CaptBud330
Senior
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 255
- Reaction score
- 2
Forcasting Liquidation
- Thread starter CaptBud330
- Start date
johnnyfleet
Advanced
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2002
- Messages
- 109
- Reaction score
- 0
Bummer
local 12 proud
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2004
- Messages
- 4,265
- Reaction score
- 4
naaahhhh!....They will just come for more from labor to bail them out, sooner or later they will turn a profit of course the employees may have to work for free! :down:CaptBud330 said:
OldGuyinPA
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 700
- Reaction score
- 8
Don't worry .. be happy... and
remember we have a secret weapon....Big Al
remember we have a secret weapon....Big Al
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- Joined
- May 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,175
- Reaction score
- 1,539
Prior to the IAM Jan. 21 vote result and before the company's Q4 earnings and December operating report filed with the bankruptcy court yesterday, AW&ST went to press for its January 24 edition.
The magazine reproted that Lehman Brothers analyst Gary Chase now gives US Airways a two-thirds chance of surviving the year, while UBS Investment Research analyst Robert N. Ashcroft puts the the airline's odds of surviving 2005 at better than 50%.
Allegheny Capital analyst Bill Lauer, a long time airline observer and previous holder of US Airways stock told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette today, a US Airways failure and liquidation are "really unlikely."
See Story
According to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, however, Ray Neidl, senior analyst at Calyon Securities in New York, said the latest financial results show that US Airways still has work to do. "They have to get their cost structure down,'' Neidl said. "Their CASM is still too high.''
US Airways said that its labor costs fell by 22 percent, to $518 million, in the fourth quarter. Labor costs will decline further this year, as the effects of new labor agreements kick in. In spite of labor gains, US Airways' cost per available seat mile of 8.79 cents is still over 30 percent higher than Southwest Airlines' cost of about 6.7 cents.
Mike Boyd, an Evergreen, Colo., aviation analyst, was sanguine about US Airways' results. Considering high fuel costs and hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs to clean up the Christmas baggage breakdown in Philadelphia, "It's not as disheartening as it looks,'' he said. Still, he agreed that US Airways needs further belt-tightening on its operational costs if it hopes to become a profitable carrier again.
See Story
By the way, I have never have heard of CreditSights analyst Roger King, who is not widely known on Wall Street.
Regards,
USA320Pilot
The magazine reproted that Lehman Brothers analyst Gary Chase now gives US Airways a two-thirds chance of surviving the year, while UBS Investment Research analyst Robert N. Ashcroft puts the the airline's odds of surviving 2005 at better than 50%.
Allegheny Capital analyst Bill Lauer, a long time airline observer and previous holder of US Airways stock told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette today, a US Airways failure and liquidation are "really unlikely."
See Story
According to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, however, Ray Neidl, senior analyst at Calyon Securities in New York, said the latest financial results show that US Airways still has work to do. "They have to get their cost structure down,'' Neidl said. "Their CASM is still too high.''
US Airways said that its labor costs fell by 22 percent, to $518 million, in the fourth quarter. Labor costs will decline further this year, as the effects of new labor agreements kick in. In spite of labor gains, US Airways' cost per available seat mile of 8.79 cents is still over 30 percent higher than Southwest Airlines' cost of about 6.7 cents.
Mike Boyd, an Evergreen, Colo., aviation analyst, was sanguine about US Airways' results. Considering high fuel costs and hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs to clean up the Christmas baggage breakdown in Philadelphia, "It's not as disheartening as it looks,'' he said. Still, he agreed that US Airways needs further belt-tightening on its operational costs if it hopes to become a profitable carrier again.
See Story
By the way, I have never have heard of CreditSights analyst Roger King, who is not widely known on Wall Street.
Regards,
USA320Pilot
Phantom Fixer
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2003
- Messages
- 577
- Reaction score
- 0
Well no damn surprise that our costs are still higher than WN's...U is still running a Dukes Mix of Aircraft types that require seperate training , for all directly involved...and the cost of distinct material needs to support fleet diversity still weight heavy against U Vs. that of WN , B6 , FL , F9 or anyone else with a streamlined fleet.
U still needs to scale back its fleet type in use...and decide what it wants to be again. HP's fleet scope is as about as extreme as we need to be involved in , if we are ever going to make money again?
U needs to make a clear statement on what its true desires are? Are we going to be a Boeing Operator for Trans-Atlantic service...or is Airbus the deal?
Domestically...are we a Boeing Operator with the 757 and two variants of 737's..or are we going with Airbus 319/320's? Note I do not lump the 321 into this catagory...the 321 has enough structural and powerplant differences to qualify it as an Acft unto itself...REGARDLESS of what Airbus would like you to believe ..and asside from what a certain HACK Pilot here would love for everyone to assume
U as I've said a thousand times before , cannot be compared on an "Apples to Apples " basis until they truly become and Apple like those the comparisons are being based on.
U is not an LCC by design...and Labor costs being ZERO will still not make it one on par with those I've listed above.
U is going to either going to stop wanting to be an LCC...or stop trying to act like a Shadow of it's former Legacy Carrier past. You have to change in ways to mirror what they other guy is doing to draw direct comparisons and hopefully compete on a head to head basis.
Afterall..does Notre Dame play Pop Warner Teams and draw comparisons? Does Chrysler market its cars against Huffy bicycles? Simply put , No they don't...most all compete head to head with thier actual competitors...and only a few dabble with limited specialty products to excite the loyal enthusiasts of the given brand...Well we are not any of that...so keeping it very basic and cost friendly is what has got to take place to survive
Face it...Does Hyundai , Suzuki or even Yugo try to take market share away from your traditional Cadillac buyer? Overtly No...sure they would love to have some crossover trade with that traditional large sedan buyer...but they don't waste much time if any aggressively putting their goods against a Cadillac in a comparative marketing basis. They cater to those whom are MOST likely to do business with them..and with limited offerings as compared to a GM backed legacy company
The bottom line....we have to get it simple and efficient...and having a few of this and a handfull of that in regards to Aircraft types , Training differences and most of all differences in off the rack support needs is hindering that....and no amount of Seth marketing slogans or additional employee cuts or concessions are going to change these simple facts.
U still needs to scale back its fleet type in use...and decide what it wants to be again. HP's fleet scope is as about as extreme as we need to be involved in , if we are ever going to make money again?
U needs to make a clear statement on what its true desires are? Are we going to be a Boeing Operator for Trans-Atlantic service...or is Airbus the deal?
Domestically...are we a Boeing Operator with the 757 and two variants of 737's..or are we going with Airbus 319/320's? Note I do not lump the 321 into this catagory...the 321 has enough structural and powerplant differences to qualify it as an Acft unto itself...REGARDLESS of what Airbus would like you to believe ..and asside from what a certain HACK Pilot here would love for everyone to assume
U as I've said a thousand times before , cannot be compared on an "Apples to Apples " basis until they truly become and Apple like those the comparisons are being based on.
U is not an LCC by design...and Labor costs being ZERO will still not make it one on par with those I've listed above.
U is going to either going to stop wanting to be an LCC...or stop trying to act like a Shadow of it's former Legacy Carrier past. You have to change in ways to mirror what they other guy is doing to draw direct comparisons and hopefully compete on a head to head basis.
Afterall..does Notre Dame play Pop Warner Teams and draw comparisons? Does Chrysler market its cars against Huffy bicycles? Simply put , No they don't...most all compete head to head with thier actual competitors...and only a few dabble with limited specialty products to excite the loyal enthusiasts of the given brand...Well we are not any of that...so keeping it very basic and cost friendly is what has got to take place to survive
Face it...Does Hyundai , Suzuki or even Yugo try to take market share away from your traditional Cadillac buyer? Overtly No...sure they would love to have some crossover trade with that traditional large sedan buyer...but they don't waste much time if any aggressively putting their goods against a Cadillac in a comparative marketing basis. They cater to those whom are MOST likely to do business with them..and with limited offerings as compared to a GM backed legacy company
The bottom line....we have to get it simple and efficient...and having a few of this and a handfull of that in regards to Aircraft types , Training differences and most of all differences in off the rack support needs is hindering that....and no amount of Seth marketing slogans or additional employee cuts or concessions are going to change these simple facts.
justaumechanic
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2003
- Messages
- 578
- Reaction score
- 0
Does this article suprise anyone?
USA320 reports everything is great then posts an article that says "We have lots more work to do"...
What type of operator is US Airways? Bottom line, an operator with no money.
You want to make it simple quick? You need money.. Money is key.
JetBlue, Southwest, AirTran they all have money.. US Airways, Delta, AMR, UAL.. No money..
2005 will see a failure.. Will it be US Airways? Everything points that way.
But if you listen to USA320 everything is perfect.. Couldn't be better.. Loves to come to work, loves taking pay cuts and most of all loves to see any work group or human working at US Airways suffer.. Financially, Mentally whatever.. More than likely he reads the Obits to see if US Airways people commit suicide.. Something he will celebrate about..
USA320 is a company Stooge that works in Human Resources..
USA320 reports everything is great then posts an article that says "We have lots more work to do"...
What type of operator is US Airways? Bottom line, an operator with no money.
You want to make it simple quick? You need money.. Money is key.
JetBlue, Southwest, AirTran they all have money.. US Airways, Delta, AMR, UAL.. No money..
2005 will see a failure.. Will it be US Airways? Everything points that way.
But if you listen to USA320 everything is perfect.. Couldn't be better.. Loves to come to work, loves taking pay cuts and most of all loves to see any work group or human working at US Airways suffer.. Financially, Mentally whatever.. More than likely he reads the Obits to see if US Airways people commit suicide.. Something he will celebrate about..
USA320 is a company Stooge that works in Human Resources..
USA320Pilot said:
Probably due to the error the company made when they agreed too early and not nearly deep enough to the pilot's "new concession package." A320's labor group will probably be the first to start negotiating the next round of cuts!
Any guesses on how he'll vote on that one?
CaptianBoomer
Advanced
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2004
- Messages
- 160
- Reaction score
- 0
All:
All this talk of CASM has me wondering.
It doesn't matter what U's CASM is. The difference is RASM-CASM.
All carriers will LOSE money in the current high fuel/low RASM environment.
We all know what U, AMR, UAL, DAL, NWA, and CAL will do in this environment. They will cut salaries, and try to be more efficient.
What in the world will LUV do? They have some of the lowest costs in the business....however they have very poor yields. Their fuel hedge is the only reason they make any money. If they paid for their fuel what U paid, they would have lost $120 mil in the 4Q2004.
Currently, the hub and spoke model stinks. Everyone wants to fly PTP. What happens when everyone in the business pays $1.30 for fuel? Unless there is a large fare increase, there will be no airline business.
Boomer
All this talk of CASM has me wondering.
It doesn't matter what U's CASM is. The difference is RASM-CASM.
All carriers will LOSE money in the current high fuel/low RASM environment.
We all know what U, AMR, UAL, DAL, NWA, and CAL will do in this environment. They will cut salaries, and try to be more efficient.
What in the world will LUV do? They have some of the lowest costs in the business....however they have very poor yields. Their fuel hedge is the only reason they make any money. If they paid for their fuel what U paid, they would have lost $120 mil in the 4Q2004.
Currently, the hub and spoke model stinks. Everyone wants to fly PTP. What happens when everyone in the business pays $1.30 for fuel? Unless there is a large fare increase, there will be no airline business.
Boomer
CaptianBoomer said:
Neither the statement about Southwest's yields nor the statement about the size of their loss, absent hedging, is accurate. Southwest paid, net of its hedges and excluding fuel taxes, 89.1 cents per gallon. US Airways paid 124.3 cents per gallon excluding taxes. The difference: 35.2 cents. Multiply that out over 309 million gallons of fuel consumed by WN and you get $109 million. But Southwest's operating profit for the quarter was $120 million, so they would have still had an operating profit of $11 million (actually, closer to $20 million due to lower profitsharing in that event) even if they paid what US Airways paid for fuel.
As for yields, Southwest's yield was 12.08 cents per RPM. US Airways' mainline yield was 11.90 cents per RPM. US Airways' mainline RASM of 8.71 cents was only 6.5% higher than Southwest's RASM of 8.18 cents. (Southwest's load factor was 8 points lower than US mainline.)
Like it freakin matters anymore. we have had so called experts say we were going to die long ago...
If anything, this guy seems to be 6 months behind the times...
Even Mike Boyd is starting to change his tune somewhat, as will other "experts" both in the media and on here will be forced to do over time.
If anything, this guy seems to be 6 months behind the times...
Even Mike Boyd is starting to change his tune somewhat, as will other "experts" both in the media and on here will be forced to do over time.
TheLarkAscending
Veteran
USA320Pilot said:
Not so...because you've never heard of him doesn't mean he isn't known or respected. Those that actually make their living on Wall Street do know him, and he's been widely interviewed and quoted in respectable publications for quite some time, and his credentials aren't all that shabby, either, sparky. :glare:
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4
Link 5
Link 6
Link 7
