From This Observer's Perch

USA320Pilot

Veteran
May 18, 2003
8,175
1,539
Yesterday’s sudden announcement that Dave Siegel would step down as US Airways’ chief executive officer leaves the future uncertain for the airline and its employees. Siegel said in a statement his "leaving is in the best interests of the company, as management seeks to secure the necessary changes to make the airline competitive."

"Unfortunately, the past two years have been difficult for all of us, and I believe our ability to move forward and make additional changes require a change in leadership." He said he hoped his departure would be "a first step in a healing process that will enable the company to complete its restructuring."

Apparently the airline's deepening financial problems and a logjam with its unions about the upcoming restructuring led to Siegel’s departure, which permits him to obtain a $4.5 million severance package.

The New York Times reported Siegel's resignation was sought by the airline's chairman, David Bronner, according to people briefed on the conversation. The request came at the beginning of a three-day meeting by the US Airways board in Montgomery, Alabama.

According to the Washington Post, the board believed Siegel and the unions had reached an impasse in negotiating needed cost cuts. The unions, which have four of 11 seats on the board, said they no longer trusted Siegel but were willing to work with Lakefield and US Airways Chairman David G. Bronner, according to a US Airways source close to the negotiations.

"Mr. Siegel's resignation, which was not unexpected, was apparently due to unwillingness of the airline's unions to consider further labor cost concessions without a change in senior management, a situation that has become common in the airline industry over the past year," said Standard & Poor's credit analyst Philip Baggaley.

Separately, Siegel had been scheduled to present a business plan to the US Airways board today that was to have outlined steps the airline would take to reduce its costs to the level of low-fare carriers, particularly Southwest, which appears to now be the direction of the current management team.

The Pittsburgh Tribune Review today noted "Mr. Lakefield has been appointed to the position to continue with the company's business plan to become a stronger, more competitive airline," said airline spokesman David Castelveter this morning.
The Post noted, "This is the sacrificial lamb to satisfy the union gods and to save the company and save the union members' jobs," said Raymond Neidl, an airline analyst with Blaylock & Partners LP. Jack Stephan, spokesman for the US Airways pilots union, praised Lakefield. "He brings with him perhaps the most important tool -- his record of team-building. He respects the employees."

Interestingly, Siegel's resignation activates a similar severance package for Chief Financial Officer Neal S. Cohen. US Airways spokesman David Castelveter said Cohen has no plans to leave, the Post noted.

Passenger flying out of Pittsburgh this morning hope this signals a new chapter for US Airways. "It's a good thing," said Todd Perz of Pine, who travels almost every week as a sales executive. "They needed to restructure. They need a fresh start and to make major changes. Change starts at the top," the Tribune-Review noted.

From this observer’s perch, Lakefield will be the leader to get the company through the next round of negotiations with its unions, which will include rank-and-file ratification of the pending RJ Scope relief and so called “Going Forward Plan†across-the-board contract changes.

Meanwhile, reports indicate the company could seek contract changes similar in scope to America West Airlines, which today posted a Q1 profit and then told analysts in a conference call it expects to be profitable for the full year, reiterating the outlook given in the previous quarter.

For the long-term, provided unions agree to participate in the new business plan designed to dramatically boost productivity and drive down unit costs, then I expect a new CEO or COO to be named with potential candidates former Continental president Greg Brenneman, current board member and former United Airlines president Rono Dutta, and US Airways’ senior vice president of corporate planning and express Bruce Ashby. However, with the changing economic climate, after Lakefield’s work is complete, Brooner could decide it may be in the best interests of RSA to sell or merge the company.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot
 
And for the record, wee did NOT hear this first from USA320Pilot.

Second, I think you were on record as predicting Seigel stayed with the company.

Again, your sources, whatever they are, failed you.

I would be surprised if Siegel left this spring. In regard to the $4.5 million, that payment can be re-negotiated and a larger sum made if he is successful at making the company a viable, stand-alone business entity or by being involved in M&A activity.

For example, look at the amount of money Stephen Wolf would have made of the last United Airlines merger attempt would have been concluded.

Moreover, his personal UAIR stock has a current market value of about $16 million, therefore, another $4.5 million is about another 20% gain in net worth that will not make a huge difference in his liefstyle.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

That was on March 17, in a poll entitled Seigel staying, or does he take the money and run.

Incidently, the results of that poll were:

70 - Siegel takes the money and runs (53%)
61 - Siegel stays (47%)
 
Whatever the case may be?

USA320Pilot is going to have a new batch of apples to polish for the up-coming jumpseaters of tomorrow.

The more things change..the more certain things remain the same. :p :D
 
For the sake of the employees at USAirways, I hope Rono Dutta is not the "new" leader as USA320 suggest. Rono is a very very baaad man. He was part of the leadership that allowed UAL to progress to the point of BK due to his arrogance.

Under Rono UAL wasted millions on Avolar and the failed US acquisition. His blinded obsession and inability to change course is one no airline should have to endure again.

Just say roNO! ;)
 
magsau said:
For the sake of the employees at USAirways, I hope Rono Dutta is not the "new" leader as USA320 suggest. Rono is a very very baaad man. He was part of the leadership that allowed UAL to progress to the point of BK due to his arrogance.

Under Rono UAL wasted millions on Avolar and the failed US acquisition. His blinded obsession and inability to change course is one no airline should have to endure again.

Just say roNO! ;)
If the past actions of this BOD is any indication he will in fact be the man. UAIR has a "thing" about attracting the worst of the worst.
 
"From this observer’s perch, Lakefield will be the leader to get the company through the next round of negotiations with its unions, which will include rank-and-file ratification of the pending RJ Scope relief and so called “Going Forward Planâ€￾ across-the-board contract changes."

If Lakefield's plan is just Siegel's plan with a new pitchman, the future is dark. I wrote the following for the ALPA board to address those who believe the 400+ new RJ's are vital because "we need the revenue stream".

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

Gentlemen (you know who you are),

Having read your numerous posts that were long on rhetoric and short on facts, I thought I'd wrap everything up in one nice package for you. If you'd care to refute any of this with your own facts, have at it - just remember that rhetorical tyrades and put-downs are no justification for throwing more money or careers (never yours though) down the tubes.

You often mention the POR revenue forecasts as justification for all the RJ's on order. In your zeal to give yet again, you've obviously forgotten that late last year both Bronner and Siegel stated publically that the POR wasn't working. Maybe your idea of "success" is slavishly following a failed plan, but many of us disagree.

You mention that RJ's have a niche and rightly so. Nobody is arguing that point. Smaller markets, long thin markets, and new markets are ideal uses for RJ's - their lower overall operating cost makes them perfect for these applications, just as there are some markets ideal for turboprops. However, is PHL-ATL a niche market? We compete with Delta's and AirTran mainline aircraft with RJ's (except for 1 ATL-PHL & 2 PHL-ATL per day). Do you really think potential customers will pay extra to cover the higher unit costs of our RJ's in this market? How about NYC-BUF,SYR, & ROC where we compete against jetBlue's A320's with a combination of turboprops and RJ's? Do you expect people to pay extra to ride our Express flights because "US Airways needs the revenue"?

Therein lies the single biggest fallacy of your argument. Yes we need revenue - not because a failed POR said so but because until our unit revenue exceeds our unit expenses we are doomed. The RJ's affect the unit expense side of that equation adversely - to believe otherwise is sheer lunacy. Numerous independent sources say that the unit cost of a CRJ-701 or Emb-170 is at least 2 cents higher than our smallest mainline aircraft - a higher unit cost that must be paid before the revenue that you point to becomes a profit. You can repeat the "Revenue" mantra until you're blue in the face, but revenue alone will not let us survive. What is needed is unit revenue greater than unit costs - that's profits - and anything that unnecessarily increases our unit costs is harmful to our chances for survival.

We already have a larger percentage of our system capacity provided by Express operations than any other major airline - meaning more of our capacity is provided by higher unit cost planes than any of our competition. In the 4th quarter, nearly one in three passengers made at least part of their journey with us on an Express airplane - meaning our cost to transport them was higher than if they had been on mainline. At a time when most people who live in our "core market" live within a reasonable drive of LCC service, can we afford to use higher unit cost planes to provide ever more of our capacity when our unit revenue is already not covering unit costs?

Perhaps a look at our primary LCC competition could be instructive. Southwest has no RJ's, though they are studying the use of a Emb-190 size plane. JetBlue has Emb-190's on order, admitting that they will have a unit cost impact but believing that the benefit of openning smaller markets justifies the higher unit cost. AirTran (the highest cost of the three) experimented with RJ feed using an affiliate and terminated the arrangement because the higher unit cost wasn't justified. If lots of 50-70 seat RJ's were the answer, don't you think it possible that each of these carriers would be deploying them as fast as possible?

Maybe you believe (as Siegel apparently did) that our Express partners operate in a Wonderland where there is no LCC competition. A Wonderland where the public will have no choice but to subsidize the higher unit costs of RJ's with higher fares. A Wonderland where only mainline unit cost matters, and that RJ revenue will flow unencumbered by such pesky "real world" issues like unit cost. I hate to burst your bubble, but there is no Alice, no White Rabbit, and no Wonderland.

Those of us that live in the real world understand that another 400+ RJ's are not the answer - at least not if the question is "How is US Airways to become a viable company". For us the answer is to forget at least half of those orders, take maybe 100-150 CRJ-701's and Emb-170's to replace some of the turboprops and smaller RJ's. Use the financing instead to add mainline aircraft that would allow our non-labor and much of our labor costs to be spread over more seat miles, thus lowering our unit costs. This, along with the structural changes that should have been made to our operation a year ago could make us a viable competitor. Just deploying RJ's as fast as we can get them will assure nothing but a viscious cycle of chasing higher unit costs with more concessions. While you may find that acceptable, many of us do not.

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

While I didn't include it in the above, in the 4th quarter we had $247 million more revenue than Southwest. If revenue was all that mattered, we should have been wildly profitable. Obviously we were not. Case closed.

Jim
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #7
Funnyguy:

I wrote the comments you quoted before the RC5 elected to renege on their promise to work with the company.

My thought was Siegel would not run from the fight and that probably still holds true, but with the company and the RC5 at an impasse, something needed to give to change the logjam.

According to news reports Bronner recognized this and he appointed Lakefield to take the helm. It now appears from union and company reports that Lakefield will likely give the employees one more chance to participate in the "Going Forward Plan."

What's important to note is that Lakefield and Bronner are venture capitalists who are investors, not airline managers.

US Airways' CASM is still too high in light of further industry wide yield declines and the company must dramatically increase its productivity of assets, facilities, and people to be successful. If it does, it can average down unit costs and be more competitive.

The company has let it be known that the airline wants to mirror much of America West and its transformation. Interestingly, today America West posted another profit during a very difficult quarter.

America West's 1Q results mark a very strong cost-driven showing despite intense competition and extremely high fuel prices. I believe America West continues to reap the benefits of its simplified fare structure and very low marginal costs, which from a business perspective is impressive.

The company’s press release indicated Unit revenue flat during the quarter despite rising stage length while unit cost excluding fuel was down 13%. Revenue momentum slowed again, but cost reductions now gaining momentum.

Thus, it appears Siegel’s plan to transform US Airways into a LCC/network carrier hybrid has merit.

Regardless of who is the CEO, US Airways’ problems still exist and it’s up to the employees on whether or not they want to participate in the “Going Forward Planâ€￾ or liquidate the airline.

It’s really that simple.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot
 
Lakefield has several things going for him:

He was instrumental in keeping Lehmen together at a time when folks were saying it would be sold. He's a consensus builder. If he's actually honest about what needs to happen and tries to actually show a plan that includes more than simply beating labor to a pulp, perhaps the unions will be willing to follow. Siegel never really got past "beat up on labor" and was clearly not equipped to be either an adequate strategic planner nor an adequate operations guy.

If Lakefield can get a solid operational executive to come to US (since Uncle Al is clearly a dismal failure), perhaps there is hope.
 
BoeingBoy said:
-------------------

While I didn't include it in the above, in the 4th quarter we had $247 million more revenue than Southwest. If revenue was all that mattered, we should have been wildly profitable. Obviously we were not. Case closed.

Jim
Nicely said Jim.
Now a question. Do you know or does anyone know for that matter if numbers have been run on increasing the utilization of the mainline A/C to the 12 hour mark to see what the impact could be on not only revenue but costs as well? I've been intrigued by some comments you've made about this and done some limited research and from what I can tell they could move mainline A/C into longer stage lengths, increase revenue in doing so as well as driving more cost out of the operation by moving to mainline A/C instead of RJ's. Not only that but they certainly could come up with some very attractive city pairs on the long haul side that would drive cost out of the CSM. Maybe I'm missing something but that's what it appears like could happen if they got their act together.
 
USA320Pilot, your "perch" is somewhat clouded. You sound like Siegel, the employees have to give more and more. Well, funny you mentioned America West. You know WHY they are making money, their simplified fare structure, that's why. Employees don't have control over the fares, management does. So, until management gets their act together in pricing department, employees should be very wary of more give backs. You keep preaching CASM, well, that doesn't go down over night. That takes time. To be frank, this management has wasted precious time not managing the airline to its full potential. Everybody knows the billions employees have given back, I have yet to see this company restructure and implement a sensible fare structure and streamlined operations. We keep hearing it's coming. Where the hell is it? Let's see what management proposes and go from there.
 
MrAeroMan,

"Do you know or does anyone know for that matter if numbers have been run on increasing the utilization of the mainline A/C to the 12 hour mark to see what the impact could be on not only revenue but costs as well?"

Not directly - there are too many variables. How many aircraft would increase utilization how much - European is maxed out on utilization, probably much the same for many of the planes that do trans-con and Caribbean flying. How many additional seat miles would be generated. What stage lengths for the extra flying.

For general info, our 737's have a direct operating cost of just over 6 cents per ASM (which includes aircraft cost). Flying a currently possessed plane more would result in the additional ASM's being cheaper than that since the cost of the plane is already paid for.

Due to several factors - stage length and age (maintenance) being primary - the 737's have the highest direct operating CASM.

Along this line, the following from AWA's 1st quarter results caught my eye:

"The primary drivers of the airline's CASM improvement during its first quarter 2004 were the increase in aircraft utilization and stage length, as well as the Company's cost reduction plan implemented in early 2003." CASM "decreased 8.5 percent" while "Excluding fuel and special items, CASM decreased 13.0 percent"

If you've ever looked at the curve plotting stage length vs operating cost for ANY airplane, you can see the dramatic difference that stage length makes - especially out to 1000-1500 miles.

Jim
 
Regardless of who is the CEO, US Airways’ problems still exist and it’s up to the employees on whether or not they want to participate in the “Going Forward Planâ€￾ or liquidate the airline.


USA320Pilot,

So the UTC is not an option? Thought is was a forgone conclusion? Is that not what you have been belaboring for years? ;)
 
from 320:

"What's important to note is that Lakefield and Bronner are venture capitalists who are investors, not airline managers"



this could be foreboding for the U groups...... :(
 
EyeInTheSky said:
You know WHY they are making money, their simplified fare structure, that's why.
If HP had US's costs, they'd still be losing money. Even with their simplified fare structure.
 
mweiss,

" If HP had US's costs, they'd still be losing money. Even with their simplified fare structure."

Obviously correct - the simplified fare structure isn't the only factor in their profit. But without it they would have either made less or lost money - according to their words.

A few statistics from AWA (year over year):

Average daily A/C utilization - 10.8 hours (up 6.9%) - we're static
Block hours - up 5.1% - we're static
Average stage length - 1037 (up 5.2%) - we're under 800

Reckon any of this had something to do with their success (and lower costs)?

Jim
 

Latest posts

Back
Top