Cost Saving

Light Years

Veteran
Aug 27, 2002
2,878
0
www.usaviation.com
I know this has been done before, but we have alot of newbies and its been awhile.

There are more ways to cut costs than asking for money from employees. Lets list ideas, no matter how small or large they may be, outrageous as they be. Be open to dialogue of why they wouldnt work, and please participate with insight... they are just ideas. Heres some to start:

*Move even more towards a standard fleet. First victims should be the 757 and 767 with A321 and A330-200. That would bring mainline types down to three types (737, A320, A330)

*Standardize which aircraft fly into which stations- most of the stations dont vary too much in capacity demand. Instead of having a 737-300, 400, 320, 757, 321 at different times of the day, why not just make it an Airbus station? This would also allow for more swopping to better meet capacity and avoid lost revenue through empty seats or overbooking compensation... for example if BDL is an oversold A319 and MCO is an empty 321, they could be swopped. I'm sure its more complicated than that, but it seems to make sense?

*Same for Express aircraft and carriers. There are markets that have ERJs, CRJs, DH8, D38, SF3s at different times of day, all different carriers (with different procedures). You can go in some stations and see the manuals of ten different carriers. Wouldnt it be more cost effiecient and standard, plus save training costs and equiptment costs to standardize which carrier and what type flies into stations with the same demand all day?

*Standardize galley equiptment on all Group aircraft (or at least the ones that will be around for awhile)... the same packouts, carts, and supplies could be loaded off an A330 and returned to a CRJ. This would not only cut down on actual equitment, but also time and mistakes. It would also standardize service procedures throughout the system.

*Make a deal with either all of the Star Alliance carriers or just United for standard catering supplies. Imagine the cost savings if 18 different airlines shared the same plastic/styrofoam cups with a Star Alliance logo and all of the airlines logos around the bottom. Its also free worldwide advertising.

*Look into different catering supplies. I know its kind of lame, but do we need to have Coke products? Is there other companies that would sell them cheaper? Cola is cola and Lemon Lime is Sprite if the price is right.

*On some European airlines they give out liitle half size soda cans... not sure if they are available here, but it would cut down on waste, save tons of space allowing double catering, and speed up service (cup and can rather than making it). It also gives the customer the impression that they are getting more (a full can, even if its small).

* I'll never understand why we need all of these different airlines serving the same mission, and I know there is progress in this issue. With union consent, couldnt the CRJs just go to the MAA division? Why have seperate wholly owned airlines (even at MAA) with seperate facilities, management, etc?

*Our CWA friends will have to help me on this one, (and please let me know if I'm suggesting something that would result in jobb loss etc as thats not my intention!) JetBlue has at home reservationists... I know our res is much much more complicated, but could there not be a network of at-home res agents? This eliminates the need for facilities while keeping the manpower we need. Also, mgmts always complaining about down time for airport agents. Could some res work be moved to airports? Possibly hubs, or stations that have long periods of inactivity, they could have little mini call centers in the back.

*Do we need laptop power, airfones etc at every seat? Only three airphones can be used at once anyway, and the LPPs get little use. Why not have them only in Envoy, First, Shuttle, the 330 and selected seats in coach (these could be sold as desirable seats for FFs that dont get upgraded- exit rows, bulkheads and other coveted seats with the addition of lpps, phone, JetConnect etc). The RJs and SJs could feature these too (I believe CoEx does).

*It seems as there will always be a need for turboprops larger than 19 seats for very short routes... lets say there is one or two turboprop operators like Colgan Air. Brand these as US Connection, a different product than the RJs. Replace gallies with smaller versions and stock them with Coke, Sprite, Water and Orange Juice bottles only. This also saves alot of weight on these aircraft. Our Express brand is very inconsistant and confusing to our customers, from the B1900 to the E170. The Connection branding of the 19 and 30 seaters would help that, and I still think the rest should just be US Airways, (but this is my cost saving novel and not my usual branding one :) )

Ok, enough for now, I will think of more though. (Light Years hand falls off :blink: )
 
Light Years,

I agree with you 100%, especially in regard to the difference among Express aircraft. I believe it should be a mission of all of us to have the "express" titles removed from the 170. I've heard the arguement that management doesn't want any mainline A/C without F/C so as not to confuse customers, but that doesn't cut it for me. Although 170 pays poverty wages, this is a mainline A/C!!!! Get rid of the Express titles!!!! Everyone who flies first knows the differences anyway!!!
 
Fleet reduction is, indeed, sensible. I'm not sure I'd dump the 757 as readily, as the 321 isn't a great substitute for it.

Standardized galley equipment is a good one.

How about pushing some technology? A quality website can work wonders in reducing the call volume to res. Likewise, better integration of the online checkin would help (currently too many itineraries can't be printed online).

I'd think several times before going to generics on the sodas. Cola ain't cola to many people.

Something has got to be done with the union contracts. RJs are more popular than the propjets, but much less popular than the narrowbodies. There is really only one thing that makes RJs profitable, and that's the significant difference in payscales. Fix the payscales, and the RJs no longer make sense. Ditch RJs for narrowbodies, and you have more happy customers.

I agree with ditching the phones, but not the laptop power.
 
How about those small half cans of Coke and others. Sure would speed up service instead of pouring individual drinks.
 
On the fleet, I'd ditch the 733s and 734s--I think it's a forgone conclusion that the bigger E-jets are going to fill that particular niche at some point.

I'd hang onto the 757--there are places and routes that the 321 cannot do (things like Vail in the winter, some of the islands when it's really hot, etc). Other than that (from a pax, not any other standpoint), the Airbus narrow and widebodies are far superior to the Boeings (at US, anyway).
 
Light Years -

Excellent post and great ideas. I love the idea about standardizing the equipment flown into stations. It amazes me that in a station like ERI, you can have 8 flights a day with 3 different express carriers, or CMH has 5 differnet express carriers that fly in/out of their daily. Why can't 1-2 of the carriers be the sole carrier for these stations?

Standardizing the carriers that fly in/out of a station would also reduce the parts inventory that has to be housed there. If you have 5 different express carriers and mainline flying into your station with several different equipment types, you also have to have things such as spare tires, batteries and smaller items like safety cards. Reducing the number of express carriers and equipment types would also help reduce inventories carried at those stations.

In our current environment, none of the express carriers and mainline talk to one another. So, in a market like PIT-ERI, it is possible to continue to effect the same customers over and over but with different carriers. Lets say that PSA flies the 10:30 flight and has a mtc issue. So the customers are rebooked on the 11:30 flight operated by Shuttle America. SA has a mtc problem in PIT and puts the broken airplane on the 11:30 flight. Now the customers have been effected twice. Next flight is at 1:30 and it is operated by Allegheny. Low and behold, there was a wex delay in RIC and the 1:30 flight is now late because of delays associated with RIC. Since none of these carriers talk to one another, they have no idea how many times a single station has been effected by previous mtc and weather issues. Reduce that to 1-2 carriers in a market and you will reduce the likelyhood.

Of course, a better idea would be to come up with a way for all of the affiiliated carriers (mainline, express, MAA, UAL, Star partners, etc) to communicate and coordinate operational irregularities.


I also like the idea of the pint sized cans of soda. I think that would be a tremendous help on short hop flights and standardizing service. I fly back and forth from PIT to my hometown and there are 3 different express operators the fly the route. Depending on which carrier and the mood of the F/A, you can get a full beverage service, express service or no service. It is a short 35 minute flight, but my expreience is that there is no consistence in the service provided on the route. On a Mesa flight, 50 people, the F/A busted her back side and served each and every customer - full beverage service. Return on Transstates, 24 people, no service due to the short duration of the flight. Back on Mesa the next week. 32 customers, express beverage. Return, 35 customers, full beverage service. Makes no sense. There should be a consistent level of service on each and every flight - barring turbulence and severe weather. Having the pint size cans could help in this process by reducing the time it takes to do the service. Much easier to hand customers a can and a cup of ice, versus pouring.
 
Mark my words,

using the pint size can of soda was a bad choice of words for a smaller can.

The current can is actually 12 oz, a pint sized can would be 16oz. I think you meant a half pint can 8oz.
 
Singleflyer said:
Mark my words,

using the pint size can of soda was a bad choice of words for a smaller can.

The current can is actually 12 oz, a pint sized can would be 16oz. I think you meant a half pint can 8oz.
Well actually, using half-pint is a bad choice of words because that is a direct reference to the nick name of Laura Ingols (aka Half-Pint) on Little House on the Prarie. Now I'm really confused. Is the suggestion to provide our passengers with small sodas or Melissa Gilbert? My vote goes to Melissa Gilbert.
 
How about our training facilities? We have under-utilized facilities in CLT. Why not move the B-757 and the two B-737 simulators to CLT and put all the training under one roof. With the additional room-nights that would generate from the crews that come in from the other domiciles, we could probably cut a great deal on hotels for training and cut some costs there. It has to be cheaper than maintaining and staffing two facilitites.

A320 Driver
 
Great post!

Two things - first res - the work from home idea has been requested for YEARS. I would LOVE to work from home but they tell us it is not possible.
If we were able to do that we would still need an office for those who are unable to work from home or who choose not to. However, the office would be smaller, saving on rent & utilities.
The ato taking res calls, I'm not sure about that. Sometimes with a problem call, you can not complete it at any certain time and if the ato agent needs to checkin a flight - there could be a problem.

I really like the simplification of the aircraft fleet - we have needed to do that. Another thought - and again I don't want anyone to lose a job - but why do we have 3 owned Usexpress operators - with a management team for each - why not one express (owned) operator for the entire express operation? And furthermore - why are we starting Mid-Atlantic - and then merging Allegheny to Piedmont?
Just a thought..... :huh:
 
chele5 said:
Great post!

Two things - first res - the work from home idea has been requested for YEARS. I would LOVE to work from home but they tell us it is not possible.
If we were able to do that we would still need an office for those who are unable to work from home or who choose not to.
"They" lie.

With a minimal technology investment, it's quite easy to work from home. JetBlue does it, but there are other call center operations that do it as well. I've deployed systems that allow it for the better part of 5 years. Productivity, despite what the brain trusts currently running US RES think, usually goes way up--it's amazing how much more work people can get done at home.

"They" don't want to do it because "they" are afraid of not being able to browbeat people face-to-face on a daily basis. Dunno about INT, but last I checked there was a wide variety of real estate and buildings in RIDC West from which to choose.
 
Something to consider...nearly any job that can be done from home can be done from India for less money.

Before you jump all over me, I'm not advocating it. I'm just telling it like it is.
 

Latest posts