1st Class Seats Removed from 757''s

[LavMan]

it is not called for on a a thru flight cleaning, the thorough cleaning you are talking about is called an SCO which is suppose to happen every 30 days, but since they cut back so much it does not occur when it is suppose and when it does they do not provide enough manpower to accomplish it, a 757 should have 8 or more utility to do an sco we are lucky to get five bodies.

 

[N628AU]

----------------
On 5/9/2003 7:02:53 AM USAirBoyA330 wrote:

I second the idea of giving these 757s a good scrub-down. They are just filthy and over the past year or two passengers have started to make comments. It''s mostly the 757s but the 737s are just as bad. I mean some of the seat backs are just nasty and the carpets stained. Would it hurt to take a steam cleaner to them? How often to we change out the seat covers on these aircraft?

----------------
​

I am going to go out on a limb and say you are a flight attendant since you seem to know the interiors well. If it looks bad, let the crew know to write it up when it comes through a maintenance station, and let the station maintenance know. Don''t count on utility getting more help, and don''t depend on them to notice. Bring it to someone''s attention and get it changed. Only through teamwork will everyone succeed.

 

[TomBascom]

----------------
On 5/8/2003 8:16:55 PM AnalyzeThis wrote:
I agree that the removal of all but eight First Class seats makes sense on these low yield runs. While it would be nice to offer the CP and upper tier customers the expanded first class, it makes no sense when we can generate more revenue in these markets in the main cabin.

Facts are facts, more seats equals more revenue. The eight seats will still offer the CP the option to upgrade and it''s win-win.
----------------​

Unless you are currently turning away enough customers to justify the conversion costs it makes no sense to do this and fly the planes on the current so-called "low-yield" routes (or any other current route.)

If, OTOH, the idea is to either fly them on the HUB-FL and HUB-LAS routes (but not the NE to HUB legs and vice versa) or to develop point to point low-yield routes it might make sense -- so long as it''s "new business" and there are enough customers to justify the conversion -- but remember these are (presumably) low yield customers so it''ll take an awful lot of planes consistently flying with load factors in the (very) high nineties to make the numbers work. Especially if they add a flight attendant.

Suppose that it costs $100,000 to convert a plane (a ridiculously low number I''m sure.) That means that you''ll have to sell an additional 1,000 tickets at $100 (recall that this is all predicated on these being "low-yield" routes) to generate the [strong]revenue[/strong] equal to conversion costs. If customers love the idea, swamp the airline with reservations and every flight leaves 100% full it will take just 8 flights to generate that $100k. But there are a few problems with that analysis -- 1) revenue isn''t profit, it''s likely that there is (much) less than $10 of profit in that $100 ticket. So we really need 80 completely full flights. If there are just 6 empty seats then you''ll need twice as many flights to cover the costs. 2) You don''t really ever completely sell out all the flights for an extended period -- if you did you''d get a much bigger plane instead of one that has 5% more seats. 3) If the flights really are completely full you''re going to be bumping people a lot and that has lots of negative impacts on the profitability analysis. Basic queing theory says that when you run a system at 100% capacity you have big problems -- there''s a "sweet spot" at some lower point that you should be aiming for.

 

[USAirBoyA330]

I am sure to come to this decision a lot of numbers were run and they had reason for the modifications. However now they are saying 193 TOTAL seats so....sorry no more FA''s. Just more people for the minimum staffed crew to ensure safety with.
LavMan says he saw the work order...please take another look because CCY is changing the tune on seats now.

 

[MarkMyWords]

USAirBoy is correct. New seating configureation will be 8/185 for a total of 193.

 

[TomBascom]

----------------
On 5/10/2003 751 AM USAirBoyA330 wrote:

I am sure to come to this decision a lot of numbers were run...
----------------​

I just hope this wasn''t one of those "hockey stick" projections (you know, the sort where current trends continue for a while and then "magic happens" and the money rolls in... except, of course, that it never actually does.)

 

[CLIPPEDWINGS]

----------------
On 5/10/2003 6:43:12 AM TomBascom wrote:

.....3) If the flights really are completely full you''re going to be bumping people a lot and that has lots of negative impacts on the profitability analysis. Basic queing theory says that when you run a system at 100% capacity you have big problems -- there''s a "sweet spot" at some lower point that you should be aiming for.

----------------​

Tom...we do bump people lots. Every flight that I worked last month was over sold. Passengers are already getting tired of it.

 

[CLIPPEDWINGS]

----------------
On 5/8/2003 511 PM MarkMyWords wrote:

----------------


This is by no means a response to a staffing issue. This is purely a revenue issue.

........Leave the A321''s to work the transcon with the 26 F/C seats but staff the airplane for the service level that customers expect on those airplanes.



----------------​

Mark...are you customer or an employee? If you are a customer, I apologize for my next comment. If you really think this management gives a rats *** about service that you expect, you are fooling yourself. We (f/a''s) have been on this management, since these cutbacks have started, about the inability to provide the service you "expect" from US and it has gotten us nowhere. They only care about THE DOLLAR. The dollars that will go in their pockets. They have no concept of humanity. The aren''t "labor friendly" and they certainly aren''t "loyal customer friendly". Please don''t kid yourself.

 

[TomBascom]

----------------
On 5/10/2003 1214 PM CLIPPEDWINGS wrote:

----------------
On 5/10/2003 6:43:12 AM TomBascom wrote:

.....3) If the flights really are completely full you''re going to be bumping people a lot and that has lots of negative impacts on the profitability analysis.  Basic queing theory says that when you run a system at 100% capacity you have big problems -- there''s a "sweet spot" at some lower point that you should be aiming for.

----------------​

Tom...we do bump people lots.  Every flight that I worked last month was over sold.  Passengers are already getting tired of it.

----------------​

Then the right answer is either a) more flights on the schedule B) larger aircraft or c) higher (low end) fares.

Or all three...

A plane with 5% more seats in it next winter isn''t going to fix that problem.

 

[CLIPPEDWINGS]

----------------
On 5/10/2003 9:02:38 PM MarkMyWords wrote:

Clipped,

I guess I just can''t win with you can I. I was advocating adding the additional F/A back to the A321 to enhance service levels, especially if they become dedicated west coast airplanes. I am sure it wouldn''t be to tough to construct 5X trips for just the transcon.

------------------

MarkMyWords,
That was in No way meant against you. I apologize if it came out that way. I was merely stating that the company could care less about the passengers and especailly the employees. All the see in their eyes is dollar signs not passengers. If they could get away with it they would let customers fend for themselves and put only on Flight attendant on for show.

----------------​

 

[MarkMyWords]

Clipped,

I guess I just can''t win with you can I. I was advocating adding the additional F/A back to the A321 to enhance service levels, especially if they become dedicated west coast airplanes. I am sure it wouldn''t be to tough to construct 5X trips for just the transcon.

 

[deelmakur]

Question for an employee on denied boarding. Are you having trouble getting everyone on because business is so good, or is this the residue of having to put pax on other flights because their original has been removed from the schedule? I use Express a lot, and it seems that often those loads are quite light. It''s almost as though they have not reduced as much capacity there, while cutting Mainline, with the result that people can''t get to the hubs to get on the Express flights. Is that a misperception?

 

[CLIPPEDWINGS]

----------------
On 5/11/2003 7:03:58 AM deelmakur wrote:

Question for an employee on denied boarding. Are you having trouble getting everyone on because business is so good, or is this the residue of having to put pax on other flights because their original has been removed from the schedule? I use Express a lot, and it seems that often those loads are quite light. It''s almost as though they have not reduced as much capacity there, while cutting Mainline, with the result that people can''t get to the hubs to get on the Express flights. Is that a misperception?
------------

I think you are right on the money!! They have reduced the schedule soooo much that people cannot get on the flights when they need. I guess US managements basic attitude now is this is what we are offering you ,as a passenger, take it or leave it. I forget where the post was or to what thread, but I have to agree that management is doing this in PIT to get what they want out of the city. They better be careful about crying wolf. They are just pushing what little traffic they "claim" is in PIT to other carriers. If one has to go to PHL to go west, why not go on UA go west to Chicago and then continue?


There is life beyond the US Airways system! This too shall pass.
----------------​

 

[JS]

----------------
On 5/10/2003 6:43:12 AM TomBascom wrote:

But there are a few problems with that analysis -- 1) revenue isn''t profit, it''s likely that there is (much) less than $10 of profit in that $100 ticket. So we really need 80 completely full flights.

----------------​

No, marginal revenue is almost entirely profit. The extra coach seats that will be sold as a result of the conversion is marginal revenue.

Of the $100 ticket, say $10 goes to marginal expenses (additional fuel, additional labor to check-in and throw bags, beverages, etc.) $90 times 11 additional seats times 75% load factor is about $750 a flight. The conversion should be paid for in no time -- just one month, assuming $100,000 conversion cost and four flights a day.

 

[TomBascom]

----------------
On 5/13/2003 2:12:18 PM JS wrote:

----------------
On 5/10/2003 6:43:12 AM TomBascom wrote:

But there are a few problems with that analysis -- 1) revenue isn''t profit, it''s likely that there is (much) less than $10 of profit in that $100 ticket. So we really need 80 completely full flights.

----------------​

No, marginal revenue is almost entirely profit. The extra coach seats that will be sold as a result of the conversion is marginal revenue.

Of the $100 ticket, say $10 goes to marginal expenses (additional fuel, additional labor to check-in and throw bags, beverages, etc.) $90 times 11 additional seats times 75% load factor is about $750 a flight. The conversion should be paid for in no time -- just one month, assuming $100,000 conversion cost and four flights a day.

----------------​

If your load factor is 75% you''re flying with empty seats and the swing between a few more empties in coach and a few less in F has no impact.

The only way that this can help at all is if it allows you to carry more customers. Adding the seats makes no difference until load factors are in the 90s.