BOS,LGA,andLAS bases to close in 2010

[flybynite]

I'm not sure I'd call 4 base closures in a couple of years adapting. More like abdicating to the competition. IMO.

:down:

 

[Glucose Intolerant]

I'm not sure I'd call 4 base closures in a couple of years adapting. More like abdicating to the competition. IMO.

:down:

[sup]"Times, markets, competition, etc have all changed and all require a company to adapt. Base closures are simply a byproduct of keeping up. Its never about the fittest surviving, its about the most adaptable.[/sup]

[sup]Change hurts, is scary, but is necessary."[/sup]


Wonder if the WEST will still feel the same way when TEMPE decides in favor of (abdicating to our competition) downsizing PHX and building up a more lucrative hub (or domicile).

"They would never shrink ( ______ just insert domicile name)"

[sup]"Once again, change is vital. Smaller, right now, will survive."[/sup]

 

[HPDriver]

I'm not sure I'd call 4 base closures in a couple of years adapting. More like abdicating to the competition. IMO.

:down:

Just wondering if you were aware of what the economy has done to the airline business in the past few years?

What about SWA? Showing losses now and no growth. Are they abdicating as well?

 

[HPDriver]

[sup]Wonder if the WEST will still feel the same way when TEMPE decides in favor of (abdicating to our competition) downsizing PHX and building up a more lucrative hub (or domicile).

Of course it would be a big blow, but:

1. what can you or I do about it?

2. how do you expect an airline to retrench when it can't adjust it's business model?

 

[flyus2]

I'm not sure I'd call 4 base closures in a couple of years adapting. More like abdicating to the competition. IMO.

:down:

These are all relatively small bases, except BWI. Why would we want to keep paying for all of these bases that you could virtually drive between them. Think about it....BWI, DCA, PIT, LGA, BOS....that's 5 small bases costing money to operate. What's the big deal about shutting them down. BWI people either drove to DCA (50 miles away) or PHL (120 miles away). It's crazy to have all of these bases. LGA and BOS have hourly service to commute to DCA.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Its never about the fittest surviving, its about the most adaptable.

Isn't the fittest better able to adapt?

How has this one failed? We're no worse off than our peers.

As long as you ignore the 2nd largest loss as a percentage of revenue and having no unencumbered assets for raising additional cash - yeah, US is doing great.

Parker is saving $100M a year on the east's LOA 93 alone.

That keeps being bandied about, presumably because that's about how much management says would go to the East pilots under the Kirby proposal. Of course that number (ass well as the total value of the Kirby proposal) is based on managements numbers (which are usually in their favor). Plus I've never seen any estimate of how much could be saved by having the efficiencies of a single pilot group - you think US would put and keep that offer on the table in these economic times if they didn't see a return on that money?

Smaller, right now, will survive.

Yeah - tell that to the Midwest people hitting the streets as Republic turns it into a virtual airline. Frontier has been doing so well that they ended up in BK and then owned by Republic.

Say what you will about Parker, but I'd rather have him up in the office than any other CEO.

Snce your career is at stake, you better be sure about that.

SWA? Code share with WestJet, voting down a TA, downgrades and, eventually, furloughs.

Code shares - all of two. That's surely a big problem for WN. Of course they don't have 8-9 Express operators to keep in the black. Voting down a TA - weren't you saying something about USAPA having no leverage but it's bad for the WN pilot's to have leverage? The rest - how about the winning PowerBall numbers since your crystal ball is so good at predicting the future?

What about SWA? Showing losses now and no growth. Are they abdicating as well?

No growth? What happened to the downgrades and furloughs you forecast for them? You were talking about US maybe? And let's talk about growth a little more. US, from 2005 pro rata through 2008, reduced capacity by over 14% (that doesn't include this year or next. WN, same period, expanded capacity over 21%. So who's abdicating? Oh - that's right - you think an airline has to be small to survive. US is heading in that direction.

Jim

 

[flybynite]

These are all relatively small bases, except BWI. Why would we want to keep paying for all of these bases that you could virtually drive between them. Think about it....BWI, DCA, PIT, LGA, BOS....that's 5 small bases costing money to operate. What's the big deal about shutting them down. BWI people either drove to DCA (50 miles away) or PHL (120 miles away). It's crazy to have all of these bases. LGA and BOS have hourly service to commute to DCA.

I wasn't talking about BWI. I was referring to PIT, LGA, BOS and LAS.

And closing BOS and LGA is a big deal. They are the reason for having hourly service with the Shuttle. Maintaining small crew bases there kept the Shuttle on time. And we are dealing with business passengers that have no patience with an airline that can't keep a schedule as advertised regardless of the weather or ATC.

And it's going to cost the company a bloody fortune to overnight enough crews in both cities.

 

[HPDriver]

Isn't the fittest better able to adapt?

No. Remember those well established, big dinosaurs? Had it all to themselves. But their environment changed very quickly and those big, and very fit (I'm sure) creatures were unable to keep up.

Same with the airlines. Yes we've lost money. Yes we're backed into a corner. But somehow we're still here, raising cash, and moving along.

That keeps being bandied about, presumably because that's about how much management says would go to the East pilots under the Kirby proposal. Of course that number (ass well as the total value of the Kirby proposal) is based on managements numbers (which are usually in their favor). Plus I've never seen any estimate of how much could be saved by having the efficiencies of a single pilot group - you think US would put and keep that offer on the table in these economic times if they didn't see a return on that money?

That number being bandied about is legit. The actual number is over $100M, but I'd say its a safe number to go with.

And as for synergies, Parker has realized about 95% of total benefit of a completed merger. Also a good number and the fact that the operation works is proof. And I don't ever recall Parker saying anything about the negative impact of operating with separate pilot groups. But if you have some other info, I'd like to see it.

Yeah - tell that to the Midwest people hitting the streets as Republic turns it into a virtual airline. Frontier has been doing so well that they ended up in BK and then owned by Republic.

You're kidding me with that, right? Midwest? Aren't you the one always talking about apples and oranges comparisons?

Snce your career is at stake, you better be sure about that.

I'm sure about my statement, but unlike Cleary, I'm pretty sure I couldn't do anything about it anyway.

No growth? What happened to the downgrades and furloughs you forecast for them? You were talking about US maybe? And let's talk about growth a little more. US, from 2005 pro rata through 2008, reduced capacity by over 14% (that doesn't include this year or next. WN, same period, expanded capacity over 21%. So who's abdicating? Oh - that's right - you think an airline has to be small to survive. US is heading in that direction.

Downgrades are going to happen at SWA - there's no doubt about that. Furloughs, that's still a maybe, but with downgrades you can't discount that.

And, relatively speaking, SWA was planning and talking nothing but growth until recently and put a complete stop to it. Relatively speaking, that says quite a bit about the environment were operating in.

Did you have a rough Halloween Jim?

 

[BoeingBoy]

No. Remember those well established, big dinosaurs?

Yeah, those big mostly lumbering dinosaurs. Being the biggest doesn't make one the fittest any more than being smallest does. And speaking of apples to oranges, if the scientists are correct in their theories about what caused the demise of the dinosaurs, it's the equivalent of passenger in the world stopping flying one day, not the same as a rough patch in the economy.

Yes we're backed into a corner. But somehow we're still here.

Wonder if that's what some of those dinosaurs would have thought if they had had the ability?

That number being bandied about is legit. The actual number is over $100M, but I'd say its a safe number to go with.

Legit as in Parker said so (at least the total of the Kirby proposal)? Or legit as in someone on the other side of the bargaining table has verified it?

And as for synergies, Parker has realized about 95% of total benefit of a completed merger.

So he's said. Of course, he's said some other things that didn't pan out - how many times has he said new fees position US for the long term, only to add some more fees later and say the same thing? The latest is that this "realignment" positions US for long term success. Is his "95% of the synergy benefits have been realized" another?

And I don't ever recall Parker saying anything about the negative impact of operating with separate pilot groups. But if you have some other info, I'd like to see it.

Well, that's proof then - Parker not saying something is absolute iron-clad 24 carat gold fact. I'll freely admit that I don't have numbers. Just wonder about the costs of separate ops - something never disclosed in the "Everything is going the right way, we're positioned for the future" pep talks that pass for analyst conference calls.

Midwest? Aren't you the one always talking about apples and oranges comparisons?

Hey, you're the one that said "Smaller, right now, will survive." Without getting into the express type carriers, there's not many airlines smaller than US to pick from as an example. Hawaiian & Alaska have special situations, Spirit is privately owned so other than they're still in business one can't compare numbers, Allegient is a special case. Airtran is low cost. Who's left that's smaller?

I'm sure about my statement, but unlike Cleary, I'm pretty sure I couldn't do anything about it anyway.

Well, you got the second part right.

Downgrades are going to happen at SWA - there's no doubt about that. Furloughs, that's still a maybe, but with downgrades you can't discount that.

Maybe a few downgrades with the shifting of flying time around, but compared to US (and every other legacy carrier) how does it compare? Furloughs a maybe now, huh. With WN's history of never furloughing you're moving in the right direction.

And, relatively speaking, SWA was planning and talking nothing but growth until recently and put a complete stop to it. Relatively speaking, that says quite a bit about the environment were operating in.

No doubt that the airlines are in a tough environment - have been for a year or so. Maybe part of the problem is who you've had to compare Parker to vs who I've had. From my vantage point he's a decent money man but no airline CEO.

Jim

 

[nycbusdriver]

Isn't the fittest better able to adapt?

Not necessarily. That's quite a leap in logic, IMHO.

 

[HPDriver]

Not necessarily. That's quite a leap in logic, IMHO.

I quite agree.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Not necessarily. That's quite a leap in logic, IMHO.

Depends on your definition of "fittest" I suppose. I didn't mean "the strongest" or "speediest" or "most adept" at one thing or another. I meant the term as used in "Survival of the fittest" - "Natural selection conceived of as a struggle for life in which only those organisms best adapted to existing conditions are able to survive and reproduce."

Notice that the definition says nothing about size making adaptation easier or harder.

Jim

 

[HPDriver]

Legit as in Parker said so (at least the total of the Kirby proposal)? Or legit as in someone on the other side of the bargaining table has verified it?

Legit as in someone on the other side (east MEC) has verified it. If fact, it was within a couple of weeks of going out to the pilot group.

Is his "95% of the synergy benefits have been realized" another?

No. That number was realized about two years into the merger.

Well, that's proof then - Parker not saying something is absolute iron-clad 24 carat gold fact. I'll freely admit that I don't have numbers. Just wonder about the costs of separate ops - something never disclosed in the "Everything is going the right way, we're positioned for the future" pep talks that pass for analyst conference calls.

You called Parker a numbers man, and he is. Do you honestly believe that if it was costing him more to run two pilot groups that he would continue to do so? Come on Jim, you're brighter than that.

Hey, you're the one that said "Smaller, right now, will survive." Without getting into the express type carriers, there's not many airlines smaller than US to pick from as an example. Hawaiian & Alaska have special situations, Spirit is privately owned so other than they're still in business one can't compare numbers, Allegient is a special case. Airtran is low cost. Who's left that's smaller?

How about downsize? Is that a more palatable term for you?

You can't say that keeping this airline the same size as it was a few years ago when everyone and their mom was flying. Doing so would be ludicrous. Look at LAS as a start. We had 300+ flights out of there and they were well packed. Now were down to nothing. Is that ceding the market or adapting to current conditions?

Well, you got the second part right.

Hey, what can I say.

With WN's history of never furloughing you're moving in the right direction.

Times change. And there's always a first time for everything. Motorola, Sony, Microsoft, etc. all have had their doses of reality as well. And how about that loss SWA reported?

No doubt that the airlines are in a tough environment - have been for a year or so. Maybe part of the problem is who you've had to compare Parker to vs who I've had. From my vantage point he's a decent money man but no airline CEO.

Parker has been at AWA close to 20 years in one position or another. He's not one of the corporate raiders you're used to working under.

And I agree, he is more of a money man. His ops guy and right-hand man died of cancer.

 

[AirbusAVE]

I just want to know how some people think keeping all the LGA - Hartford type express routes as opposed to being THE dominant airline out of DCA is stupid... It seems like a no-brainer. I think it was beyond an excellent move - the swap of downsizing LGA to upgrade DCA. I personally think anyone would be stupid not to take advantage of such an oppurtunity. Thats consolidation. That's what the industry needs and that is what is best for US Airways and for Delta. US Airways will have a strangle on DCA and its slot controlled. Yeah, it may be unfair that US Airways is locked in, but who cares?!?!










And yeah. US Airways is being chased off of Boston - Nantucket. That goldmine of a route.



What can Boston do that Philadelphia can't? I know Boston has more competition from low fare airlines. I know Philadelphia doesn't. Milk the cash cow. Charge them sky high fares until a competitor comes in. Sky high fares as in reasonable fares...

 

[HPDriver]

Depends on your definition of "fittest" I suppose. I didn't mean "the strongest" or "speediest" or "most adept" at one thing or another. I meant the term as used in "Survival of the fittest" - "Natural selection conceived of as a struggle for life in which only those organisms best adapted to existing conditions are able to survive and reproduce."

Notice that the definition says nothing about size making adaptation easier or harder.

Jim

You're talking in circles. Being "fit" really has nothing to do survival. As Darwin pointed out:

"better adapted for immediate, local environment" by differential preservation of organisms that are better adapted to live in changing environments."

Notice that there is absolutely NO reference to fitness. Its about being able to keep up. A large, lumbering airline that refuses to adjust to changing economical conditions is destined for extinction. Retrenching, consolidation are used to make those adjustments.