doing nothing more than building a large commuter airline such as he did at CAL. In the near future we will have more RJ's than large equipment and we will be primed for the sale. Then "Dave" can stuff his pockets and move on to his next victim!!!

----------------​

Well, interesting point you make. Isn't Continental one of the airlines most likey to see an early return to profitability?

----------------​

Maybe...but was it the RJ's for sure?

 

[ITRADE]

Well, the accusation being made is that Dave diverted mainline jobs and created hundreds of RJs in place. Given the fact that CO has 180 of em, one would think that Dave's work wasn't so bad after all.

If you're gonna accuse him of placing lots of RJs at a carrier, you're going to have to accept that the residual effects of those RJs assisted in the carrier's financial strength over time.

 

[Furloughedagain]

I dont buy it ITrade. I know you're not going to agree but so-called "regional jets" have been around for literally decades.

The Bac-111, DC9-10, BAe146, Fokker 28... they were all "regional jets". When the next generation of RJs came on to the market US Airways had the ability to get as many as they wanted.

They could have darkened the skies with regional jets -- with one caveat. They had to be operated by US Airways employees. I have no doubt in my mind that a fair and reasonable pay/benefit structure could have been developed to allow US Airways employees to fly these airplanes.

Instead of working with your employees though Dave chose to OUTSOURCE the work to the lowest bidder.

Now, when you climb aboard the shiny-new Embraer 145 you may be riding with a first officer who clears only pennies more than $16,000 a year.

$16,000 a year to be an international jet airline pilot. I don't buy it Itrade. The market did not determine that this person should make poverty wages for his highly skilled job. The market didn't determine that the mechanic who worked on that jet should make half what his "mainline" counterpart makes. The skills required are no different. These are highly skilled, highly educated individuals who don't make enough money to support their families.

That is what our jobs have been outsourced to. When you ride in the back of that EMB145, do you ever wonder if the copilot is thinking about how to pay his mortgage this month? How to feed his baby?

Dave did not have to outsource the work. The industry created the so-called "RJ" to allow themselves the flexibility to outsource work to lower paid work groups. US Airways never had a legitimate restriction on the number of RJs that could be flown. All they had to do was sit down with the employees and figure out a pay/benefit scale that would have made it a competitive product.

I'm never going to believe that outsourcing 400 jets worth of flying will make US Airways the kind of "powerhouse" that will require them to buy more Long-haul airplanes and recall the 15,000 furloughed employees.

Maybe Dave will prove me wrong. In the meantime I don't see anyone who benefits from the change. Not the poor regional pilots who fly for poverty wages. Not the poor furloughed employees whose jobs were outsourced to the lowest bidder. Not the US Airways customer who deals with a substandard product/service.

I'm afraid I just cant agree with you right now.

 

[wings396]

When the company sold everyone on the RJ theory, their main intent was to repalce the stone age props. Since then the plan has been more focused on using them to replace Mainline A/C on some routes that are heavily traveled, and yes they had a high yeild too. Not to mention the primary job of the famed RJ is to screw as many emplyees as possible out of a decent wage. When the 70-75 seaters come online, we will pretty much working an F-100 for peanuts. We are losing a CLT flight that utilizes an A319 that carries 100+ passengers 6 days a week. Most of the traffic is headed to the Islands paying a decent fair. When it is gone we will have a Mesa 50 seat RJ take over. Where do you figure those overflow 50-60 passsengers will go? You got it, on the competiton of course. This is only one example of how this company hands potential revenue away. One of my co-workers took the time to do some math on the lost seats. He did conservitave fare average, and figures we are elimating between $7000-$8000 a day in potential revenue. It is the lack of strategy like this that causes us to bleed cash and lose marketshare at the same time. As far as CO goes, there are a few differences between them and us. First is that Gordo read the chapter about employee morale, and has tried to keep it up as best as possilbe. Second is the fact that the CO Express people are paid much better than our own Mianline Express folks are. These two examples alone will make CO an overall success story, unlike we are. We still have a lot of markets that have props going up against other carriers that use all RJ's on their routes. This is where we should deploy our RJ's instead of replacing Mainline flying. All of the fuss that was made about ERI a while back ,and we stormed in with ONE RJ a day and left the rest of the flights with props. In the meantime NW is kicking ou Butt with RJ's to DTW and DL is to CVG....way to go boys...

 

[PHL]

What's happening to the employees is a travesty, no doubt about it. Nobody believes me when I tell them the right seater in an RJ or even DC9 is lucky to clear $30K. They're not doing it for the money - that's for sure. They love to fly.

But, the fact is that an airline is expensive to operate. And even more expensive on short haul routes. So, the contract/express carrier concept has worked for what it's worth. SW and JetBlue concentrate on point to point markets that aren't all that short haul. So, they've been able to keep the costs low by operating routes that consistantly have high loads where they can apply similar fare structures.

What's happening to the airline industry carries over to other parts of our economy...

I'm in the software industry. While there are those who are skilled and earning good money (analogous to a senior Capt. on a widebody), many many more equally skilled but not senior people are out of a job (i.e. dot-com bust). The jobs they can find are menial. Why? Because many of the jobs are being farmed out to India and Ireland where there is a HUGE talent pool of very technically skilled people doing the same things we can do for pennies on the dollar. Every big name computer giant has, or will soon have, operations in Bangladesh and/or Ireland. This is the exact same phenomenon happening in the airline business. And it's the reality of the global village we've all created. Your union can go to bat for you all you want and preserve those extra few jobs, but if the economics don't change it's really like rearranging chairs on the Titanic deck. It's still going down no matter what you try....

 

[PITbull]

----------------
On 8/2/2003 12:44:30 AM ITRADE wrote:

Well, the accusation being made is that Dave diverted mainline jobs and created hundreds of RJs in place. Given the fact that CO has 180 of em, one would think that Dave's work wasn't so bad after all.

If you're gonna accuse him of placing lots of RJs at a carrier, you're going to have to accept that the residual effects of those RJs assisted in the carrier's financial strength over time.

----------------​

Yea, I'm getting all hot and excited over it all ready... Just think, U making all that profit having that RJ strength, and all employees having that wonderful, new and exciting substandard wage job flying those RJs. Yes siree, it surely thrills me, can't wait to be more "broke" so a company can be a "winning" profitable airline for the stake holders. Now, that's what I call working as a team.

Here's the visual....all employees working for Mid Atlantic are Bankrupt, in financial ruin, can't support their families, but the LCC is #1 in profits. That's how we have been included in "Dave's vision".

Yes. It will sure feel good to be #1.

PS. And Wings396, you are so correct. That was the way it was sold to us. I remember it well.

 

[Old PSA]

PHL,

I believe you hit the nail on the head. The airlines that are profitable today, in a down market, are the point to point carriers. The hub carriers are all losing money. Hopefully, someone in corporate will notice this. Hubs cost lots and lots of money to run (and even more money to run well). US needs to re-think its overall basic business strategy. Dump PIT, turn PHL into a non-banked hub, similar to the WN model in PHX or BWI. As to CLT, I don't know, hey, maybe more study. Basically, fly where the money is. If a city doesn't make or contribute enough revenue, drop it. US doesn't have to serve every little city.