If one big domino falls :(

Actually, I was refering to the quote that stated NWA had the most underfunded pension. Which as you know is INCORRECT. Lastly, Pan Am sold UAL it's Pacific rountes to avoid Chapter 11. I know....I was there. When a company enters into bankruptcy anything can happen. It should be avoided as an absolutly LAST resort. One hopes UAL will not have to face that. OhCaptainron:NWAC - Northwest made great strides in reducing its costs BEFORE 9/11, and took drastic steps immediately after 9/11 to conserve precious dollars. As a result, it has the largest cash cushion/war chest of any of the majors, and is likely to be the first to reach profitability.[BR][BR]Busdrv: :But owe the most to the pension fund, when adjusted for revenue, of all the majors. Potential cash drain. Imagine the trouble going head to head with lower cost structured UAL in the PAC. Not good![BR][BR]
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #17
Thanks for clarifying BlueSkies. Yes...the sale to UA of PAC as well as LHR were done to avoid ch11. Although the latter didn't happen in time. I remember that UA actually provided PA with debtor-in-possession financing.

I also remember (via my dad) that Crandall hit the roof when Wolf annoucned the LHR purchase. He fired off several letters to PA to try and out-bid UA. I remember that UA sent a legal letter to Crandall urging him to back off.

That set in motion the TWA LHR transaction. And boy did Icahn screw Crandall when he refused to lower the purchase price after the government forced AA to divest two LHR routes (don't remember which cities).

On a personal note...off to SEA on Sunday on UA. Actually paid full-price. Hey...as a customer...I'm trying to do my part as well!
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/11/2002 4:58:12 PM Blueskies/400 UpperDeck wrote:

Busdrv: :"But owe the most to the pension fund, when adjusted for revenue, of all the majors.
----------------
[/blockquote]

The key phrase being WHEN ADJUSTED FOR REVENUE! My neighbor has a house payment twice as much as mine, but his income is 3 times as much. Who would have the most trouble making the payment? My figures are based on YE 2001 so obviously a LOT could have changed since then. As can be expected, the airlines don't exactly advertise where the pension fund sits on a daily basis.
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/11/2002 6:35:39 PM Steiner wrote:

Aren't the Pacific rim customers sensitive to a carrier that files for bankruptcy?
----------------
[/blockquote]

EXTREMELY! It's my understanding that when the word was mentioned, our PAC bookings NOSEDIVED. Seems in Japan, BK means, done, over, hari kari, close the door, sell office equipment, finished. UAL has had to spend big money advertising to educate our customers.
 
Does anyone actually know how many Pan Am routes that we are presently not flying ,I hear a bunch of authoritys have not ever been flown that we own. This seems like a logical thing to look at considering all those 400s are sitting out there in the desert
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/11/2002 11:29:02 PM Taipan wrote:

Does anyone actually know how many Pan Am routes that we are presently not flying ,I hear a bunch of authoritys have not ever been flown that we own. This seems like a logical thing to look at considering all those 400s are sitting out there in the desert
----------------
[/blockquote]

It's my understanding that some of the route authorities expire if they haven't been used for ages.
 
How about we start flying IAH-MEX twice a day maybe even make it SFO-IAH-MEX that would be a good start since I think we have this route from our Pan Am route authoritys.Maybe even Busdrv or Mancityfan could stop by or Breakroom for a visit or pep talk
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/14/2002 12:37:13 AM Taipan wrote:

How about we start flying IAH-MEX twice a day maybe even make it SFO-IAH-MEX that would be a good start since I think we have this route from our Pan Am route authoritys.

Don't know how that would do against Cal, but hey, if a guppies gonna sit 16 hours ANYWAY, I think we should be looking for SOMEWHERE to run it without competing against ourselves (ie, not to a UAL hub).

Maybe even Busdrv or Mancityfan could stop by our Breakroom for a visit our pep talk

You're on!! [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif']
----------------
[/blockquote]
 
Taipan,

You can rest assured that if any of those markets priced out as profitable, we'd probably be flying them. Bringing B744's out of the desert to fly to new international destinations (i.e. open new stations), would be extremely costly, especially in the current environment. Therefore, the revenue forecast would have to be pretty darn good to cover those costs and price out as profitable.
 
Taipan,

Most of the examples you cited included cities that have competitor hubs. Therefore, it would make no sense for UA to operate flights there, where we do not have a hub. It would put us at a significant disadvantage because the hub carrier can offer numerous connecting opportunities. So UA would have to rely on almost all O & D traffic to make the route successful, which is almost impossible, especially in this environment. Increasing aircraft utilization is only good if the added flying you're putting into your schedule generates positive cash for the airline.
 
How about this idea UAL777flyer
1.Continue hub and spoke however to get better usage of our aircraft throw in say 50-100 flights a day from non ua hubs aka IAH-MEX or SFO-IAH-MEX or ANC-SEA-IAH or DFW-MEX heck even DEN-IAH-MEX or ORD-IAH-MEX to get more whatever the term is for aircraft usage ?
2.Investgate whatever cities pairs have the highest fares and lets add some offbeat non ua hub flight to these cities.
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/14/2002 1:08:02 PM UAL777flyer wrote:

Taipan,

Most of the examples you cited included cities that have competitor hubs. Therefore, it would make no sense for UA to operate flights there, where we do not have a hub. It would put us at a significant disadvantage because the hub carrier can offer numerous connecting opportunities. So UA would have to rely on almost all O & D traffic to make the route successful, which is almost impossible, especially in this environment. Increasing aircraft utilization is only good if the added flying you're putting into your schedule generates positive cash for the airline.
----------------
[/blockquote]

How much connecting traffic does jetblu have on it's flights from IAD-OAK? But they have cheap jets (teaser lease rates)! Well UAL has FREE jets siting on the ramp in IAH for 14-16 hours a day. Cheaper pilots? UAL is inefficiently using it's pilots force, could easily add suplimental legs without needing additional pilots. Gate Rent? we're already paying for them. Plus they could connect on Star in MEX. Why not one stop service from DEN to MEX? Would our DEN pax rather fly all the way out to SFO or LAX to connect, or do they just go on AMR through DFW? Do you know how many 1K millions we have in DFW and IAH? Those guppies to those two cities are some of the most nose heavy flights I've ever seen. Think outside the box!!!
 
Busdrvr:

UA would be committing suicide by trying to compete with CO on IAH-MEX. CO runs 5-6 flights a day to MEX, which are supported by substantial connecting feed in addition to strong O&D traffic.

A UA IAH-MEX flight would have no connecting feed to speak of, and would be subject to serious revenue dilution as a result of MX getting its share from any bookings made on the flight. Simply put, a UA plane resting in IAH should remain at rest until it is scheduled to return to one of UA's hubs.
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/14/2002 8:40:24 PM avek00 wrote:

Busdrvr:

UA would be committing suicide by trying to compete with CO on IAH-MEX. CO runs 5-6 flights a day to MEX, which are supported by substantial connecting feed in addition to strong O&D traffic.

A UA IAH-MEX flight would have no connecting feed to speak of, and would be subject to serious revenue dilution as a result of MX getting its share from any bookings made on the flight. Simply put, a UA plane "resting" in IAH should remain at rest until it is scheduled to return to one of UA's hubs.
----------------
[/blockquote]


Kind of like a jetblu flight from IAD to OAK has no connecting feed? Revenue dilution BECAUSE of a connection on STAR? That's a new one. we'll have to cancel all our code shares because of the revenue dilution... If CAL can fly 5-6 flights at essentially monopoly pricing levels, there is room to poach some revenue, while simultaniously taking a leak on Gordo's leg. The CASM for the leg would be VERY low (Free jet, gate, and crew), while offering one additional connecting op for our pax from ORD, IAD, MIA and DEN to get to MEX (and beyond). Explain for me WHY the cost of op this leg would be so high. Explain to me how you can't go into someone elses hub and make money on a direct flight, regardless of how low your marginal cost on that leg is. The fact that you can't see revenue ops outside the fortress hubs makes you a perfect candidate for UAL management
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top