Dog Wonder
Veteran
The current top management in PHL is not 'marginal'. I hope they stick around long enough to figure things out.
HP Management
- Thread starter hack73
- Start date
The current top management in PHL is not 'marginal'. I hope they stick around long enough to figure things out.
Thats the dumbest thing I ever heard.
Jimmy Neutron
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2005
- Messages
- 566
- Reaction score
- 99
Whether or not PHL is a dump, it generates more revenue than any other facet of our airline. That is a fact. If this were not true, do you believe that management would be investing in it so heavily? They realize the facilities and infrastructure are lacking as well!
Again, it would be financial suicide to run the connections solely thru PIT, or Kansas, for that matter! Connecting traffic can be incredibly low yield, and thus must be balanced with strong o&d traffic, and that is your answer. If we wanted a connecting airport hub, PIT would be a bad choice as well. We would want something more in the central USA, such as some abandoned airstrip in Kansas, etc....!
I'm sure the company would like nothing more than to utilize the PIT facility over PHL! That is not difficult to figure out. Unfortunately, the revenue stream continues to be unmatched in PHL, and to effectively offer connecting traffic with decent yields, they must balance the origin and the connecting traffic thru PHL. Call it a dump all you want, it's the revenue, plain and simple.
Let's figure out what's wrong, and let's fix it. That's what has to be done.
Really? If what you say is true, then that is truly sad. They better start to figure out who would be best for the job, because PHL is a pretty important part of our network, like it or not!
Give us a break, we've listened to the company rhetoric for years about how PIT can't operate as a connecting hub because of the originating traffic while at the same time they operate the largest connecting hub in the company through CLT, which by the way has less then 1/2 the originating traffic that PIT has........
As far as revenue, why don't they show the numbers of how much revenue is lost -vs- gained in PHL.....I bet some of the KOOL-AID drinkers would be shocked at what this management team hides everyday............
We are all tired of the lame a#@ excuses from the obviously incompetent past and current management.........
PHL is a cesspool operationaly, always will be face the fact........
It's time management face that fact and get out before staying there puts us out of business.......
aredeeyou22
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2003
- Messages
- 829
- Reaction score
- 17
Pitbull,
Mgmt has stated many times that with all the competition out there, connecting traffic is very low yielding. You have to have a "mix" of high revenue traffic (O&D) to balance this low yielding traffic. PIT simply does not have that. Whether you believe mgmt or not, the numbers prove just that.
I will agree with you that PIT is a much better facility. On time performance would shoot WAY up, and congestion and traffic problems would largely be eliminated. That would also happen at an abandoned airstrip in Kansas. Problem? Local traffic revenue premiums are not there. I am sure they would love nothing more than to move ALL connecting traffic there, and leave PHL to the O&D market. The problem is the lack of solid revenue that the "connecting" flying generates, and it ain't happenin' in PIT.
Jimmy,
Not sure about CLT having 1/2 the originating traffic over PIT, but that's not really the point. CLT generates more REVENUE, and revenue is the key here! Sure, PIT may generate more traffic, but low yielding WN traffic is not exactly what the company is chasing at the moment....
It should be obvious that the revenue that PHL generates greatly outweighs the amount of money we lose there on poor performance. Otherwise, we would be downsizing it greatly and pulling int'l destinations, just like we did in PIT.
It would not surprise me if Mgmt hides things everyday from us, still does not change the fact that PHL makes US a lot of $$$$. PIT does not. No kool-aid in this house, trust me!
If management were to pull out of PHL, we would not be in business, so it would not really matter.
Cesspool? Sure is, but it's a money- making cesspool! Let's fix it, and fast.
Jimmy Neutron
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2005
- Messages
- 566
- Reaction score
- 99
You continually spill the company KOOL-AID about PIT, yet you say nothing of the non-existing O & D traffic in CLT.....
We really are all not that stupid......
aredeeyou22
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2003
- Messages
- 829
- Reaction score
- 17
Ok, as to CLT, DP stated that CLT generates *MUCH* higher revenue than PIT, but nothing near what PHL does. O&D may be higher in PIT as you say (I have no idea), but the CLT traffic is higher yielding than PIT. This is all info you can find on the Hub, in the Crew News section. I am sure you could look at the numbers in the books if you really wanted to. I choose to believe that they are not lying about the amount of revenue our hubs and focus cities generate, because they would have no reason to. I am sure the PHL airport is not MGMTs number one choice for a large hub, wouldn't you agree? 🙄
Never said you were stupid, and as I said, no Kool Aid here! Even the PIT Kool Aid, although I hear it's delicious!
This makes no sense.
PIT is not a huge WN market. Before US' massive downsizing there, they were far and away the dominant carrier in the airport, so much so that the locals often complained about the premium they paid in airfares. The place was a fortress.
Put simply, there was no signifigant low fare competition to depress yields. There was barely any legacy competition.
aredeeyou22
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2003
- Messages
- 829
- Reaction score
- 17
Why doesn't it make sense? If PIT has more originating traffic than CLT (which I have no idea, I am just going by what was said), I was assuming that it would be because of the entrance of WN.
People complained about paying a premium on US back then, but that was the cost structure that was in place, like it or not. I agree, it was a fortress! Bad management? I would argue that as well! The whole point of this thread is the fact that PHL is where the revenue is, and PHL needs to be fixed. I realize people are passionate for PIT, I feel for ya. But let's fix PHL, keep making $$$, add tons of new int'l destinations, and kick some ###! 😉
You miss my point. It's not my feelings for PIT that are the issue, it was your contention that yields were lower there, thus the reason for the downsizing. Since US had just about the closest thing to a legal monopoly there, I can't see how that is the case.
Bob,
I can assure you US makes terminations stick. I've lost a few I when I thought the facts were on our side.
You have to remember - the first four steps of appeal - initial discussion (supervisor), step I (Manager) step II (regional manager) and step III (Labor relations) - are to the company, and they make the ruling.
In my experience, the manager has to screw the pooch badly (and they do, more frequently than you can imagine) to get his initial decision reversed on appeal.
Building a case against an habitual bad actor is no problem - I guarantee I could put one together that'd give Gerry Spence a workout! 😉
Moreover, the manager that does so in a firm, consistent and fair manner generally gets his message across to the rest of the bad actors.
I can assure you US makes terminations stick. I've lost a few I when I thought the facts were on our side.
You have to remember - the first four steps of appeal - initial discussion (supervisor), step I (Manager) step II (regional manager) and step III (Labor relations) - are to the company, and they make the ruling.
In my experience, the manager has to screw the pooch badly (and they do, more frequently than you can imagine) to get his initial decision reversed on appeal.
Building a case against an habitual bad actor is no problem - I guarantee I could put one together that'd give Gerry Spence a workout! 😉
Moreover, the manager that does so in a firm, consistent and fair manner generally gets his message across to the rest of the bad actors.
aredeeyou22
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2003
- Messages
- 829
- Reaction score
- 17
So, in your opinion, why the reason for the drastic downsizing? Why the reason for the termination of int'l flights? PIT was a cash cow? We chased all the O&D traffic away with our "monopoly" and fare gouging? I know it is hard to deal with, but PHL is where the $$$ is. Not PIT. So let's fix PHL! K? 😉
The problem with PIT is the local government that chased away many of the corporations with high taxes and then used airport revenue to build a new baseball stadium. While operationally a "dream" airport, the high costs imposed by the local politicos is what really killed it. It seems that CLT has a much more friendly attitude towards the airlines and that's why it is still a hub.
830 lose US Airways jobs
As many had long feared, reservations center in Green Tree loses battle with Winston-Salem
The cutbacks not only have taken a toll on thousands of lives, they have tested the patience of local officials. An angry Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato complained at a press conference yesterday that the region never had a chance to keep the reservations center, despite offering $3.5 million in incentives.
"I can only come to one conclusion after you see the facts -- that US Airways had no intention of ever relocating [the North Carolina reservations work] to Pittsburgh," he said. "And that's probably the biggest disappointment. It was a waste of our time and effort."
The move, part of the carrier's plan to slash annual costs by more than $1 billion, led to jockeying between the two regions to win the work, even though many observers felt it would be an uphill climb for Pittsburgh to beat out North Carolina, where the airline is expanding its Charlotte, N.C., hub.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05027/448731.stm
Jimmy Neutron
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2005
- Messages
- 566
- Reaction score
- 99
You hit the nail on the head, before US downsized PIT the yield was significantgly higher, remember that the real problem lies with old US management (Siegal) and the old allegheny County (Roddey). It's time to bury the hatchet for good and do what's right for the company and especially the customers, they deserve better......It's a total embarassment for all employees what our connecting passengers endure in PHL.....
The PHL is GOD slogan just does not cut it anymore-----If we continue with this obvious path of utter operational destruction in PHL it will end up being the downfall of the entire company!
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 16,512
- Reaction score
- 5,865
Pretty much nonsense, or perhaps more accurately, not seeing the forest for the trees......
Yes, connecting traffic is lower yield traffic. That is the case whether you run that connecting traffic thru PIT or PHL (or CLT). Running it thru PHL doesn't make connecting traffic any higher yielding. Likewise, running connecting traffic thru PIT doesn't make it lower yielding.
So moving some of the connecting traffic to PIT would do two things - raise PHL's average yield and lower PIT's average yield. What it would not do is change the overall yield.
What it would also do is decrease the additional unnecessary costs that the "Philly Phactor" imposes - fuel burn, crew pay, lost baggage, misconnects, etc) - which would result in lower costs overall.
In short, the "Kool Aide" answer is fine as long as you only look at each hub's financial performance in isolation - removing some of the connecting traffic from PHL would lower PHL revenues from traffic through PHL. Adding connecting traffic to PIT would not necessarily stimulate more O&D higher yield traffic at PIT.
However, from a system perspective, it makes sense to offload some of PHL's burden. PHL would run better (lowering costs) while the connecting traffic's revenue (though lower yielding than O&D) would still be captured - just thru a different connecting point.
Lower costs with the same revenue equals something that is never included in the "run everything thru PHL" proponent's arguments about "PHL revenue" - bigger profits.....
Jim
