When Do The Fares In Clt Start Reflecting Those

[BoeingBoy]

That's as of July, the latest monthly report filed with the court (wonder if they'll file August results?). The roughly 12 cent CASM is systemwide, including Express. That's why it's higher than what the company reports - they only report mainline.

Assuming that the $600 million fully materializes, US and HP flew a combined 61.5 billion ASM's in the 1st 8 months of this year. Tthe HP traffic release didn't specify whether theirs included Express and US' didn't include alliliate Express, so actual system ASM's were higher but let's just use this number.

Since the $600 million is an annual figure, we need to take 2/3 of it since we're talking about 2/3 of a year's ASM's. That leaves $400 million. Divided by the ASM's, that's 2/3 of a cent difference in CASM.

Other things to bring down CASM? They're the same as always - fly the planes more per day, fly the planes further - I once calculated that bringing average utilization up an hour per day would reduce US' CASM 1 cent, and that doesn't count the reduction from spreading non-aircraft costs over more ASM's which would probably yield another 1/2 cent reduction or more. And don't use so many high CASM RJ's (especially the smaller ones).

HP already does a pretty good job of this - last I saw their mainline utilization was pretty high for a network carrier (about equal to WN) while their Express fleet had twice as many CRJ-900's as CRJ-200's (look at out hodgepodge Express fleet - how many are 50 seat and under).

Hopefully Doug will be able to do the same on the US side.

Jim

 

[sfb]

LCC means low COST carrier , not low FARE carrier. Fares are still way too low as it is. You pay more on Greyhound and Amtrak than you do to fly.

I think your first sentence hits the nail right on the head -- "LCC" only refers to costs. The fares are going to be just as high as they've always been.

Fares ARE LOW. They have been for some time, historically speaking, and on a systemwide basis (so anyone who wants to post some odd, outrageously-priced fare they found somewhere, save it).

Well, CLT-PHL isn't an odd route, and the lowest fare not requiring at least 7 days' advance purchase is over $550 each way. Walk-up from CLT to PHX is $1100 each way!

I will believe the "Joining together to create the world's largest low-fare airline" claim once the fares are low. Otherwise it's still the same old US Airways.

 

[Bear96]

I think your first sentence hits the nail right on the head -- "LCC" only refers to costs. The fares are going to be just as high as they've always been.
Well, CLT-PHL isn't an odd route, and the lowest fare not requiring at least 7 days' advance purchase is over $550 each way. Walk-up from CLT to PHX is $1100 each way!

Well, if you are talking about hub-to-hub routes, or even route segments where only one end is a hub (i.e., virtual monopolies), on ANY carrier, then the answer to the question of "When are fares going to go down" is this:

When there is more competition on the route, and not a day sooner, even if the airline advertises itself as "the lowest fare carrier in the world."

 

[mrman]

Well, if you are talking about hub-to-hub routes, or even route segments where only one end is a hub (i.e., virtual monopolies), on ANY carrier, then the answer to the question of "When are fares going to go down" is this:

When there is more competition on the route, and not a day sooner, even if the airline advertises itself as "the lowest fare carrier in the world."

[post="306224"][/post]​

Wn max fare on any route is $299

 

[EricLv2Fish]

Hopefully Doug will be able to do the same on the US side.

Jim

[post="305854"][/post]​

Thanks for that breakdown. I'm not sure I understand it all this late into the morning, but after getting some sleep I'm sure it will all fall into place. Analyst have always been very positive on how we manage our CASM and other costs. Now if only they can do it on a grander scale and tougher environment.

 

[Art at ISP]

I find myself asking the same question about RATIONAL fares. They are sorely needed. I just bought ISP to BOS and it was $522, and not even unrestricted!!! Shuttle is $555 or thereabouts, and that to me constitutes gouging..it has to stop. Shuttle is still very profitable around $250-$300, and I resent subsidizing those stupid $49 fares....

I would have driven, except my car can't handle the luggage for the group I am meeting in Boston...

My best to you all......

 

[Non Rever]

Talk about irrational: Had a customer traveling CLT-CHS left monday returned tuesday____$860.00 Round trip!!! Today i had folks flying CLT-LAX $152.00!

How crazy is that?

 

[BoeingBoy]

I once calculated that bringing average utilization up an hour per day would reduce US' CASM 1 cent, and that doesn't count the reduction from spreading non-aircraft costs over more ASM's which would probably yield another 1/2 cent reduction or more.

[post="305854"][/post]​

To be perfectly fair & honest, I should add a few comments to the above statement:

Those calculations were done over a year ago, and a lot has changed since then. They assumed flying most of the then existing US fleet (about 280 planes) enough extra to bring average utilization up by an hour. That gives the biggest savings, since it creates additional ASM's at very low cost and allows the non-aircraft costs to be spread over more ASM's.

Obviously, planes have gone away since then, so the savings would be less. Fewer planes to fly more equals fewer added low cost ASM's (though the percentage change in ASM's might be the same). Fewer added ASM's to spread the non-airplane costs over means less savings there.

In short, without redoing all the data gathering and calculations, it's impossible to say how much the reduction in CASM would be today. One can only say that there would be a reduction.

Jim