THERE AIN"T NO AIRPLANES THERE ( PITTSBURGH)

[nonrev]

Things are getting pretty slim in the Burg. Just a few flights and not much more. Line mechs almost gone. Heavy and what is left basically one big labor pool. Any thoughts on 09?

 

[QA4Jet-A]

Things are getting pretty slim in the Burg. Just a few flights and not much more. Line mechs almost gone. Heavy and what is left basically one big labor pool. Any thoughts on 09?

Try re-hab!

 

[delta777]

Try re-hab!

It's happening all over Airtran, and for that matter jetBlue as well. It's amazing what father time does to once mythical LCC's. LCC's are always the darlings of Wall Street types when they first arrive on the scene, and why wouldn't they?

They have new aircraft that don't have any type of heavy maintenance for the first few years. They have a very junior workforce that isn't paid very well for the first few years (no retirees/pension liabilities to speak of). They get sweetheart deals from secondary airports to fly into their cities.

Now fast-forward 5-10 years and all of the sudden, you have employees topping out and making good money. Those once shiny new aircraft that you got at cutthroat prices are coming due for some heavy maintenance checks, and all the sweetheart deals that airports gave you to fly into them have long since run out, so now management has to actually run the airline.

All the glitter has worn off, so customers have formed an opinion about you, good or bad. It's always the first few years that an LCC will see explosive growth since they have little to no liabilities. Now, however, they're getting a taste of what its like for a "Legacy" carrier that's been around 75+ years. All that once cheap labor ain't so cheap anymore. Your aircraft ain't so new anymore. And the Wall Street types have long since deserted you. Welcome to the real world of the daily struggles of running an airline.

 

[citrus jock]

It's happening all over Airtran, and for that matter jetBlue as well. It's amazing what father time does to once mythical LCC's. LCC's are always the darlings of Wall Street types when they first arrive on the scene, and why wouldn't they?

They have new aircraft that don't have any type of heavy maintenance for the first few years. They have a very junior workforce that isn't paid very well for the first few years (no retirees/pension liabilities to speak of). They get sweetheart deals from secondary airports to fly into their cities.

Now fast-forward 5-10 years and all of the sudden, you have employees topping out and making good money. Those once shiny new aircraft that you got at cutthroat prices are coming due for some heavy maintenance checks, and all the sweetheart deals that airports gave you to fly into them have long since run out, so now management has to actually run the airline.

All the glitter has worn off, so customers have formed an opinion about you, good or bad. It's always the first few years that an LCC will see explosive growth since they have little to no liabilities. Now, however, they're getting a taste of what its like for a "Legacy" carrier that's been around 75+ years. All that once cheap labor ain't so cheap anymore. Your aircraft ain't so new anymore. And the Wall Street types have long since deserted you. Welcome to the real world of the daily struggles of running an airline.

Your disdain for competitors who consistantly rank higher (on time, mishandled bags, etc.) than your employer won't be assuaged by your constant harping; it's going to take actual work, and I'm not talking about the kind where you come on here and post your usual incorrect junk. But, since you're back for your weekly dose of getting shot down, here ya' go:

When ValuJet and AirTran first started, we had DC9s and 737-200s, which few people would consider "new", unless you're talking the 60's or 70's, which we're not. I would be willing to bet that those "new" aircraft required, basically, the same heavy mx. as anyone else flying them. When I first started flying at ValuJet, the company was approximately a year old, and no, I wasn't paid very well nor did I have a retirement fund. There was no market in ATL for an airline that charged people out the wazoo, and treated them like they had no choice but to fly on them; that niche was already filled, but I digress. Because I was willing to do twice the work at half the pay (at that time), my company survived, and I'm now compensated very well and have a pretty good retirement fund. I'm not sure what it is that confuses you into thinking that LCC's invented the system of paying new-hire employees less, then gradually more as they have more time of service, or that legacy carriers have magically exempted themselves from this system. What you call a "sweetheart deal", I call an airport authority offering my company $$$, to in some cases offer better service, or in other cases offer new service. In either case, it helps the local economy, and your efforts would be better spent asking yourself why WN, B6, and FL constantly get offered these deals, when your employer doesn't. If your answer is, "Because we're already there", then ask yourself why all of those airports are seeking an alternative to your superior, worldwide, better than sliced bread, been around as long as Methuselah, product. If an airport withdraws their "sweetheart deal", we're either in a position where we stay because we don't need it anymore (CAK, FNT, etc.), or in some cases, the offer was still there, but we were just breaking even, and decided to put those aircraft on routes where they would do better than that (MOB, TLH, etc.). In any event, I'm not sure what business school you went to, but I'd be surprised if they told you to turn down free money or continue doing something that doesn't make money. Our mgmt. has long been running the airline. And while I don't come near to agreeing with everything they do, I do recognize that their job is to make decisions that insure the success of our company; it's not to make decisions that don't hurt poor little delta777's feelings.

Until next week/next topic

 

[delta777]

Nice attempt at a rebuttal, if not horribly misinformed. :blink:

There's trouble amongst cut-throat LCC's, period. Your model of flying people for absurdly low prices throughout the U.S. is short-sighted at best. Because of your skyrocketing expenses (mainly labor and the end of sweetheart airport deals) you could have a load factor of 95%, yet 80% of which doesn't produce a profit at the rates you are charging. (Hence your following DAL's lead on the first checked bag fee)

As for your grandiose claims of having better baggage/ontime, what do you expect with an airline that has a couple hundred flights a day out of only one true hub? And virtually no international presence to speak of. I can assure you, its much easier to offload and separate 110 bags off a 737, than say a 777 with 15 LD3's with 600 bags and 20,000lbs of freight from Mumbai connecting all over the world. I would shudder to think why WOULDN'T you have better ontime/baggage performance. The complexity of your daily operation compared to ours pales in comparison.

Are our overhead costs high? Sure, but they, unlike Airtrans, are by and large static at this point, whereas yours are increasing exponentially for the reasons stated above.

Anybody with an AA degree can use investor start-up money and run a cheap, no-frills airline successfully for a few years. As mentioned before, your initial costs are artificially low at first. It's only now that we're beginning to see the Airtrans and jetBlues of the world start acting like those dreaded Legacies you so despise. You know what i mean, pulling out of cities, returning aircraft to lessors, seeking paycuts from employees, drastically scaling back growth plans, if not retracting, delaying/cancelling aircraft orders...etc....

Sounds like you guys are in the very same boat us Legacies were in a few short years ago. I can assure, it won't be smooth sailing. Post-bankrupcty, we've all come out much leaner and more than prepared for a fight. The questions that begs to be asked is, are you?

 

[citrus jock]

Nice attempt at a rebuttal, if not horribly misinformed. :blink:

There's trouble amongst cut-throat LCC's, period. Your model of flying people for absurdly low prices throughout the U.S. is short-sighted at best. Because of your skyrocketing expenses (mainly labor and the end of sweetheart airport deals) you could have a load factor of 95%, yet 80% of which doesn't produce a profit at the rates you are charging. (Hence your following DAL's lead on the first checked bag fee)

As for your grandiose claims of having better baggage/ontime, what do you expect with an airline that has a couple hundred flights a day out of only one true hub? And virtually no international presence to speak of. I can assure you, its much easier to offload and separate 110 bags off a 737, than say a 777 with 15 LD3's with 600 bags and 20,000lbs of freight from Mumbai connecting all over the world. I would shudder to think why WOULDN'T you have better ontime/baggage performance. The complexity of your daily operation compared to ours pales in comparison.

Are our overhead costs high? Sure, but they, unlike Airtrans, are by and large static at this point, whereas yours are increasing exponentially for the reasons stated above.

Anybody with an AA degree can use investor start-up money and run a cheap, no-frills airline successfully for a few years. As mentioned before, your initial costs are artificially low at first. It's only now that we're beginning to see the Airtrans and jetBlues of the world start acting like those dreaded Legacies you so despise. You know what i mean, pulling out of cities, returning aircraft to lessors, seeking paycuts from employees, drastically scaling back growth plans, if not retracting, delaying/cancelling aircraft orders...etc....

Sounds like you guys are in the very same boat us Legacies were in a few short years ago. I can assure, it won't be smooth sailing. Post-bankrupcty, we've all come out much leaner and more than prepared for a fight. The questions that begs to be asked is, are you?

Misinformed? Perhaps you could show me where, but you're probably too busy doing that homework I challenged you, on another thread, to do. On that thread, and this one, you continue to make the incorrect assumption that our 3Q08 incredibly high break even load factor is due to low fares. You also incorrectly stated that passenger traffic was down. Even in the face of hard facts (straight from our website) to the contrary, you continue this embarrassment. But, in keeping with our tradition (you spewing crap, me setting you straight), here goes:

"Skyrocketing expenses" - 1st Q 08 up 28.6%; 2nd Q 08 up 37.9%; 3rd Q 08 up 26.2%

So far, so good; but "mainly labor and the end of sweetheart airport deals"?????

Labor (increase from prev. yr) 1st Q 08 up 10.4%; 2nd Q 08 up 11.2%; 3rd Q 08 up 1.2%

Although I didn't find a column in the report titled "sweetheart airport deals that really piss off delta777, that have ended", I don't think that their inclusion, along with the increase in labor as a percentage, will support your claim that our increased expenses are "mainly labor and the end of sweetheart airport deals". I could challenge you, again, on this thread, to find out what's really happening; but to save time, I'll leave you a clue somewhere in the rest of this post.

Our non-fuel costs, NON FUEL, NON FUEL, NON FUEL, NON FUEL, NON FUEL costs (the aforementioned clue is somewhere between here and the end of the last paragraph) have increased 0.8%, and then declined 1.2% and 3.5% chronologically, each quarter this year.

So where does that leave us 777? Our total costs (which include fuel, that liquid stuff, goes in the wings, tastes funny, you know what I'm talking about right?) have increased incredibly. Our NON FUEL costs, our costs without the funny tasting liquid, but WITH everything else, have gone down.

Now, on to the non-statistical part (the part where you don't look so foolish):

I didn't make any "grandiose claims" of having better performance; they are what they are, and I can see where you'd be frustrated. I know that when I'm at work, I may have to help others do their job, whatever it takes, to get a plane out/in on time. Words like hub, freight, LD3s, Mumbai, and "all over the world", aren't going to impress the disgruntled domestic Delta passenger, late and bag MIA. But if there's plenty of people like you at Delta who think otherwise, I've got a job for life. My company was born lean; we didn't have to renege on any deals we made nor go back on our word to get there.

 

[QA4Jet-A]

Misinformed? Perhaps you could show me where, but you're probably too busy doing that homework I challenged you, on another thread, to do. On that thread, and this one, you continue to make the incorrect assumption that our 3Q08 incredibly high break even load factor is due to low fares. You also incorrectly stated that passenger traffic was down. Even in the face of hard facts (straight from our website) to the contrary, you continue this embarrassment. But, in keeping with our tradition (you spewing crap, me setting you straight), here goes:

"Skyrocketing expenses" - 1st Q 08 up 28.6%; 2nd Q 08 up 37.9%; 3rd Q 08 up 26.2%

So far, so good; but "mainly labor and the end of sweetheart airport deals"?????

Labor (increase from prev. yr) 1st Q 08 up 10.4%; 2nd Q 08 up 11.2%; 3rd Q 08 up 1.2%

Although I didn't find a column in the report titled "sweetheart airport deals that really piss off delta777, that have ended", I don't think that their inclusion, along with the increase in labor as a percentage, will support your claim that our increased expenses are "mainly labor and the end of sweetheart airport deals". I could challenge you, again, on this thread, to find out what's really happening; but to save time, I'll leave you a clue somewhere in the rest of this post.

Our non-fuel costs, NON FUEL, NON FUEL, NON FUEL, NON FUEL, NON FUEL costs (the aforementioned clue is somewhere between here and the end of the last paragraph) have increased 0.8%, and then declined 1.2% and 3.5% chronologically, each quarter this year.

So where does that leave us 777? Our total costs (which include fuel, that liquid stuff, goes in the wings, tastes funny, you know what I'm talking about right?) have increased incredibly. Our NON FUEL costs, our costs without the funny tasting liquid, but WITH everything else, have gone down.

Now, on to the non-statistical part (the part where you don't look so foolish):

I didn't make any "grandiose claims" of having better performance; they are what they are, and I can see where you'd be frustrated. I know that when I'm at work, I may have to help others do their job, whatever it takes, to get a plane out/in on time. Words like hub, freight, LD3s, Mumbai, and "all over the world", aren't going to impress the disgruntled domestic Delta passenger, late and bag MIA. But if there's plenty of people like you at Delta who think otherwise, I've got a job for life. My company was born lean; we didn't have to renege on any deals we made nor go back on our word to get there.

... and just to add a few tidbits.... Yes, we have the Heavy © Checks, which costs a hell of alot less than they did with the DC-9 Fleet. Planes are in and out and back flying in short order. Our Reliability group has done an amazing job of identifying problems and the Engineering group does outstanding in finding solutions. MELs are very low and the planes fly alot! As for us 'Topping Out' at High pay... LMAO. I'll never be rich but I am cool with what I make. Of course, I'll never live in Coral Gables, Miami Springs or Star Island, but that's ok. Newnan is fine by me. Trip 7, I hate to break it to you but... we ain't goin' nowherez yet! Enjoy your Latte's...

 

[delta777]

Misinformed? Perhaps you could show me where, but you're probably too busy doing that homework I challenged you, on another thread, to do. On that thread, and this one, you continue to make the incorrect assumption that our 3Q08 incredibly high break even load factor is due to low fares. You also incorrectly stated that passenger traffic was down. Even in the face of hard facts (straight from our website) to the contrary, you continue this embarrassment. But, in keeping with our tradition (you spewing crap, me setting you straight), here goes:

"Skyrocketing expenses" - 1st Q 08 up 28.6%; 2nd Q 08 up 37.9%; 3rd Q 08 up 26.2%

So far, so good; but "mainly labor and the end of sweetheart airport deals"?????

Labor (increase from prev. yr) 1st Q 08 up 10.4%; 2nd Q 08 up 11.2%; 3rd Q 08 up 1.2%

Although I didn't find a column in the report titled "sweetheart airport deals that really piss off delta777, that have ended", I don't think that their inclusion, along with the increase in labor as a percentage, will support your claim that our increased expenses are "mainly labor and the end of sweetheart airport deals". I could challenge you, again, on this thread, to find out what's really happening; but to save time, I'll leave you a clue somewhere in the rest of this post.

Our non-fuel costs, NON FUEL, NON FUEL, NON FUEL, NON FUEL, NON FUEL costs (the aforementioned clue is somewhere between here and the end of the last paragraph) have increased 0.8%, and then declined 1.2% and 3.5% chronologically, each quarter this year.

So where does that leave us 777? Our total costs (which include fuel, that liquid stuff, goes in the wings, tastes funny, you know what I'm talking about right?) have increased incredibly. Our NON FUEL costs, our costs without the funny tasting liquid, but WITH everything else, have gone down.

Now, on to the non-statistical part (the part where you don't look so foolish):

I didn't make any "grandiose claims" of having better performance; they are what they are, and I can see where you'd be frustrated. I know that when I'm at work, I may have to help others do their job, whatever it takes, to get a plane out/in on time. Words like hub, freight, LD3s, Mumbai, and "all over the world", aren't going to impress the disgruntled domestic Delta passenger, late and bag MIA. But if there's plenty of people like you at Delta who think otherwise, I've got a job for life. My company was born lean; we didn't have to renege on any deals we made nor go back on our word to get there.

What was that you said,

"My company was born lean;we didn't renege deals we made nor go back on our word to get there."

Your "company" was "born" from the U.S. airline industries first ever "reverse merger", in which ValuJet was renamed Airtran due to the firm's public image never recovering from the crash of ValuJet Flight 592.

The crash was a large factor in undermining the credibility of the low-cost carrier ValuJet Airlines. While your reverse merger with Airtran was certainly understandable, it wasn't exactly above board.

ValuJet was grounded by the FAA on June 16, 1996. It was allowed to resume flying again on September 30, but never recovered from the crash. In 1997, it merged with AirTran Airways. Although ValuJet was the nominal survivor, the ValuJet name was so tarnished by this time that it decided to take the AirTran name. Hmmm...wonder why that would be?

 

[citrus jock]

What was that you said,

"My company was born lean;we didn't renege deals we made nor go back on our word to get there."

Your "company" was "born" from the U.S. airline industries first ever "reverse merger", in which ValuJet was renamed Airtran due to the firm's public image never recovering from the crash of ValuJet Flight 592.

The crash was a large factor in undermining the credibility of the low-cost carrier ValuJet Airlines. While your reverse merger with Airtran was certainly understandable, it wasn't exactly above board.

ValuJet was grounded by the FAA on June 16, 1996. It was allowed to resume flying again on September 30, but never recovered from the crash. In 1997, it merged with AirTran Airways. Although ValuJet was the nominal survivor, the ValuJet name was so tarnished by this time that it decided to take the AirTran name. Hmmm...wonder why that would be?

That's it??? That's all you've got??? After I delayed ironing my shoelaces so I could spend all that time digging up labor costs, non-fuel CASM, increase in operating expenses, etc., proving you wrong again, and all you've got is your jealousy over Delta's BK filing??? 🙄

In your defense though, I will say that I should have been clearer: In referencing "my" company being born lean, I was referring to ValuJet. I was not an employee of the "original" AirTran Airlines (the name AirTran Airways was the post-merger name), and therefore can't speak as to their beginnings. I have no arguments with your first paragraph. In your 2nd, you claim the merger wasn't "above board", but provide no reasons why you think this (typical of you, though <_< ). To answer the question at the end of your last paragraph, I would say that it was because our name was so tarnished by this time that we decided to take the AirTran name.

I didn't mean to hurt your feelings when speaking of Delta's BK filing. I was just flabbergasted that you would question my company's ability to survive tough times while almost bragging that your company's ability to do so is based on reneged deals.

 

[QA4Jet-A]

That's it??? That's all you've got??? After I delayed ironing my shoelaces so I could spend all that time digging up labor costs, non-fuel CASM, increase in operating expenses, etc., proving you wrong again, and all you've got is your jealousy over Delta's BK filing??? 🙄

In your defense though, I will say that I should have been clearer: In referencing "my" company being born lean, I was referring to ValuJet. I was not an employee of the "original" AirTran Airlines (the name AirTran Airways was the post-merger name), and therefore can't speak as to their beginnings. I have no arguments with your first paragraph. In your 2nd, you claim the merger wasn't "above board", but provide no reasons why you think this (typical of you, though <_< ). To answer the question at the end of your last paragraph, I would say that it was because our name was so tarnished by this time that we decided to take the AirTran name.

I didn't mean to hurt your feelings when speaking of Delta's BK filing. I was just flabbergasted that you would question my company's ability to survive tough times while almost bragging that your company's ability to do so is based on reneged deals.

We'll have to wait until after Midnight for her response. Not sure of what Street she is working tonight. I wonder if she realizes that she can't eat Diet food and Wear make-up at the same time. It would be tough to eat Jenny Craig and have Mary Kay on your face at the same time! Somehow though, I'd bet Trip 7 could handle it. Cheers!

 

[InternationalShannon]

We'll have to wait until after Midnight for her response. Not sure of what Street she is working tonight. I wonder if she realizes that she can't eat Diet food and Wear make-up at the same time. It would be tough to eat Jenny Craig and have Mary Kay on your face at the same time! Somehow though, I'd bet Trip 7 could handle it. Cheers!

I knew you couldn't stay away for too long!!!!! HA!!

 

[QA4Jet-A]

I knew you couldn't stay away for too long!!!!! HA!!

I used 'Pink Sock' Therapy... Healed my tired fingers faster than a speeding ticket. It's amazing what a "Sock Puppet" can do when applied properly. I'll have to show you the latest 'technique' I have developed. The best part is, you don't need the 'Wet Naps' from the Chicken Wing Joint... the grease helps lube all of the applicable parts! Back on topic.... AirTran announces service to Branson MO.... where ever the heck that is. I say cool, I can buy new 'Chaps' and 'Spurs' for when I ride the 'Merry-Go-Round! Cheers IS !!!