Interesting 737-300 Comparisons

[FM2436]

There's a article in the June 2004 issue of Airline Business titled "US Airways Reinvented". Not much written in the article that many here don't already know, but there is included an interesting paragraph comparing US Airways' operating costs of a 737-300 against a unidentified LCC who operates 737s.

Third Paragraph:

"The carrier (meaning US Airways) is clear that it must still lower costs. Its trip cost between Phildelphia and Orlando is over $14,000 with a 126-seat Boeing 737-300, while an unidentified low-cost carrier's is under $8,000 with a one-class 137-seat 737-300. So the US Airways break-even fare at an 83% load factor is $135, while that of the low cost carrier's is $70 at the same load factor."

 

[delldude]

shouldn't be too hard to figure out who it is....

 

[insp89]

There's a article in the June 2004 issue of Airline Business titled "US Airways Reinvented". Not much written in the article that many here don't already know, but there is included an interesting paragraph comparing US Airways' operating costs of a 737-300 against a unidentified LCC who operates 737s.

Third Paragraph:

"The carrier (meaning US Airways) is clear that it must still lower costs. Its trip cost between Phildelphia and Orlando is over $14,000 with a 126-seat Boeing 737-300, while an unidentified low-cost carrier's is under $8,000 with a one-class 137-seat 737-300. So the US Airways break-even fare at an 83% load factor is $135, while that of the low cost carrier's is $70 at the same load factor."

Clear that U must lower costs ??? Looks to me this comparison would be a LOT more accurate if both aircraft were CONFIGURED in the same way.. Ya Think ???

 

[delldude]

Clear that U must lower costs ??? Looks to me this comparison would be a LOT more accurate if both aircraft were CONFIGURED in the same way.. Ya Think ???

i think they refer to operation costs,wages.....compared to U.

 

[geo1004]

i think they refer to operation costs,wages.....compared to U.

BINGO! Correct 100%.

The seniority (labor cost) of the foks who fly, clean, work on and push-back the US 737 are a big part of that inequity.

 

[mbmbbost]

I'd want to find out who provided that $14,000 figure and how they came up with it before I placed much stock in it. It works out even higher (.13) than the systemwide CASM, which really doesn't make sense to me, considering the airports and that this is a nonstop flight.

 

[700UW]

BINGO! Correct 100%.

The seniority (labor cost) of the foks who fly, clean, work on and push-back the US 737 are a big part of that inequity.

Southwest rampers make way more then US and our Ramp pushes all planes except 5 stations.

 

[insp89]

BINGO! Correct 100%.

The seniority (labor cost) of the foks who fly, clean, work on and push-back the US 737 are a big part of that inequity.

Does anyone know what an A&P mechanic @ Southwest makes vs. Usairways ? Also, How much does Southwest pay to have their aircraft maintained from their outsourcing companies they use ?

 

[700UW]

WN mechs will top out next year at $42 an hour I believe.

 

[flyhigh]

mbmbbost-

It makes a lot of sense since US's $0.13 CASM is an average. This is probable a medium length of haul for the US system, but on the low side of that. Int'l routes to Europe, however, take up a lot of ASM's and have lower CASM. When you average it our, it makes a lot of sense to see US's cost on this route be relatively high...especially when you add in the utilization rate for US vs. unnamed LCC. Since things like a/c ownership are spread over all the flights, a larger amount has to be passed to fewer flights in US's case. Lastly, there is the economy of scale issue. Consider that US's fleet of 733's has shrunk over time, thus increasing the cost of pilot bases, maitenance, etc. Unnamed LCC, however, have a relatively large fleet of the 733's thus lowering the trip costs because they have more ASM's/flights to spread the cost out on.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

The REAL issue here is asset utilization. If I remember correctly, something like 65% of the airlines costs are FIXED costs; by using the aircraft only 8 or so hours per day, they are basically giving money away. Management could average down these costs by utilizing the assets more (including gates, aircraft and ground equipment) per day. I'll bet if you knew who the LCC was (my guess: LUV), you'd find out that they use their stuff WAY more (in LUV's case, something like 12 hours/day/aircraft). THAT'S THE REAL ISSUE, NOT WAGES AND BENEFITS!

 

[Hope777]

And that is a great point. To add to that, in our station, we have 4 gates and use only 2 except for RON's. That adds greatly to the costs of that station. However on a good note, the Company has entered into a contract to lease some on the office space out and ground handle Independance Air. The net result is the recall of ** TEN ** Fulltime agents to get this work done. Does anyone know how many hours gates go unused in Phl?

 

[700UW]

Hope that is good news, in CLT LH wanted US to do all the ground handling, maintenance, cleaning and customer service on the CLT-MUC flight and US turned the offer down.

They talk about generating revenue and they let a golden opportunity go by.

 

[Light Years]

Hope that is good news, in CLT LH wanted US to do all the ground handling, maintenance, cleaning and customer service on the CLT-MUC flight and US turned the offer down.

They talk about generating revenue and they let a golden opportunity go by.

Are you serious? That would have been a great revenue opportunity. US should be offering to staff Star partner flights in all of its larger stations. I'd imagine that the other carrier pays to train the US employees, who are already there anyway. It also makes for a staff that is more knowlegable about the Star Alliance product.

 

[700UW]

Yes I am serious.