A few 6/5 LF''s at STL

[kirkpatrick]

The loads are great, which is why I''m confident FA recalls will be sooner rather than later. My last trip, nine legs from the 13th to the 15th, were all over 100 on an MD80 except one coach load of 68 STL-CLE. My commuter flight to STL was so full I couldn''t even get the jumpseat and had to wait for the next flight. My commute home was in a center seat with only one seat open on the whole airplane.

MK

 

[LambertMan]

I recently flew STL-HNL and HNL-STL last week. Both flights were full which was good to see. But the better thing was when I purposely went to STL 2 hours early to look around I asked a few gate agents how their loads were coming for that day, most wouldnt tell me anything for some reason, but here are a few:
STL-HNL 100% 1 a day, overbooked coming back
STL-MSY 62% avg.
STL-DFW Every seat sold out for the whole day
STL-ORD Empty seats here and there, but most were near full
STL-LGW 77% 1 a day
STL-LAX 84% morning 752 run
STL-CMH 60%, worst average for all the flights I got info for
STL-BOS 93% avg
Those were all I had time for, and some gate agents denied me the information. But all in all, decent LF''s. STL-HNL was a good flight, HNL-STL got a little bumpy however, which in a way seems to put me to sleep
Would STL-LGW at a 77% clip lose money or make it? Any comments on anything?

 

[LaBradford22]

Through 6/16, month to date systemwide load factor is running at 75.7. Not bad!

STL-LGW at 77% is hard to say. Depends upon yield, and also depends upon upline/downline revenue impacts with STL being a hub. My gut tells me that 77% is right around breakeven for that route, maybe making a little bit of money, although yields out of STL haven't historically been too great so it's a tough call.

 

[umpieumkn]

----------------
On 6/17/2003 1:35:02 PM kirkpatrick wrote:

The loads are great, which is why I''m confident FA recalls will be sooner rather than later. My last trip, nine legs from the 13th to the 15th, were all over 100 on an MD80 except one coach load of 68 STL-CLE. My commuter flight to STL was so full I couldn''t even get the jumpseat and had to wait for the next flight. My commute home was in a center seat with only one seat open on the whole airplane.

MK

Where do you commute to and from? I have been forced transferred from DFW to STL. After checking the flight schedule for July, I noticed that AA has cx the last two flights of the day on Saturdays from STL to DFW and the second to the last flight of the day from DFW to STL for the same day.

I don''t quite understand their reasoning behind this decision as those flights have been consistently full. Also, why in the world would you cx the last TWO flights of any day rather than two in between other flights of the day? That''s AA for you. Probably did it on purpose to make it harder for those transferred to commute forcing us to move to STL and at the same time telling those who are 300 or less from the bottom of the seniority list "I wouldn''t sign a lease. Things may change".

Yeah....that makes sense, huh?


BBM

 

[buzzkill]

----------------
On 6/28/2003 1:33:09 PM umpieumkn wrote:

----------------
On 6/17/2003 1:35:02 PM kirkpatrick wrote:

The loads are great, which is why I''m confident FA recalls will be sooner rather than later. My last trip, nine legs from the 13th to the 15th, were all over 100 on an MD80 except one coach load of 68 STL-CLE. My commuter flight to STL was so full I couldn''t even get the jumpseat and had to wait for the next flight. My commute home was in a center seat with only one seat open on the whole airplane.

MK

Where do you commute to and from? I have been forced transferred from DFW to STL. After checking the flight schedule for July, I noticed that AA has cx the last two flights of the day on Saturdays from STL to DFW and the second to the last flight of the day from DFW to STL for the same day.

I don''t quite understand their reasoning behind this decision as those flights have been consistently full. Also, why in the world would you cx the last TWO flights of any day rather than two in between other flights of the day? That''s AA for you. Probably did it on purpose to make it harder for those transferred to commute forcing us to move to STL and at the same time telling those who are 300 or less from the bottom of the seniority list "I wouldn''t sign a lease. Things may change".

Yeah....that makes sense, huh?


BBM

----------------​

Please tell me you are joking. Do you really believe the capacity planning folks make decisions just to inconvenience employees? Also, why would AA want to make employees move rather than commute? It costs AA a fair bit of cash to relocate employees.

AA has been cancelling the last flights on Saturday''s to many markets, because these flights are generally poor performers. Also, don''t let load factors fool you into believing that a flight is a strong performer. In the most profitable days of the late 1990''s, the best performers were the 60% load factor flights from ORD and DFW to LGA and SJC. Some of the least profitable or unprofitable flights have been high load factor flights to HNL, MCO, MSY, etc. High yields are generally a better indicator of a good flight over load factor, and yields are generally lowest on Saturday''s.

 

[umpieumkn]

MK

No I do not think that AA planned to cx the last two flights on purpose just to make it more difficult for the STL forced transferred FA's or any employee. I'm not that dumb or paranoid. I don't think Planning has commuting FA's or other employees in mind at all when deciding which flights are to be added/cx/deleted/changed. It is simply business. I was being sarcastic. I'm sorry you took it the wrong way.

I do know that the flights I mentioned have been consistently full because I have been monitoring them since May when I found out I was to be transferred to STL. However, you may be exactly right about the reasoning behind it. It makes sense and you seem to know how Planning operates better than I.

But, just for the record...I too have wondered why AA would prefer the forced FA's to move rather than commute knowing it will cost AA a fair bit of cash to relocate them. Therefore, I wrote the company asking if they would at least consider giving those forced transferred to STL (all who, I might add, are under 5 years of service) 5 round-trip service fee waived passes per month from their former base to STL, only. Especially, in lieu of the fact that they suggested a certain number of us not sign any leases. I also stated in this letter that it would cost the company nothing to do this and would save the company money by not having the expense in relocating us.

I would have thought that the company, being aware of the finacial burden already placed on us from the RA, and this being a no cost item for them, would find no problem in granting this small gesture. However, I was wrong. They did not allow it. They offered instead, 5 round-trip (guaranteed seating) passes for the employee and up to 4 members of their family for relocating purposes, only...and only for the month of June. This did not help the commuter at all. Again, it is only assisting those actually relocating.

So, no. I do not believe the company is more interested in saving money by assiting commuters (with a no cost item) who have been forced transferred. Instead, they are willing to incurr the expense of relocating them which could amount up to $12,500 per transferee. They seem to be content in knowing they will actually be MAKING money on us.

Betty Mayes

P.S. And by the way, I was not even asking for guaranteed seating.

 

[umpieumkn]

Thank you, TWAnr. Yes, I can see that now. Not sure why I thought it was him/her. As you can see I''m new to this site and will catch on eventually to how it works.

As for my post..........the reply is to "BUZZKILL"

Mayes

 

[TWAnr]

----------------
On 6/28/2003 8:40:03 PM umpieumkn wrote:

MK

No I do not think that AA planned to cx the last two flights on purpose just to make it more difficult for the STL forced transferred FA''s or any employee....

----------------​

It was not kirkpatrick who replied to your earlier post.

 

[MCI transplant]

I''ll try to clearify that! If a Board of Directors purpoesly took a viable company into bankrupcy, wouldn''t that be a breach of their (spell)Fudituary responcibility to it''s Stock holders? I know, clear as mud!

 

[MCI transplant]

TWAnr--You know, there is one point to which it seems everyone has turned a blind eye! Or is it that my enquizitive nature is just going off into a wild tangent here? That one point being,"IF" TWA went into bankrupcy as a "requirement of sale", or this bankrupcy was preconceived,as has been written of often here, wasn''t it''s perpose two fold??? One to reed TWA of Uncle Carl, and two, to degrade the value of TWA stock??? Isn''t it the duty of a board to protect that value? And isn''t it a fact that at the time of sale, the TWA employees were the largest block of stock holders? Would you care to comment on this for us please????

 

[buzzkill]

Betty,

Thanks for the clarification. Trust me, it would not be out of the ordinary for someone on this board to make such a claim, so I wasn''t sure if your tongue was planted in your cheek or not.

Regarding AA763''s original post, remember that AA''s breakeven load factor was somewhere around 90% before the concessions. When all the concessions take full effect, the breakeven load factor will definitely drop. However, load factor is only half of the revenue equation, with yield usually being the more powerful lever for profitability. I say all of that to once again caution that load factor by itself doesn''t mean a flight/market/station is profitable.