Must read UA Story

[DLFlyer31]

----------------
That's the whole reason the ATSB was formed! You point out the 23% drop here, but somehow discount the effects of 9/11 later. 23% is larger than EVER before. No Airline planned for this level of a drop. It is just temporary.
---------------

The real question is...how much of the 23% drop is 9/11 and how much is the economic recession (which was already in progress before 9/11)? UAL's revenue's were already way down before 9/11. Revenues for 2nd quarter 2001 were down 11.8% for pax and 15.5% for cargo in comparison with 2nd quarter 2000. And the recession (and weakening demand) were continuing in July/August of 2001...again not related to 9/11. The gov't provided compensation for losses immediately associated with 9/11 to all airlines. So now what is the ATSB doing? Providing compensation for airlines that have a poor business plan and poor cost control. UAL and the rest knew another recession would come (the glory days of the late 90's couldn't last forever), yet none of them seemed at all prepared.

---------------
I can blame them for failing in it's PRIMARY responsibility, protecting it's citizens from outside forces. BTW, ALPA has been requesting fortified cockpit doors SINCE THE 70's!! The Government TOOK weapons away from the pilots. Seems to me that EITHER ONE of these items would have prevented Sept 11.
--------------

All true. Once again though, the gov't did provide compensation to all airlines (though I think you could make a good case that they should have provided more...especially to U,UAL and AMR). Second, the airlines were in charge of security on the ground. Had the morons that the airlines hired to do security done their jobs...you could also argue that 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

-----------------
CAL would have been BK by NOV, not because they were weak, but because NO AIRLINE PLANS ON LOSING 25% OF IT"S REVENUE OVERNIGHT (the drop was even larger then). Had CAL filed, AMR, UAL, DAL, NWA, U and possibly even LUV would have followed suit. that would have been REALLY good for the jittery post 911 markets. it could have even led to other industries having BKs. Who knows, maybe even Boeing.
------------------

Do you really believe CAL would have been bankrupt by Nov? I don't...that was Bethune trying to scare Congress and it worked.

I also think you are mixing the ATSB loan guarantee program with the initial grants the gov't gave to compensate for 9/11. Yes, the airlines needed those grants (though I think a few could have survived even w/o them) and they got them. My problem is with the gov't creating the ATSB. Instead of stabilizing airlines, the ATSB is aiding poorly managed airlines and creating further hate/discontent between labor & management. No surprise that nearly all of the airlines that applied for ATSB loan backing also have the poorest management (US,UA,Vanguard,National,Midway).

-----------------
Not looking for an edge. The loans aren't free and all those other Airlines could have applied also. I'm hoping that with even smaller concessions that UAL can go get money elsewhere.
---------------

UAL may not specifically be looking for an edge but getting backing from the gov't still gives UAL an edge. The gov't's support will allow UAL to get loans at better rates than the other majors have access to. The other majors could apply but really there's no point...the ATSB wouldn't support them. I, too, hope UAL can find a way to take less from the employees and still manage to get outside loans. Keep the gov't out.

-------------
It is a cumulative effect. Econ plus and United First Suites are wonderful. but so are Ferraris. Unfortunately, contrary to public perception, I can't afford one. If the public is unwilling/ unable to pay for the extra room or the First Suite, then we should look at selling them something they can pay for. There is a 15% diff in the number of seats on A NWA 400 and a UAL 400. Even our star alliance partners put more seats on the jets. If we are getting enough additional revenue to justify the additional expense, great, if not, then Yes, I would change our seat configurations.

BTW DAL FLYER, What line of work are you in?
-------------

I more or less agree with you on that point. Although, the risk of angering FF'ers should be noted. I'm not sure I would dump E+ entirely, but maybe shrink down F/C and put in more E+ seats.

As for what I do, I do work in transportation (not airlines specifically) doing contract work for the Federal gov't...which is probably why I like to see the gov't keep out as much as possible. I know all too well what happens when the gov't gets too involved. I appreciate your responses, even if I don't usually agree with them.

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/6/2002 1:08:41 PM DLFlyer31 wrote:

[
The real question is...how much of the 23% drop is 9/11 and how much is the economic recession (which was already in progress before 9/11)? UAL's revenue's were already way down before 9/11. Revenues for 2nd quarter 2001 were down 11.8% for pax and 15.5% for cargo in comparison with 2nd quarter 2000. And the recession (and weakening demand) were continuing in July/August of 2001...again not related to 9/11.


The demand for Air travel dropped drastically from an already low point. That's EXACTLY my point. The economy was prob already turning around until Sept 11. the Airlines HAD planned for a downturn. The truth is they'd prob already seen the worst of the recession, but for 911.


All true. Once again though, the gov't did provide compensation to all airlines (though I think you could make a good case that they should have provided more...especially to U,UAL and AMR). Second, the airlines were in charge of security on the ground. Had the morons that the airlines hired to do security done their jobs...you could also argue that 9/11 wouldn't have happened.


RED HERRING RED HERRING. The ground security guys did not allow ANYTHING on those jets that wasn't allowed. Had they stopped the Hijackers, we'd now be being sued by the Arab American anti-defamation league for picking on those poor Saudis who just wanted to carry a razor. Incidently, the US government hired the exact same morons and they are a much better job now

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/6/2002 2:44:27 PM DLFlyer31 wrote:

[Let me clarify, I don't actually work for the gov't. I work for a private firm that does contract work for the gov't. We negotiate a contract with the gov't and we don't lock ourselves into 6 year contracts (unless the specific project is expected to take that long).

As for reducing gov't workers pay, go right ahead...you have the power. The congressmen you elected have control over the budget. They can choose to cut back the budget and reduce salaries. Imagine if Joe Public had the say in your salary??? I can bet not a single pilot would clear $150,000.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Even better! I understand you have a contract, but the government doesn't have the money anymore, so you should, in light of that renegotiate the contract you agreed to in good faith, for the common good of course. The 6 years I alluded to is with respect top what the ATSB reportedly wanted. They wanted us to agree to a 6 year deal that pays less than we made in 1994. as for the 150 k thing, I make considerably less. But while we're at it, why should anybody make more than 150K? And why should the ATSB care what a Pilot makes? The UAL pilots AGREED to lower salaries below what DAL, NWA and AMR pilots will make next year. but see the ATSB, despite the so called supply side Laffer curve ideology have decided that they will pick up Ralph Nader's nobody should make more than 100K but me political ideology

 

[DLFlyer31]

[blockquote]
----------------
Ah, you work for the government...Hmmm. wouldn't you think that since the average citizen is unwilling to pay the amount the government cost, wouldn't it be appropriate to reduce ALL those "high paying" government job's salaries by, I don't know, 30%. At least until the economy turns around (let's say 6 years, with no provision to renegotiate if the economy comes back earlier). I know that 911 has costs the government lots in the way of the war on terror and such, but why should I, joe Citizen have my future takehome wages lowered (higher taxes), because the government can't live within it's means....BTW how much have your annual pay hikes averaged over the last 8 years. I know we were running a surplus, but the roaring 90's are over, if the government takes in less, then simple math says they have to pay out less, so the need for your annual COLA raises is irrelavent.
[img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif']
----------------
[/blockquote]

Let me clarify, I don't actually work for the gov't. I work for a private firm that does contract work for the gov't. We negotiate a contract with the gov't and we don't lock ourselves into 6 year contracts (unless the specific project is expected to take that long).

As for reducing gov't workers pay, go right ahead...you have the power. The congressmen you elected have control over the budget. They can choose to cut back the budget and reduce salaries. Imagine if Joe Public had the say in your salary??? I can bet not a single pilot would clear $150,000.

 

[KCFlyer]

Well, I do work for the government, and I like my job. It ain't perfect, but what is? But you know, when it comes down to the brass tacks, I haven't found anyone who'd want to trade jobs with me.

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/6/2002 8:18:00 PM KCFlyer wrote:

Well, I do work for the government, and I like my job. It ain't perfect, but what is? But you know, when it comes down to the brass tacks, I haven't found anyone who'd want to trade jobs with me.
----------------
[/blockquote]

I know exactly 844 UAL pilots who would be glad to trade jobs with you. Funny thing about this business, the highs are so high, only because the lows are so low. the average new hire is 37 YO. he either faught his way throw the military or the civilian world. If he went the civilian way, he had the glory of flying snot nosed rich kids around for less than the min wage as an instructor, when he built up enough time and bought some more ratings (more training) he made his way to the right reat of an RJ for 18 an hour (per flt hour, usually worked 12 hours to log 5). If he finally made it to a UAL interview, he had between a 20 and 40% chance of getting hired. my little group of five was Lucky! We had two get hired, me and a former USAF F-15 driver, who left SWA to come to UAL. we turned down a 747-400 capt, a corp guy with over 10,000 hours and a young Cal Express female cap. I'd be willing to bet that the average airline capt has been through at least 1 bankruptcy (for his airline and possibly himself) and prob 5 years of unemployment from furloughs & BKs. Would that be diff if we all had lower pay scales? NO, tickets would just be a little cheaper, but when demand gets hammered 20%, guess what, you're furloughed. BTW, whats the DEAL, you absolutely refuse to admit your wrong. UALs a MUCH better deal from the Wash area to the Bay area, and you just can't admit that, for once, your beloved Luv isn't the best thing since sliced bread.

 

[KCFlyer]

[blockquote]
----------------
BTW, whats the DEAL, you absolutely refuse to admit your wrong. UALs a MUCH better deal from the Wash area to the Bay area, and you just can't admit that, for once, your beloved Luv isn't the best thing since sliced bread. .
----------------
[/blockquote]

Four questions:

First - why on EARTH would a person going to Washington to San Fran fly into OAK????? At least that's the argument you get about OAK or BWI.

Second - What would the fare have been if LUV didn't fly the route?

Third - Is the convenience offered by the $2,300 fare from IAD to SFO worth the cab fare difference from OAK to SFO or from DC to Bmore?

Fourth - Did UAL make any money on that flight?

 

[Busdrvr]

Four questions:

First - why on EARTH would a person going to Washington to San Fran fly into OAK????? At least that's the argument you get about OAK or BWI.

It's called reacting to market forces. But since it's a 320 instead of a 777, the truth is most people DON'T want ot go to OAK. Could also explain why SWA doesn't fly non-stop. The market must not be there for them.

Second - What would the fare have been if LUV didn't fly the route?

Who cares? Even if SWA left the market, the fare would stay low enough to prevent them from coming back

Third - Is the convenience offered by the $2,300 fare from IAD to SFO worth the cab fare difference from OAK to SFO or from DC to Bmore?

First, if it's not then UAL gievs you the CHOICE! we have service to both. Second, have you considered that there may be a thing called supply that also influences the cost of a product? SFO offers connection to the PAC. Maybe UAL is holding a certain number of last minute seats for those connections. With a SWA pricing model, you'd sell out the entire jet on high demand days a week in advance. Then if you needed to get somewhere on SWA to sign a multimillion dollar deal, and don't know until a day prior, you'd be SOL. Even at high load factors, UAL seldom Sells out. Of course, NOT filling up a jet, and buying cheaper guys off in favor of some last minute high dollar tickets, has a cost. If UAL bought off a PAX to SFO and one coming back, they would be giving out $1200-1400 in vouchers. But the point is, if you have to get there, UAL will likely make it happen, swa's model doesn't care.

Fourth - Did UAL make any money on that flight?

When did you start caring about that? Possibly. The marginal cost for ALL the pax to fly that flight is likely around $200 per seat. But there are likely a few high dollar folks connecting from EUROPE or elsewhere. So the marginal cost of one additional pax (food, gas, blu water) would be considerably less.

BTW UAL was the #1 on-time airline in July, despite operating into some of the busiest airport in the world. as a matter of fact, the only UAL hub that SWA even flies to is LAX

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/7/2002 1:15:43 PM KCFlyer wrote:

I don't think SWA pulled out of SFO because of any loss to UAL, or because they couldn't make money there. I believe they pulled out of SFO because it did no good for the company to have a delayed jet sitting on the tarmac at SFO when it should have been pushing back from a gate in PHX to go to MCI.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Or in other words, the delays in SFO were more costly than the profit they were making in SFO, while at the same time siphoning traffic from OAK, or in otherwords they weren't making any profit. If SFO were that Profitable for SWA they would have isolated some jets for the SFO only market. But the latest stats indicate that SWA doesn't mind having perinially late flights. For the month of July, the latest stats just released, SWA had 11 of the 13 flights nationwide that were late more than 80% of the time (DAL had the other 2). Of 49 flights late over 70% of the time, SWA had 32, UAL 0. Of 13 cities that the DOT reports that Bothe UAL and SWA serve (apples to apples) UAL had a better on-time record in 12

 

[kcabpilot]

Getting back to the Fortune article:

As a Mechanic who has been working in this industry for over 20 years I certainly know my job. I know it to be dirty, noisy, difficult, dangerous and sometimes grueling. After reading this article I think I must also add thankless to that list.

 

[KCFlyer]

I don't think SWA pulled out of SFO because of any loss to UAL, or because they couldn't make money there. I believe they pulled out of SFO because it did no good for the company to have a delayed jet sitting on the tarmac at SFO when it should have been pushing back from a gate in PHX to go to MCI.

 

[KCFlyer]

That'll happen when you close the doors 10 minutes before departure time.

 

[ualdriver]

And speaking of on-time SWA flights, don't they STILL call in their OUT/OFF/ON/IN times rather than using ACARS? SWA is a great airline, but I've always found their on-time schedule a little suspect because of their past practices (and probably still current practice, correct me if I'm wrong) of not using ACARS.

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/7/2002 10:09:10 PM ualdriver wrote:

And speaking of "on-time" SWA flights, don't they STILL "call in" their OUT/OFF/ON/IN times rather than using ACARS? SWA is a great airline, but I've always found their "on-time" schedule a little suspect because of their past practices (and probably still current practice, correct me if I'm wrong) of not using ACARS.
----------------
[/blockquote]

It is supposedly being tested. SWA wanted ACARS WITHOUT time reporting, but for the first time in his life, their POI grew a backbone. Isn't it ironic that they trust the employees when they are reporting to the Gov, but make them clock in and out when it comes to the company? KC, I've always wondered where people like Jim Jones and Davie Koresch found gulible souls who when faced with fact after fact will still chug-a-lug a gallon of Koolaid. You sir, just gave hope to all those starting cults today

 

[KCFlyer]

I suppose it's better to drink the kool aide and respond to the facts than it is to go without and ignore the rest of the story.