Load Fators....

[Seatacus]

Is the company saying load factors are down? If so, what routes are they down? In SEA we can't get big enough planes to handle the traffic. What gives? Full planes and 5% less, what a moral boost. By the way I meant Load Factors for the topic.

 

[genejockey]

The companies claim of eroding passenger demand as a result of the Iraq War is completely bogus. It is very clear that load factors are not down. April 2003 loads were virtually identical to that of April 2002: 74.1% vs. 74.3% respectively. As of yesterday, the May 2003 load factor = 72.2%. May 2002 loads were 73.6%. Loads for this past week are very high:
Sun 5/18 86%
Mon 5/19 78%
Tue 5/20 64%
Wed 5/21 76%
Thu 5/22 87% (Fri-Mon loads should be very high as well)
I would expect the final load numbers for May 2003 to be virtually identical to those of May 2002. Of course, these loads are not "floating the US boat", but I don''t believe anyone can make an effective arguement for a negative "war effect". If anything, there have been alot of positives for the airline industry as a direct result of the war in Iraq.

 

[ITRADE]

----------------
On 5/23/2003 9:16:14 AM genejockey wrote:

The companies claim of eroding passenger demand as a result of the Iraq War is completely bogus. It is very clear that load factors are not down. April 2003 loads were virtually identical to that of April 2002: 74.1% vs. 74.3% respectively. As of yesterday, the May 2003 load factor = 72.2%. May 2002 loads were 73.6%. Loads for this past week are very high:
Sun 5/18 86%
Mon 5/19 78%
Tue 5/20 64%
Wed 5/21 76%
Thu 5/22 87% (Fri-Mon loads should be very high as well)
I would expect the final load numbers for May 2003 to be virtually identical to those of May 2002. Of course, these loads are not "floating the US boat", but I don''t believe anyone can make an effective arguement for a negative "war effect". If anything, there have been alot of positives for the airline industry as a direct result of the war in Iraq.

----------------​

Note the following consideration:

Q2 is US''s best quarter for load factors and total numbers. So, a <1% reduction in load is pretty amazing.

It''d be interesting to see what US''s transatlantic loads were like.

 

[wings396]

Keep in mind that last May we were not in the concession mode. If the load factor is near the same and we are working for less, with less on the payroll...something is wrong somewhere......

 

[dfw79]

What were the loads when compared to Feb and Mar of this year? War effects are relatively short term...so you can''t really compare them to last year - in the months following 9/11.

 

[DLFlyer31]

Keep in mind that US''s loadfactor''s wouldn''t be so great if US hadn''t chopped capacity by so much. Imagine if US had the same capacity in April 2003 as they had in April 2002, would the loadfactor be the same? I don''t think so.

The number of people who boarded a USAirways plane in April 2003 compared to Aprile 2002, declined by 18.5%.

 

[Twicebaked]

----------------
On 5/23/2003 10:33:13 AM DLFlyer31 wrote:

Keep in mind that US''s loadfactor''s wouldn''t be so great if US hadn''t chopped capacity by so much. Imagine if US had the same capacity in April 2003 as they had in April 2002, would the loadfactor be the same? I don''t think so.

The number of people who boarded a USAirways plane in April 2003 compared to Aprile 2002, declined by 18.5%.

----------------​

That is because people cannot get on many US flights.

In Pittsburgh alone load factors of all other major airlines rose 20% to 30% in the first quarter. These passengers used to belong to US, but now they are forced to go elswhere.

People get tired of getting "bumped" off of flights.

US is doing somethings right, but MANY things wrong.

remember this..."build it and they will come"....but...."shrink it and they will GOOOO"

 

[TomBascom]

----------------
On 5/23/2003 10:40:12 AM Twicebaked wrote:

----------------
On 5/23/2003 10:33:13 AM DLFlyer31 wrote:

Keep in mind that US''s loadfactor''s wouldn''t be so great if US hadn''t chopped capacity by so much.&nbsp; Imagine if US had the same capacity in April 2003 as they had in April 2002, would the loadfactor be the same?&nbsp; I don''t think so.

The number of people who boarded a USAirways plane in April 2003 compared to Aprile 2002, declined by 18.5%.&nbsp;

----------------​

That is because people cannot get on many US flights.

In Pittsburgh alone load factors of all other major airlines rose 20% to 30% in the first quarter.&nbsp; These passengers used to belong to US, but now they are forced to go elswhere.

People get tired of getting "bumped" off of flights.

US is doing somethings right, but MANY things wrong.

remember this..."build it and they will come"....but...."shrink it and they will GOOOO"

----------------​

Build it and they might come...

But I''ve got to agree -- load factors of 70% + are happening because the peak loads are at 100% and people are being turned away. Flight after flight is going out packed to the gills. People are going elsewhere because they can''t get seats.

The idea that ever higher load factors are the holy grail isn''t healthy. Like it or not there are peaks and valleys in travel -- you''re always going to have a significant number of mid-week and weekend flights that are, to be polite, "sparsely loaded". There''s only so much you can do about that. If half the week the flights are half full then a LF of 75% means that they were 100% full the rest of the week...

So either raise prices during peak periods or add capacity. Running at 100% isn''t going to make anyone happy.

 

[airlineorphan]

Here''s a question:

When a flight is oversold, how do the passengers who are turned away or booked on another flight (especially on an OAL) get calculated into load factor? I''ve witnessed a pretty high number of oversold flights lately, and if those overbookings are not accounted for in load factor numbers, it seems the load factor numbers would be misleading.

Thanks!
-Airlineorphan

 

[Seatacus]

----------------
On 5/23/2003 8:29:44 PM airlineorphan wrote:

Here''s a question:

When a flight is oversold, how do the passengers who are turned away or booked on another flight (especially on an OAL) get calculated into load factor?
Thanks!
-Airlineorphan

----------------​

Good point...although the flight may go out 100% full what other factors should be considered. How about the lost revenue to other airlines, the passengers that must be put in first class because that is all we can protect them on, the bad public relations we have when folks are dismayed over having a res but no seat. I feel that filling a flight 100% may be great in the short term but in the long term the stress we put people thru and the loss of productivity of agents dealing with oversales is not worth it. Oversale flights can get ugly and the public sees this and I feel this shows the company in an unfavorable light

 

[airlineorphan]

----------------
On 5/23/2003 9:05:27 PM Seatacus wrote:

----------------
On 5/23/2003 8:29:44 PM airlineorphan wrote:

Here''s a question:

When a flight is oversold, how do the passengers who are turned away or booked on another flight (especially on an OAL) get calculated into load factor?
Thanks!
-Airlineorphan

----------------​

Good point...although the flight may go out 100% full what other factors should be considered. How about the lost revenue to other airlines, the passengers that must be put in first class because that is all we can protect them on, the bad public relations we have when folks are dismayed over having a res but no seat. I feel that filling a flight 100% may be great in the short term but in the long term the stress we put people thru and the loss of productivity of agents dealing with oversales is not worth it. Oversale flights can get ugly and the public sees this and I feel this shows the company in an unfavorable light

----------------​

Well, ya know.... As Mark Twain used to say: "There are three kinds of lies. Lies, Damn Lies... and Statistics."

To get the load factor much higher, we''ll have to strap passengers onto the wings with bungee cords on some of our flights. We are giving away the farm in these oversold situations.

It will only be worse with the Small Jets!

-Airlineorphan

 

[AtlanticBeach]

This weekend, there was 1 empty seat in F on 2 319''s and 2 757''s. No open seats in Y.

The 319 coming home last night was changed from a 320 about a week ago. About 15 customers were bumped, although a non-revving FA did get aboard. The agent meeting the flight said the outbound this morning was oversold by 28!

Where are the empty seats?

 

[PHL]

Why do people keep talking about high loads as if that automatically equals profit!??

The domestic flights, packed as they may be, are not necessarily making money. They''re just keeping the customer base. Keep announcing new Carrib and Europe service, because that''s where your profits will be.

$298 PHL-SEA roundtrips aren''t helping anyone.

 

[ITRADE]

Thank you, PHL.

 

[airlineorphan]

----------------
On 5/27/2003 2:53:54 PM PHL wrote:

Why do people keep talking about high loads as if that automatically equals profit!??

The domestic flights, packed as they may be, are not necessarily making money. They''re just keeping the customer base. Keep announcing new Carrib and Europe service, because that''s where your profits will be.

$298 PHL-SEA roundtrips aren''t helping anyone.

----------------​

I understand what you are saying, and in fact there is a point at which high load factor actually hurts revenue. Too high an average load factor and a good portion of your flights are oversold, and that means lost revenue in the form of volunteer vouchers. Not to mention a cascade effect of further oversold flights and the intangible effect of ticking off customers and stressing out gate agents!

Seems to me the FF''ers and employees who keep harping on the need to rationalize the fare structure are on the right track.

When will the "best and brightest" in the Crystal Palace catch a clue? They are, after all, the best management bonuses can retain!

-Airlineorphan