WADR, did you actually READ the ATSB response? WRT AMR's cost structure, simply looking at the line on the annual report shows a complete lack of understand concerning costs. Gas, for example, runs approx 40 cents more PER GALLON in DEN than at DFW, and landing fee's are significantly higher. AMR has a much larger presence there, so it follows their system CASM will be affected positively. OTOH please explain to me how that matters in even the remotest since to what the cost is to fly a 777 from ORD to FRA. When direct operating costs are figured for an identical route and adjusted for seat density, UAL is among the lowest of the legacy carriers.UnitedChicago said:
Atsb Denies Loan
- Thread starter Bigsky
- Start date
It appears to be a Catch 22.
On one hand you have the ATSB telling us that UAL has basicly turned the corner and that they should be able to get external financing without the backing of the ATSB.
On the other hand you have UAL mgt. telling us that the ATSB was premature in their denial and they we will re apply for a 3rd time because we need the gv. backing.
Go figure?
On one hand you have the ATSB telling us that UAL has basicly turned the corner and that they should be able to get external financing without the backing of the ATSB.
On the other hand you have UAL mgt. telling us that the ATSB was premature in their denial and they we will re apply for a 3rd time because we need the gv. backing.
Go figure?
I think LCCs benefit the most. If (doubt it will happen) but if UA "disappeared," LCCs would be busier than a one-legged man at an a$$kicking contest gobbling up slots at ORD. Such assets would NEVER be allowed - in this supposedly ungregulated industry - to go to mean, evil, "legacy" carriers like AA or NW.NewHampshire Black Bears said:
So, to answer this poll, I'd say the junkfare carriers would ultimately benefit the most.
Not really, IMHO.G4G5 said:
The ATSB has made clear that UAL's survival is best left primarily to free market forces. UAL management continues to deny this reality as an implicit acknowledgement of the fact that, in its current form, United will not survive.
That said, United can indeed come out of this a winner. However, it won't be the United that we have come to love and/or hate -- rather, I envision United morphing into a c. 400-plane (eliminating the 737s, 762s and roughly half of the 777s), 55-60,000 employee outfit with 3 large hubs (ORD, DEN, SFO), a focus city (LAX), and VERY limited IAD O&D transcon/TATL offerings. In essence, I see United becoming a midsize carrier that competes (and WINS!) on what it does best versus trying to be all things to all people and getting nowhere but closer to the graveyard.
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2003
- 5,311
- 584
- Banned
- #82
<_< ave00------- You can't shrink an Airline into profitablity!!!!!!! Been there! Done that!!! Don't work!!!! Signed: Ex-TWA!!!! :down:
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #83
"Gas, for example, runs approx 40 cents more PER GALLON in DEN than at DFW, and landing fee's are significantly higher. "
Jet fuel prices may differ throughout the country but not by that amount. Don't forget that United agreed to continue to keep a hub at DEN even though most industry analysts said it was too expensive to be viable as a hub. US did the same thing at PIT. NW and CO on the other hand have built facilities at their hubs to create large hubs for far less money. On the airport cost category, AA will have a hard time competing since analysts are saying that their enplaned passenger facility costs at MIA and JFK will be close to $20, higher than UA at DEN which is itself higher than US at PIT, the unsustainable hub.
Jet fuel prices may differ throughout the country but not by that amount. Don't forget that United agreed to continue to keep a hub at DEN even though most industry analysts said it was too expensive to be viable as a hub. US did the same thing at PIT. NW and CO on the other hand have built facilities at their hubs to create large hubs for far less money. On the airport cost category, AA will have a hard time competing since analysts are saying that their enplaned passenger facility costs at MIA and JFK will be close to $20, higher than UA at DEN which is itself higher than US at PIT, the unsustainable hub.
DCT JVL
Advanced
- Oct 7, 2002
- 115
- 0
Unlike, say, HP or US, who would be long gone by now if weren't for the ATSB. How do you think the removal of that capacity might have affected UAL? I'm all for free market forces if, in fact, the market is free.avek00 said:
I should note that I think that the ATSB guarantees were the right thing for those carriers, I am just (to use UAL's word) perplexed at why the argument now is to let the free market take its course when this market has already been altered significantly by outside forces.
You can't shrink an airline into profitability, but you CAN successfully shrink it out of its biggest moneylosers, all the more so if attention is also given to bolstering your moneymaking enterprises. CO did this quite successfully in the mid-1990s by shuttering the unprofitable CAL Lite, TPAC, and GSO hub operations while redirecting the capacity to its EWR, IAH, and CLE hubs (and TATL routes generally). Even AA has done this to some extent by scaling down STL and redploying to DFW and ORD.MCI transplant said:
Republican and Bush sponsored Labor busting effort right on schedule. They are coming after YOUR livelihood.
ALPA has been targeted as boutique Union in highly unionized industry.
ATSB acting as an extension of anti-labor administration. Targeting high compensation unionized employees and industries delivering the message of an anti-union Administration.
FAA has already revoked reserve rest ruling and backed off on Whitlow. Upstarts and LCC's including Virgin America are given priority and that includes slots and facilities. ATSB grants have only been made to those airlines who have drastically cut employee pay and benefits or are non-union.
Treasury Secretary Snow hails from the Railroad Industry, notoriously anti-union.
Iraq gets $200 billion (and counting). United and its 80,000 tax paying American employees who were some of the first murder victims of Sep 11th get a bag of coal.
Next stop in this scripted drama? (assuming re-election)
Getting rid of the Railway Labor Act.
A Republican wet dream.
The final frontier in tipping labor-management relations permanently in favor of the ATA and the Wal-Marting of Airline Labor.
ALPA has been targeted as boutique Union in highly unionized industry.
ATSB acting as an extension of anti-labor administration. Targeting high compensation unionized employees and industries delivering the message of an anti-union Administration.
FAA has already revoked reserve rest ruling and backed off on Whitlow. Upstarts and LCC's including Virgin America are given priority and that includes slots and facilities. ATSB grants have only been made to those airlines who have drastically cut employee pay and benefits or are non-union.
Treasury Secretary Snow hails from the Railroad Industry, notoriously anti-union.
Iraq gets $200 billion (and counting). United and its 80,000 tax paying American employees who were some of the first murder victims of Sep 11th get a bag of coal.
Next stop in this scripted drama? (assuming re-election)
Getting rid of the Railway Labor Act.
A Republican wet dream.
The final frontier in tipping labor-management relations permanently in favor of the ATA and the Wal-Marting of Airline Labor.
HPearlyretiree
Veteran
- Nov 6, 2002
- 1,880
- 1,614
Waaa! Them eeeevil Republicans!
We need protectionism! We need the government to run the airlines (er, my airline)!
Get Michael Moore to make a movie for you.
BTW, why the hell do we need the Railway Labor Act? It ain't 1934, and the economy of the nation won't fall apart if Amtrack or United goes out of business.
We need protectionism! We need the government to run the airlines (er, my airline)!
Get Michael Moore to make a movie for you.
BTW, why the hell do we need the Railway Labor Act? It ain't 1934, and the economy of the nation won't fall apart if Amtrack or United goes out of business.
jimntx
Veteran
We don't except for the fact that most labor regs that relate to represented employees at airlines are based upon the Railway Labor Act. No, it does not make any sense, but that's the way it is.HPearlyretiree said:
First of all, I sincerely hope U can come out of all this with a secure future and with a livable wage. There have been many positive posts about U being ready for the fight of its life ( as if U hasn't been fighting hard). I know U have.
Then there is the element that are tired and not willing to make anymore sacrafices. How much more will U give? Some say they can give no more.
I really don't know where I would stand. AA may come after me for more givebacks to keep up with the new lower cost U. Is there a spiral here?
To us all good luck.
PS remember when we use to fight about FF clubs and who had the best food?
Alas! Gone are the days of yore...
Then there is the element that are tired and not willing to make anymore sacrafices. How much more will U give? Some say they can give no more.
I really don't know where I would stand. AA may come after me for more givebacks to keep up with the new lower cost U. Is there a spiral here?
To us all good luck.
PS remember when we use to fight about FF clubs and who had the best food?
Alas! Gone are the days of yore...
