Record Passenger Loads

[cltflyguy]

Maybe if we reduce the mainline fleet down to 25 planes we will see a 100% load factor.

[post="257705"][/post]​

Don't think ccy isn't probably already thinking about that!! Yep.....lets see...take away 25 aircraft here.....25 aircraft there....hmmmmm

However on a different note i think it is great that loads are high with the planes
that are being used!!

 

[planeirish]

Great news the load factors are up. Anybody looked at the PAWOB stats?

Hauling lots of folks but how about their bags, it seems for some reason folks are still not getting bags on non stop flights from a certain city that may have had issues at Christmas.

The "Barbee Jets" when they are full of people seem to leave bags off frequently. Is this a weight and balance problem or a design flaw? Seems that bags never had to left off the DC-9's or 737-200's or even the Dash-8's.

This baggage mess must be costly when you sell a $29.00 tkt and have to pay $100.00 in incidential expenses and $20.00 to deliver when found. I am not real good in math but how long can you sell a $29.00 tkt and pay $120.00 baggage expense and stay in business. It seems like time to hire more analysts.

 

[whlinder]

Ok, here is what I was going from, Airline Business says US had a 75.1% LF for all of 2004. They also say that US had a gap of -12.8% between their breakeven LF and their actual LF in 3Q. So with my simple mind I just added 12.8 to 75.1 and said "90% should be slightly above breakeven." But then I forgot how much fuel has run up recently.

The interesting thing to me was how the 3 airlines with the lowest LFs, WN, FL and AS, all had an operating profit in 2004.

 

[mweiss]

The interesting thing to me was how the 3 airlines with the lowest LFs, WN, FL and AS, all had an operating profit in 2004.

[post="257926"][/post]​

WN and AS have higher yields (haven't checked FL's), lower LFs, lower RASM, and lower CASM than legacy carriers.

This brings up an interesting point to ponder...what are the real marginal costs of an additional passenger? Is it possible that some airlines are selling some tickets below even the marginal cost?

 

[BoeingBoy]

Purely a guess, but the marginal cost probably doesn't go over 2 cents per mile for an additional passenger. Could be below 1 cent a mile under the most favorable conditions - ticket purchased on company website with debit card, no baggage checked, kiosk used, no in-flight service, etc.

Jim

 

[mweiss]

Jim, you're talking about somewhat ideal conditions. What about the additional passenger who is flying on an RJ, which means that three bags don't get on that RJ, which means that three late deliveries must be made...

How much for some of those marginal passengers? Might it benefit the company to differentiate among different marginal passenger profiles?

 

[SVQLBA]

Jim, you're talking about somewhat ideal conditions. What about the additional passenger who is flying on an RJ, which means that three bags don't get on that RJ, which means that three late deliveries must be made...

How much for some of those marginal passengers? Might it benefit the company to differentiate among different marginal passenger profiles?

[post="257984"][/post]​

The legacies have absolutely no idea. There revenue management systems compute the revenue impact of additional feed to the gnats ass, but the cost accounting systems provide no insight into the complexity costs of providing that feed. Same can be said for costs of various product/service options.

 

[diogenes]

Great news the load factors are up. Anybody looked at the PAWOB stats?

Hauling lots of folks but how about their bags, it seems for some reason folks are still not getting bags on non stop flights from a certain city that may have had issues at Christmas.

The "Barbee Jets" when they are full of people seem to leave bags off frequently. Is this a weight and balance problem or a design flaw? Seems that bags never had to left off the DC-9's or 737-200's or even the Dash-8's.

This baggage mess must be costly when you sell a $29.00 tkt and have to pay $100.00 in incidential expenses and $20.00 to deliver when found. I am not real good in math but how long can you sell a $29.00 tkt and pay $120.00 baggage expense and stay in business. It seems like time to hire more analysts.

[post="257925"][/post]​

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's both. Due to their inherent design, the lawn darts are incapable of carrying a full fuel, passenger and baggage load, under any but the most optimal condidtions. Factor in weather, or either a long flight (where the fuel load causes max takeoff weights to be an issue) or a short one (now max landing weight is the problem) and something has to give. And the give is baggage.

Here's where it gets hairy. There are plenty of times the expected offload, as seen in the computer data, does not match the actual offload. That is to say, there are more bags offloaded than the paperwork and computer says there is.

Why that is, I'll leave to you.

However, back in the day, my CSM asked me to gundeck the numbers on some flights that had a bunch of military duffle bags (regular bags at mainline count 30 lbs., duffles count 70). I refused his invitation.

How many newbies are going to know that they can refuse such an invitation, or why they should?

You can't count on the pilots; they may not even know about the situation. And if they do, if history holds true, some of them will go along with it.

 

[WestCoastGuy]

Great news the load factors are up.  Anybody looked at the PAWOB stats?

Hauling lots of folks but how about their bags,  it seems for some reason folks are  still not getting bags on non stop flights from a certain city that may have had issues at Christmas.

[post="257925"][/post]​

This is where USAir is NUMBER 1! Worst of ALL the carriers in delayed baggage. According to the DOT, USAir had more lost and delayed bags than any other US carrier. And we're near the worst on the list in On Time Arrivals. But our load factors are up..... <_<

 

[tadjr]

The legacies have absolutely no idea. There revenue management systems compute the revenue impact of additional feed to the gnats ass, but the cost accounting systems provide no insight into the complexity costs of providing that feed.

[post="257990"][/post]​

This is exactly what was happening with Express in Florida and Air Midwest refusing to drop the authorizations to get max people and $ on the flights. Only problem was a lot of those "max $ people" on the EYW flights were using mega miles to get that free ticket booked in Y so it wasnt making the company anything and was actually costing because we had to bump people AND bags most of the time. It was explained to management to pass info on that on flight 123 on such and such a day the last 6 people booked had $0 award tickets and we bumped X people and Y bags. Nothing in response. How much did they spend to get smart ya gotta wonder sometimes? I didnt go to college and even I can see this is a no brainer.

 

[funguy2]

As a very rough approximation, you can take the 4th quarter mainline CASM and divide it by the 4th quarter mainline yield to get the break-even load factor (though this excludes other sources of revenue like cargo). With Q4 yield at 11.90 cents and CASM at 10.96 cents, the break-even load factor was 92%. It's unclear to me if costs will be lower for this quarter given that (1) fuel is even higher now and (2) the company had labor cost reductions in place for most of the last quarter. I honestly couldn't tell you where yields are, but assuming they are comparable to the 4th quarter, the company is close to break-even when running 90+% load factors. It's probably cash-positive on those days, at least.

[post="257896"][/post]​

The other mystery for Q1 CASM is the "higher-utilization schedule" implemented in early Feb. Its in quotes because I am not convinced that it is really a higher utilization schedule, as the company originally contended, and as we have previously discussed on US Aviation.com. However, any material change in ASM's would have an impact on CASM. Its hard to know if there was a material impact in ASM's.

 

[funguy2]

The legacies have absolutely no idea. There revenue management systems compute the revenue impact of additional feed to the gnats ass, but the cost accounting systems provide no insight into the complexity costs of providing that feed. Same can be said for costs of various product/service options.

[post="257990"][/post]​

Well... the group in question is called "Revenue Management", and thus I presume that is their focus. Maybe the company needs a department called "Cost Management" or should realign Revenue Management to be "Profit Management" and take into greater consideration and study the costs of their decisions.

Just a thought.

 

[Rico]

The "Barbee Jets" when they are full of people seem to leave bags off frequently. Is this a weight and balance problem or a design flaw? Seems that bags never had to left off the DC-9's or 737-200's or even the Dash-8's.

Do not blame the plane or the crews pal...

It is pretty rare when we are unable to carry a full load of bags/people in the E-170, even on the longest PHL-IAH runs into the winds. Ditto for cargo.

Now what I have seen, time and time again, is the bags not arriving to the aircraft prior to departure. But that is hardly the fault of the E-170, is it...? <_<

 

[usair_begins_with_u]

This is the rule:

Total Revenue - Total Cost = Profit or Loss

I dont see load factor any where in that equation..

Any link between LF and profit or loss is merely anecdotal

REPEAT

Any link between LF and profit or loss is merely anecdotal

REPEAT

Any link between LF and profit or loss is merely anecdotal

 

[funguy2]

Actually, its not anectotal.

Load Factor * Yield = RASM, or the Revenue part of the equation.

That said, Load Factor informaiton without Yield information is essentially meaning less.