Whew...

[qwerty]

I am still amazed that some folks take it so personally.

Big, bad "USAir", which when you think about it is just a collection of buildings, planes, front-line employees and baggage carts - did not rape you. It is not out to get you. It (through a bunch of executive decisions, made by alot of people that no longer draw a paycheck)chose to reorganize rather than go completely out of business. It saved alot of jobs. It survived, painfully, rather than put you on the street.

Stop whining about your lot in life. Go start your own business and make your own way, or continue to work at the mercy of a free market.

 

[BoeingBoy]

All I've seen details on so far is the under-100-seat flying - NW wanted to farm it all out. Now there's limits.

Aviation Now

Jim

 

[PhillyAir5]

Just doing some simple research...

It looks to me that the E-190 with 24 rows and 100 seats is perfect to replace the 737-300 and potentially the A319 line in the future.

 

[pilot]

Pilot: raising ticket price seems like an obvious choice, but simple economics explains why that doesn't work. Higher prices mean less passengers and less revenue overall. I agree that at some point a company must decide it is just no longer economical to be in business (re: FlyI).

But airlines like US are still a very valuable entity, if you look long term and assume you can wait out the slow times, improve what you do well, and REDUCE costs where you can. And until a workgroup decides they no longer work for the salary offered, costs can be reduced. Obviously the NW techs chose that route, they just did not get the result they had hoped for. The piolts on the other hand, seem to have held on to their key issues, yet also agreed to reduce their cost to the company.

These are all good points. Especially the one about a company being able to continue to "reduce costs", in actuality cutting wages, until the work group won't work for the salary offered. The line for pilots continues to drop. NWA and DAL threatened strike. That threat afforded the NWA pilots some gain albeit a small one. They still have some sembelance of a pension (frozen most likely) and most flying in house.

Waiting it out? Slow times? U ran about 75% full in February so I don't think it can get too much better than that. Fares are going to have to go up if any "remade" legacy carrier hopes to survive long term. If not, FlyI is just the first in a long line of carriers who will stop flying altogether.

pilot

 

[RowUnderDCA]

My instincts are that NW/LCC is a distinct possibility without anouther pair of airlines merging and a possibility even without that trigger.

 

[john john]

pilot, Southwest also has fuel hedges in place,

Which is the primary reason they have been profitable the last few years.

These fuel hedges will continue to erode year over year.

US has fuel hedges in place

PhillyAir,

You can thank our illustrious former CEO Stephen Wolf for the Airbus Fleet.

He reportedly got a sweetheart deal on them, and probably a nice little kick-back for himself. 😉

I regretably believe the Boeings will slowly be phased out.

He dangle the airbus carrot in front of the pilots to get them to vote in their contract they bought it hook line and sinker

 

[PhillyAir5]

US has fuel hedges in place

But its not comparable to Southwest. An argument can be made that they will continue to come back down to earth year after year, however, the cost of operating one specific aircraft versus operating numerous (737, 757, 767, all the airbus models etc) isn't comparable.

 

[FCYTravis]

Lets look at how DL operates. They fly all these people into ATL, with a huge chunk going to FLA destinations (not ALWAYS LOW YIELD, MIND YOU!). DL used to fly to even the smallest FLA cities with 767s... on an average day a few years ago, you'd see nothing but L1011s in MIA, MCO, TPA, and FLL.

That's not how DL operateS. That's how they operateD. Guess where DL is right now? Oh yeah, that's right. Bankruptcy.

All those 763s and 764s are going overseas, and the 767-200 fleet is going to the desert. Every last one of them. DL figured out that flying a bunch of widebodies on 400-mile ATL-MCO hops is a one-way ticket to Chapter 11. It's *not* a workable business plan in the age of Southwest.

The age of widebody domestic service is pretty much over. Even UA and AA have pretty much restricted their 767s and 777s to hub-hops and a few transcons. The days when DC-10s criss-crossed the country are over.

 

[john john]

But its not comparable to Southwest. .

Whose fault is that? We are paying for yesterday’s management today

 

[PhillyAir5]

FCYTravis,

I agree with you about DL. But how about AA using an A330 from MIA to MCO three times a day? Its the same deal. I agree that the widebody days of domestic service are nearing an end. USAir only uses their 767 fleet for CLT-MCO, PHL-MCO and overseas flights. 757 and Airbus 321's should be used for cross-country flights.

 

[FCYTravis]

USAir only uses their 767 fleet for CLT-MCO, PHL-MCO and overseas flights.

Those flights are narrowbodies. Perhaps you mean CLT-PHL, CLT-SJU and PHL-SJU, which all have widebody service.

 

[PhillyAir5]

Those flights are narrowbodies. Perhaps you mean CLT-PHL, CLT-SJU and PHL-SJU, which all have widebody service.

I know PHL-Bermuda flights used the 767 once a day as early as last Fall as well.

 

[US1YFARE]

The days when DC-10s criss-crossed the country are over.

I remember flying UA from IAD to PHL on the DC-10...

 

[SpinDoc]

I remember flying UA from IAD to PHL on the DC-10...

The "new" US Airways fleet would benefit greatly by having the following simplified fleet:

B737-400
B737-700
B757-200
B757-300
B767-200
EMB170
EMB190
DH8-Q400
CRJ700

The old US purchased the Airbus 319/20/21 because of the following:

Cheap financing from Airbus
Discounted list prices
2 year warranty on parts
Faster delivery times than Boeing

The Airbus is certainly NOT comparable to a Boeing product. It's like comparing a Toyota(Boeing) to a Kia(Airbus). Boeing aircraft are designed for longer service life and ease of maintenance, whereas the Airbus is cheaper on the front end, but is more costly to maintain in the long run. Airbus aircraft are "throw away" planes which require more frequent and expensive maintenance to keep them flying.

In a head to head comparison, the Boeing 757-200 has a huge operational cost advantage over the Airbus 321. The Boing has more seats, more powerful engines, a more robust airframe, better climb ratios, lower fuel burn, and longer service life.
If only delivery positions were available and Boeing made a competitive counter-offer, then US would have been able to realize a more rational fleet for the long term.

 

[EricLv2Fish]

Customer service is also a large part of the decision to buy. IMO (from my part of the world) Airbus is far better at providing quality customer service than Boeing. They bend over backwards to satisfy their customers whereas Boeing will stick their noses up in the air and tell you it's not in the contract, or give you a quote for how much it will cost. :down: