State Of United

[Busdrvr]

firstamendment,

I think most of us realize that it is a small percentage of US employees like "you-know-who", who want to merge with UA to save their own butt at the expense of others. And those few people do not save their "screwing" for just the UA employees. They would do it to their own co-workers if it meant saving their careers.

Unfortunately, they are also the most vocal, so they are the ones we direct our rebuttals toward.

Thanks...hey, I just wanted the merger to go thru so my parents could fly from GSO-MCI-ORD-LGA where all their kids live. Going east to go west is tiring for my beloved retired parents.

LOL, but the really funny thing is there are those out there who REALLY had that view!!

 

[TravelDude]

As a UA employee...I wanted it to go through!

Sure there would have been growing pains in the beginning. But, when the merger was all said and done UA would have been just that much stronger!

 

[Busdrvr]

As a UA employee...I wanted it to go through!

Sure there would have been growing pains in the beginning. But, when the merger was all said and done UA would have been just that much stronger!

Rono?! Is that you?!....

 

[TravelDude]

As a UA employee...I wanted it to go through!

Sure there would have been growing pains in the beginning. But, when the merger was all said and done UA would have been just that much stronger!

Rono?! Is that you?!....

NO... OH... NO...

And I find it offensive that he is still employed in the airline industry! US Airways, actually wanted him on their board of directors. So there he sits running US Airways into the ground.

But, I stand behind the statement I think US Airways would have been good for UA in the long run.

Just as the AA & TWA merger was tough, but in the end AA is a much stronger airline with stronger presence. After all, that transaction knocked UA out of the number ONE largest carrier position.

 

[Borescope]

Just as the AA & TWA merger was tough, but in the end AA is a much stronger airline with stronger presence. After all, that transaction knocked UA out of the number ONE largest carrier position.

Being the number 1 "largest" carrier, isn't what makes a great airline. That we can see plainly in either case.

 

[Winglet]

Just as the AA & TWA merger was tough, but in the end AA is a much stronger airline with stronger presence. After all, that transaction knocked UA out of the number ONE largest carrier position.

Stronger airline??? YGBSM. Spending a billion dollars for greatly increased capacity just at a time when DECREASING capacity was need doesn't make for a stronger airline. Stronger presence? How many new overseas routes did AA use from TWA? Look at St Louis today. Ever decreasing non-RJ flights. Probably go to mostly RJs. What's left of TWA anyway? Most of the employees were dumped and AA is still pitching AA workers overboard.

The TWA acquisition was a collosal and expensive blunder, and I thought so at the time. Even when the economy picks up again, TWA won't do anything for AA that they couldn't have done without spending the billions of dollars for the initial acquisition and continuing integration costs . . . . . not to mention the acrimony that it cause among employees.

I wonder what would have happened if the UAL and US Air merger had actually happened? Any takers on speculating that scenario?

 

[novaqt]

Steven Wolf would be much richer and looking to see what other carrier(s) he could "consolidate" into the bigger and much enhanced United. Isn't "consolidation" the buzz word these days? The Chipster would be working for United.

 

[Doc]

Well, UA has at least one good card - Asia. I've taken at least two lengthy asian trips in the past month or so and the flights have been packed, packed, packed. Not a single seat open in either F or C class - and there was not an insignificant number of passengers who were on paid, revenue fares.

I'm sure you saw all their tickets to make that statement....NOT...

please stop I can't take it

 

[Busdrvr]

I'm sure you saw all their tickets to make that statement....NOT...

please stop I can't take it

Doc, nine times out of ten, I can tell a non-rev. For example, if they are wearing jeans and tennis shoes, they are a paying pax... But since you've got UAL's pac loads and prices figured out, I thought I do soe checking meself to get up to your level of knowledge. I checked the loads for tomorrow and then the next few days. while I won't reveal (for the fear of banishment) confidential company info, I will say WOW!! and it ain't the holiday season!!! But I'd invite you to try to price a flight on UAL (not a code share) from SFO, LAX, or SEA to NRT or HKG leaving in the next few days. It ain't a $99 ticket.... (if they will even sell you one)

 

[iflyjetz]

But I'd invite you to try to price a flight on UAL (not a code share) from SFO, LAX, or SEA to NRT or HKG leaving in the next few days. It ain't a $99 ticket.... (if they will even sell you one)

Busdriver, you know better than that! You can ALWAYS buy a ticket on UAL. However, if the plane's oversold, you can be guaranteed that UAL is going to include the cost of bumping a cheaper fare passenger off of the flight. Of course, UAL will compute the DB (denied boarding) based on no volunteers; a significantly higher penalty for the airline than if there's a volunteer. How many times have you seen an oversold condition where there haven't been enough volunteers?

This is all part of what causes airline ticket prices to be all over the map.

 

[Bizman]

I checked the loads for tomorrow and then the next few days. while I won't reveal (for the fear of banishment) confidential company info, I will say WOW!! and it ain't the holiday season!!! But I'd invite you to try to price a flight on UAL (not a code share) from SFO, LAX, or SEA to NRT or HKG leaving in the next few days. It ain't a $99 ticket.... (if they will even sell you one)

Bus Driver,
I was curious, so I checked cheap tickets. Ual from LAX to NRT round trip indeed was not $99, however they were $213 cheaper (816.00 RT Vs 603.00 on UA) than all other carriers on the route. This may explain the LF. I also tried to book on UAL and some of the other carriers on specific dates in FEB 04 and there were no seats available. So, it appears that UAL needs to sell its seats cheaper to compete.

 

[Busdrvr]

Bus Driver,
I was curious, so I checked cheap tickets. Ual from LAX to NRT round trip indeed was not $99, however they were $213 cheaper (816.00 RT Vs 603.00 on UA) than all other carriers on the route. This may explain the LF. I also tried to book on UAL and some of the other carriers on specific dates in FEB 04 and there were no seats available. So, it appears that UAL needs to sell its seats cheaper to compete.

What was the date of departure? did you not get the part where I said "the next few days? FWIW, I checked only one route. I checked nonstop on UA ONLY SFO-NRT, leaving the 12 dec, returning 19 dec. First Class $11,086 (same as AMR) Business $8631 (ANA was cheaper at $5909) and coach $6962 (ANA $4131). If you want to go cheaper, you can do the 4 airline shuffle through HNL or ICN. Like I said, the "crown jewel" flights are FULL!!! Oh and if it makes you feel any better, I just checked LAX-NRT 15 feb rt 22 feb. Singapore was $603, JAL was 6- something and UAL was $803. SIN must be hurting, they gotta go 200 cheaper than UAL to fill the jet.....

 

[Cosmo]

Ual from LAX to NRT round trip indeed was not $99, however they were $213 cheaper (816.00 RT Vs 603.00 on UA) than all other carriers on the route.

Bizman:

There are several points that you need to consider when looking at that $603.00 LAX-NRT round trip fare as an indicator of average revenue and whether a flight is profitable or not.

First, as a low-end economy class fare for a round trip of some 9,000 miles (I don't recall the exact LAX-NRT nonstop distance but I believe that number is close), it gives a yield per RPM of somewhere in the neighborhood of 6.0 cents, even after allowing that some of the $603.00 fare is taxes and fees that don't accrue to United. While not great, a 6.0 cent advance purchase economy class yield is not unreasonably low for long-haul flights in widebody aircraft like the B747-400s and B777-200s that United flies to Asia. But the short-notice walk-up fares provide United with a much higher yield.

Second, assuming a $603.00 average fare for all people on the flight does not take into consideration the fact that some of those people actually paid a business class fare, and a few may have even paid for first class. Busdrvr's last post shows that those fares are quite a bit higher than the economy fare you quoted, and remember that United's flights to NRT have a significant number of seats in those two premium classes.

Third, you've forgotten about the cargo and mail being carried in the bellies of these wide-body aircraft, which can add another 5-10% to a flight's total revenues at little additional cost to United. That's why looking at breakeven load factors that include only passenger revenues (and not cargo and other revenues) in the equation can give a misleading indication of a flight's profitability.

So now I hope you can see that a single fare quote isn't really a good sign of whether an airline is making money (or not) on a specific flight.

 

[Rob]

Isn't "consolidation" the buzz word these days?

Consolidation is one of those things everybody talks about, but nobody actually does, at least in the US. Except for pre-9/11 AMR-TWA, now seen as a disaster, nothing has happened and nothing will. Consolidation costs money and the return on investment isn't fast enough, if it comes at all.

 

[Fly]

firstamendment Posted: Dec 6 2003, 10:35 PM

I have read on more than one occassions that your employees would rather see the airline go to Chapter 7 then to merge with US. (FLY)