Management Layoffs

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/4/2003 10:43:14 AM flyhigh wrote:

Thank god for the presence of eolsen. It amazes me how so many people either forget, don't realize, or don't care that when they say management, companies are also talking about low level analysts who make MUCH less than they do, work longer (with no OT pay), and are tasked with the job of making the company profitable. As an individual, has a mgr ever came to a mechanic, a pilot, a flight attendant, a ramp clerk, or agent and said that this flight's poor (financial) performance is your fault? I doubt it. I'm not talking about them saying your contract, I'm saying you [insert name] have been the reason for the failure of this flight.

In reality, it takes the scheduling analyst at HDQ to make the airline work as much as it does the mechanic, pilot, and flight attendant. For if it were up to those three groups, airlines would only fly 747's to Bloomington/Normal 12 times a day from O'Hare. It takes a sales force (also part of mgmt) to find demand for a route, a planning analyst to make the decision of how to fly the route (yes/no, what plane makes money on it, how many times a day), a scheduler to fit those flights into the hub at the right times, a pricing person to keep the company competitive, and an RM'er to generate the best RASM possible. I think if most people on these boards who've never seen, let alone taken the time to understand, the people and groups these areas are comprised of actually had a clearer understanding of how an airline works outside of the direct operation, there would be a better understanding between many groups.
----------------
[/blockquote]

DING DING DING -- our old trusted insider friend returns!

How ya doin' sir?
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/6/2003 9:45:52 AM whatkindoffreshhell wrote:

DING DING DING -- our old trusted insider friend returns!

How ya doin' sir?

----------------
[/blockquote]

whatkindoffreshhell,



I was thinking the same thing!

Welcome back, UAL7-----errr, whomever. Even though I often disagreed with you, I truly enjoyed your insights and was missing them over the past weeks.
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/6/2003 12:06:45 PM BillLumbergh wrote:

I know these things...
----------------
[/blockquote]

Yes, but you probably shouldn't be commenting on them, either.

From the people I've spoken to at WHQ, it is a bit like the last 40 minutes of "Titanic"... The quartet is still playing Mozart, and the upper deck people are still sipping their cognac, while sheer panic erupts down in third class...
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/6/2003 12:14:45 PM UnitedChicago wrote:

Not that I know him well, but I'm kinda worried about UAL777Flyer. Hope he's okay.
----------------
[/blockquote]

I'm a little worried too. Hope he still has a job at UA. And seriously, I DO miss his (her?) contributions to the board. I learned a lot from him.
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/6/2003 1:50:25 PM Bear96 wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/6/2003 12:14:45 PM UnitedChicago wrote:

Not that I know him well, but I'm kinda worried about UAL777Flyer. Hope he's okay.
----------------
[/blockquote]

I'm a little worried too. Hope he still has a job at UA. And seriously, I DO miss his (her?) contributions to the board. I learned a lot from him.

----------------
[/blockquote]

Best of luck UAL777Flyer.
 
Best of luck to us all in this rollercoaster of a business.

...and Mr. Hell (is there something else you'd like to be refered to as???)

Where do you remember me from? It's been quite a while since I've posted...but yes, I'm back.

On this post, I'll say again, that what UA really needs to do is clean the upper echelons of mgmt. I'm sure they have some underperformers at all levels, but leadership is key and they don't have it. Brace, who got them in this mess, should be relieved of his services. Bring Andy Fastow to the rescue...UA has direct svc to all the islands for off-shore accts to be set up on...KIDDING! They do need a new finance guy though. Not sure who. I'd say that is their biggest problem. I'd follow that with fleet changes...and now. With the loss of NZ in Austailia/New Zealand. Does that maket remain as important as it once did? If a 777 can't make it, but 777's can be used on their entire Pacific (somebody with expertise help me on this...not sure of their model, etc.), then I say drop the Austrailia/New Zealand svc (or x-fer to another Star Partner). Drop 744's, get rid of various fleet types. If I were them I'd look at what they can get their hands on quickest...RJ's, 319's, when does the 318 come out. Maybe that's what they need some of. They need to bring the scope that they currently bring (for the most part) but do it with less capacity. Reduce capacity, get back to a position where you have pricing power (through rev. mgmt.) and work from there. I'd also consider getting the sales force out there yesterday! Especially with the new fare structure. If they want it to stick (and it appears that even NW went along with it, unlike value pricing in the early 90's) they need to get the word out and stimulate interest in United as the carrier of choice. Don't start shuttle on the West Coast...at least not right now. Too much focus is required to run it. Let's get the core settled, then we can move playgrounds! Drop Latin America. They suck there (presence wise at least)already...give it up until it comes back. The money isn't there right now.

There are some real problems at UA, they won't go away with anybody's layoff. This will buy time, but not solve the fundamental problems that plague a carrier that thought it could thumb its nose at fundamental business for too long. Let's hope for the sake of all our colleagues at UA, they figure something out!
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/6/2003 9:16:39 PM flyhigh wrote:

Best of luck to us all in this rollercoaster of a business.

...and Mr. Hell (is there something else you'd like to be refered to as???)

I'd follow that with fleet changes...and now. With the loss of NZ in Austailia/New Zealand. Does that maket remain as important as it once did? If a 777 can't make it, but 777's can be used on their entire Pacific (somebody with expertise help me on this...not sure of their model, etc.), then I say drop the Austrailia/New Zealand svc (or x-fer to another Star Partner).
----------------
[/blockquote]

I'm hardly an expert, but speaking as someone trying to line up flights for a forthcoming trip to New Zealand, I'd say UAL has very good load factors on their daily 777 flight from LAX to AKL and back.

Now, on their flights between LAX or SFO and SYD, that's one where the load factor might allow them to change from a 747 to a 777 (don't know if there are other factors which would require the 747 on those flights).

-synchronicity
 
... but where is he? (UAL777flyer that is.) Is there an outbound communication ban at WHQ at the moment? Or are the staff just crushed under the workload at the moment?
 
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/7/2003 12:24:07 PM synchronicity wrote:[BR][BR]I'm hardly an expert, but speaking as someone trying to line up flights for a forthcoming trip to New Zealand, I'd say UAL has very good load factors on their daily 777 flight from LAX to AKL and back.[BR][BR]-synchronicity[BR]
[P][/P]----------------[BR][BR]Obviously, the folks at WHQ disagree.[BR][BR][A href="http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/030109/2234000908_1.html"]http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/030109/2234000908_1.html[/A][/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/7/2003 12:24:07 PM synchronicity wrote:

I'm hardly an expert, but speaking as someone trying to line up flights for a forthcoming trip to New Zealand, I'd say UAL has very good load factors on their daily 777 flight from LAX to AKL and back.

Now, on their flights between LAX or SFO and SYD, that's one where the load factor might allow them to change from a 747 to a 777 (don't know if there are other factors which would require the 747 on those flights).

-synchronicity

----------------
[/blockquote]

High loads don't mean squat. What is the yield on this route?

Plus, from what Newsreal said, there are 96 employees in AKL to support the 1 daily flight, even though the hub carrier at AKL is a Star Alliance partner. I'm sure that doesn't help route profitability any...
 
I certainly do not know the ins and outs of it all; but, as I understood, UAL had to provide employment to a certain number of "local citizens" when they started flying into Singapore (..i.e. Singapore F/A base). Don't know if such was required in New Zealand or not. Perhaps the folks in Auckland put too tight a choke hold on the Golden Goose? 96 to 1 ?