More Planes For Ted!

[mrfish3726]

http://yahoo.reuters.com/financeQuoteCompa...03539100_newsml


One guy has it pegged right "One analyst said the move will do little to assist the struggling airline."

"What that entirely means is that they're going to paint nine more airplanes," said aviation consultant Michael Boyd. "It doesn't give them any lower cost, and it doesn't give them any competitive advantage."

UAL, so far, has not disclosed Ted's financial performance.

 

[UAL_TECH]

http://yahoo.reuters.com/financeQuoteCompa...03539100_newsml
One guy has it pegged right "One analyst said the move will do little to assist the struggling airline."

"What that entirely means is that they're going to paint nine more airplanes," said aviation consultant Michael Boyd. "It doesn't give them any lower cost, and it doesn't give them any competitive advantage."

UAL, so far, has not disclosed Ted's financial performance.

[post="252444"][/post]​

The TED paint scheme is more aerodynamic and reduces drag.
TED is making money on increased fuel savings :blink:

B) UT

 

[casual rat]

Chum? Why are you so obsessed with how Ted is doing financially? What real difference does it make? The Ted planes are going out full and generally on-time. It was a no brainer. MCO,FLL,LAS,PHX,RNO,ONT,etc. were always full to begin with. Standing by for any of those destinations was always a nightmare with the exception of PHX in the summer. I'm sure Ted's making money, since there's more seats with fannies in them.

 

[whatkindoffreshhell]

Actually if TED had been doing better there would be a significant amount of buzz in the industry and amongst travelers.

There isn't any excitement. So all thos marketing whiz-types have to concoct a press release about repainting some planes. Remarkable!

Fish and Mike Boyd are correct.

 

[ual777fan]

Actually its probably more expensive to fly Ted than a UAMainline flight since, I believe (not an expert), because of the seat layout, you contractually need an extra flight attendant.

 

[Fly]

But you add more seats, and those seats return more money than the flight attendant salary costs.

 

[casual rat]

Actually its probably more expensive to fly Ted than a UAMainline flight since, I believe (not an expert), because of the seat layout, you contractually need an extra flight attendant.

[post="252483"][/post]​

I'm not a big fan of Ted. What I meant was Ted's 'legs' are the highest load factor segments in the system. Barring any stupid pricing, Ted segments should be profitable, even with the extra flight attendant. Ted is not a separate entity outside of it's marketing--yet. That's why it's so stupid, but at least I can sleep at night knowing they used 'aerodynamic paint' on them. I was worried there for a minute!

 

[ual777fan]

So then why not use mainline United craft to fly the routes. It has to cost quite a bit to convert the planes to the TED layout, which creates a seperate sub-fleet, which can't be anything other than TED, reducing UA's operating flexability.

And taking A320's from ORD-ATL (were replaced by RJ's) and other routes to put them on Denver to Las Vegas, is SILLY. I think TED is undermining UAMainline by confusing connecting passengers and having different service levels and the rest, but that's just me.

 

[coolflyingfool]

Get rid of 12 FC seats, add 18 coach seats, and add a F/A. I would think the revenue generated from 12 FC seats would outweigh the 18 coach seats and the additional F/A. I agree that if TED was going great, there would have been more planes added sooner along with additional frequencies. Look at the Chicago to Las Vegas market. Ted took over for UA and added 1 flight but there were virtually the exact same number of seats due to the B757s removed from the route. Now a year later, no more frequencies have been added. Southwest added MDW-LAS in 2004 and 2005 and now has more deapartures in that market. If people were flying, the airlines would be adding seats. Just my thoughts............I am off the soap box now.

 

[gomc]

Get rid of 12 FC seats, add 18 coach seats, and add a F/A. I would think the revenue generated from 12 FC seats would outweigh the 18 coach seats and the additional F/A...

30 additional coach seats. And I don't think first class adds much revenue. Not many people actually pay first class fares.

 

[Busdrvr]

30 additional coach seats. And I don't think first class adds much revenue. Not many people actually pay first class fares.

[post="252641"][/post]​

ESPECIALLY true for DEN-MCO/LAS

 

[mweiss]

But you add more seats, and those seats return more money than the flight attendant salary costs.

[post="252491"][/post]​

Or at least they may. Do you know for sure that they do?

 

[mweiss]

I think TED is undermining UAMainline by confusing connecting passengers and having different service levels and the rest, but that's just me.

[post="252593"][/post]​

I agree. To me, that's the biggest problem with the "airline within an airline" concept. If you're going to have separate target demographics and separate marketing for a different product, then don't sell the tickets under the UA code. Ted may well be a fine brand, and a fine product...but the tickets should be sold as Ted tickets, not UA tickets.

 

[Fly]

Or at least they may. Do you know for sure that they do?

[post="252728"][/post]​

The average Ted flight is 2 hours. Flight attendants only get paid when flying. The topped out pay for a flight attendant is $40.97 an hour. $40.97 X 2 = $81.94. How many flights have $81.94 tickets? Pretty close, but not all of them. And certainly the extra $81.94 the company pays is overcome by all the extra seats added on Ted.

 

[casual rat]

...And that's for a senior flight attendant....I can't believe how many people just don't understand basic economics. If you can make an extra dollar, by employing extra hands, you should. I don't know who came up with the 'brainstorm', cut costs in order to make less...I don't get it.