Any quesses on 2Q earnings?

[mrplanes]

Folks let me prove my point:


To: Sherry Hendry/CSV/USAIR@USAIRLN
cc:
Subject: West Coast

Per your question on the west coast.

1. We have no plans to close any other station in the west other than SNA.
2. Given the secondary nature of SNA as a destination and its large losses
we
determined that the aircraft were better utilized elsewhere. With such a
small operation SNA was not a "cost effective" station.
3. Most remaining flights to the west coast due not have adequate
financials -
we are working to improve - a full flight does not mean a profitable flight.
4. Currently we plan 13% more east/west capacity this fall than last - DEN
+12%, LAS +78%, LAX -4%, PHX +25%, SAN +67%, SEA +4%, SFO -15%,
-100%.
5. We will continue with seasonal changes in capacity as planned with
CLT-SAN
and SEA coming and going depending on demand.
6. We have also made an effort to improve the quality of the schedules by
having fewer early AM and late PM departures this Fall.
7. Better yields are expected with connections to UA in both LAX and SFO
starting in the future. We must improve the financials of these flights so
we
can grow this market segment versus further shrinking.
8.The B757 given its high operating costs is not necessarily the optimal
transcon airplane even if it can carry a higher payload.

Thanks
Andrew Nocella
VP Planning


Paragraph 3 and 8 especially. "a full flight does not mean a profitable flight." Huh? This is why this management cannot continue to run this company. Imagine Neelman or Kelleher or Crandall or Carty or Colodny or Bethune or Davis uttering this phrase. Un-freaking-believable.

"The B757 given its high operating costs is not necessarily the optimal
transcon airplane even if it can carry a higher payload." This is ludicrous. The more pax with the CORRECTLY PRICED FARES you can get into 182 seats vs. any small airbus is how you make money. These guys don't understand how to PRICE the product. By the way, we charge LESS from CLE-LAS than Southwest. Don't believe me? Look it up.

Hows about a 78% rise in flights in LAS while pulling out of business rich SNA. What? Just who is making these decisions? I thought Dave wanted the business market. Or is it the leisure market? Or does he even know the difference?

C'mon folks. Lets get some pressure on Bronner to get someone who knows what they are doing in here. Our airline futures depend on it.

mr

 

[Hope777]

Our Customer Service is HORRIBLE, and it's not because of OUR EMPLOYEES. We are so SHORT staffed that we can not provide quality service. I must comend our Kisok machines the other night. The weather caused hours of delays and each and every connecting passenger needed to be rebooked and lines were out the door, but our Kisok machines felt it was time to take a break and made the pasenger speak to an agent, all three of them. Now thats customer service!

 

[USA320Pilot]

Mrplanes:

Can you tell me your work group and department?

Best regards,

Chip

 

[mrplanes]

Add to the above:

I just listened to Seigel's weekly message on USDaily. He actually read most of what was written above on his message. He again reiterated that a full airplane does not neccessarily mean a profitable one! Then he says Orange County would need a 150% load factor to break even. Ever hear of raising prices Dave?

Now, first off, this letter was written by one of his underlings and HE quotes what the guy said. The lack of leadership is palpable. He continues with his message with a bunch of code share info. Oh yeah, the code share partner whose future is less certain than even ours. Where is the diversification if UAL ceases to exist? Then he wails about the low fare carriers making more inroads including LUV's expansion at OUR BWI and their 90 new jets. Then he says that everything we are doing is meant to successfully ride out this "wave of change". How's about riding ON the wave of change Dave? Like DAL and Song are doing.

The paradigm has shifted and he is "riding out the wave of change" as if this is a temporary problem. Mullen has it right and Dave isn't even in the stadium. I just read an interview with Mullin in skyguideGo magazine. Listen to this about Song: "Song operates point to point with strict turnaround times and asset utilization goals which are being met with our first 7 airplanes and heading towards 35 by years end. Also, Song uses 757's so you can spread out your employee costs more than a 737-200. Those 2 factors alone bring us to 85% of the cost structure of the low fare airlines. If we get wage reductions from our pilot negotiations, those changes will put on RIGHT ON the cost structure of the low cost carriers."

Now our guy just said the 757 wasn't economical. This is AFTER our pilot wage concessions. Mullin states the opposite. Who is running the ship here? Hey Bronner, can you hire Mullin away from DAL? Our guy doesn't get it. He does.

mr

 

[PITbull]

Mrplanes,

Once again, you get to the point and are right on point. LUV is building their "franchise" by taking our routes, and this mangement makes every excuse there is not to compete. Even though,ur wages are much lower then SW, they are able to utilize their planes and gates much more effeciently then we.

This mangement is still on the "downsizing" trend...soon there won't be much of a franchise left...just a bunch of small jets running around the sytem carrying small amounts of traffic back and forth like a subway, while the LCC carriers like SW and Jet Blue broaden their scope with the larger type aircraft.

With all the cost savings given to this mangement, they still remain "behind the 8 ball".

Time for NEW mangement!

PS. With the "resolutions" presented by ALPA and AFA, and in light of ALL the labor unrest, you would think this "labor friendly" guy would address this as well. Our CEO, in all his arrogance, continues to ignore us.

 

[longing4piedmont]

----------------
On 7/27/2003 1:32:25 PM PITbull wrote:

Even though,ur wages are much lower then SW, they are able to utilize their planes and gates much more effeciently then we.



----------------​

Just curiuos, why is that? Does it have anything to do with work rules, staffing, scheduling? Is this really true? Is this the difference between profit and loss?

 

[usfliboi]

Dave doesnt want to run this airline he wants too merge two!!!!

 

[PITbull]

----------------
On 7/27/2003 3:12:06 PM longing4piedmont wrote:

----------------
On 7/27/2003 1:32:25 PM PITbull wrote:

Even though,ur wages are much lower then SW, they are able to utilize their planes and gates much more effeciently then we.



----------------​

Just curiuos, why is that? Does it have anything to do with work rules, staffing, scheduling? Is this really true? Is this the difference between profit and loss?

----------------​

Nothing to do with labor and workrules, has to do with mangement strategy, aircraft and gate utilization which is not done by labor; but by marketing and planning VPs and managers.

 

[longing4piedmont]

----------------
On 7/27/2003 1:32:25 PM PITbull wrote:

----------------​

Nothing to do with labor and workrules, has to do with mangement strategy, aircraft and gate utilization which is not done by labor; but by marketing and planning VPs and managers.


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


I seem to remember reading somewhere that the work rules concerning who could do what, when, etc was in fact a major cost difference between WN and US. The article examined how a WN ground crew worked vs. a US ground crew. Same article mentioned how many employees it took to service and turn an airplane. The number of employees per plane was substantialy lower at WN vs. US. The stastics quoted on the number of mechanics per plane vs. the two airlines was stagering. WN had about a third of the mechanics vs US if my memory is correct. (some one may have the real number as I do not remember for sure and I NOT trying to start a flame war.)

I sorta thought maybe your answer would blame management, etc. I was right. But I really do want to understand the real differnces are. Could you or someone else explain to me how US uses their aircraft, gates, etc. differently than WN. I already know that they turn them around in about thirty minutes. Why can't US do that. Can any expalin the differnce in the planning that is different vs WN.

Again, I'm not trying to punch any buttons as I absolutely hate to fly the cattle car called Southwest.

 

[supercruiser]

>>......but he is totally inept running US Airways. He has no leadership skills, no understanding or the importance of a motivated employee group, and little to no idea that the paradigm has shifted in this industry. He thinks RJ's are the answer.

 

[PITbull]

Bob,

I see you received the McCorkle newsletter with all his negative propaganda about AFA and even this company whenever he thinks he can slam anyone or group who makes an effort for "change". This guy has absolutely no credicbility with the membership and he is the only one that writes that crap. Voluntary furloughees who took a furlough knew damn well in the sideletter that 90 days dues would be levied while on furlough. THAT IS WITH ANY LEAVE, except if you get Involuntary furloughed. This has been since the beginning of our Constitution and bylaws. Everyone know this, why all the big surprise. Those folks come back off furlough and then think this is a bill they should ignore? UNION OPERATE LIKE A BUSINESS AND IT IS DRIVEN AND FUNDED BY DUES ONLY. That is no epiphany to anyone who is a member. As a new hire f/a you are told of the union dues deduction and what happens if dues are not made.

Keep in mind too, that anyone, and I mean any furloughee or any one on any leave can make payments...EVEN IF IT IS $5 A MONTH! Flight attendants know this. Its like any bill you get when you are under a contract, why is it ok to walk away from the ONLY ORGANIZATION FLIGHT ATTENDANTS HAVE THAT DEFENDS THEM?

Are you NOW saying that folks are better off without union representation with this mangement or just AFA?

Pick a side Bob.. and stay with it. I do not respond to any individuals who read negative propaganda from the "Con Man" Control freak himself... McCorkle.
If you can not see from all the posts I have written in defense of employees and the position I have taken in that defense over and over again, putting my neck, my job, and my reputation on the line, then I will not respond to your posts.

Peace brother.

 

[PITbull]

Bob,

Check you PM.

 

[mrplanes]

Same work group as you Chip. Different department. Evidently, a different take on Seigel too. His expetise on BK is unchalleged. His leadership of this company if disgraceful. I was like you at the beginning. Thought he was our Kelleher. Changed my mind after I saw his hand. He lacks vision. Same tired take on the industry that is changing before our eyes. RJ's are the answer! Not to mention the treatment of the most valuable assets he has.

There are many success stories within our capitalistic society. Even within our industry. They all have one common thread. They are run by leaders and motivators who understand the importance of the people they employ. They get them on the team. Then they come to them to help when times turn difficult and are able to make the moves to keep them profitable and healthy. Seigel doesn't operate like that. And he won't because he doesn't know how to. He doesn't understand that concept. He is not our Kelleher. And from the statements and moves he is making, he doesn't understand the change going on in the airline business either. He had a window of opportunity to get us on his team. He lost it.

Your information is informative. Your research is well done. And your opinions hold as much weight as mine or anyones. It simply is that I don't think Seigel has a clue how to run THIS airline and capitalize on its assets or its strengths. Mullin, Neeleman, and the boys will eat our lunch until Bronner figures out we need a leader. I know you talk to these guys. Don't allow your judgement to be clouded by their positions. They are inept. They prove it daily by their treatment of the employees. If you have any business sense you understand that.

But back to the question. Same work group, different department. And more seniority. And I am a company man. That is totally different than supporting the management that is running the company.

mr

 

[LGA Fleet Service]

----------------
On 7/28/2003 8:52:04 AM PineyBob wrote:


When you look back in history to folks like Gen Patton, Churchill, Roosevelt, Truman it makes you wonder what would have happened if those names were replaced by Siegel, Baldanza, Glass & Crellin! What would have become of us?


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

They'd be Goose Stepping in Trafalgar Square.

​

 

[diogenes]

I am amazed at the insinuations that labor still is the problem at U.

1. During BK, we went thru two rounds of concessions with the liquidation gun pointed at our heads. Dave got EVERYTHING he put on the table. Even mighty ALPA coughed up their pension. Ever stop to think how the lesser of us fared?

2. Fleet, customer service, and res were on their initial contracts, which basically was the company personnel policy guide wrapped up in a union label. We coughed up the few good things in it. For retirement purposes, we've been terminated three times from the same company.

3. WN had a superior, and more lucrative contract BEFORE concessions. All the way back to 99, when the employee bashing began in earnest, I challenged U management to negotiate a WN style contract at U. They didn't respond, because they knew then U would STILL lose money, and they'd loose their whipping boy.

4. Work rules? What are those? ALPA, IAM and AFA probably have some FAA mandated rules, and that's near the extent of it. Mechs coughed up the bulk of the pushback, an area I agree was wasteful. But that sole issue never caused U to loose money.

Folks, ask yourselves. What move has U made in the past 2 years that panned out and made you think, "yeah, excellent strategy or tactics." Ask who has kept U to the forefront of DOT stats. Conclude who is doing their job, and who isn't.

Ask ANYBODY at WN would they trade contracts with us.