The future airline industry from a furloughed pilot''s point of view.

[ual747mech]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/1/2003 9:55:38 AM gatemech wrote:

When the judge finishes with all of us we will be the LOWEST COST CARRIER. Why separate when the cost structure will be what they want? They will also get the work rule changes. Done deal.

I feel as an employee who contributed to the ESOP that creating a separate airline is like stealing from the employees.
----------------
[/blockquote]

That's why they have negotiations so it doesn't have to go to the Judge. Also this might be the only way to save the Company and the employees. The Company and the Unions just need to make it a win win situation for everybody and that's the hard part.

 

[SMMustang]

UAL747Mech, you are exactly right. With the right work rules and financial footing UA could beat SWA. And the work rules need to be different from the international line and remain different. UA can get the work rules, but where is the money going to come from?

The way I see it, it would be like SWA and Starfish running a 100 yard dash and SWA gets a 25 yard head start because they have the financial backing to undercut whatever UA will put out there in hopes to send UA into liquidation...no, I don't know what their finances and plans are exactly, but from the sidelines that is what I see. I guess I'm not making sense, but that is how I'd describe it.

But like I said in the original post, I believe U2 can work, just not right now. Instead of splitting the company. I would think that the best practice would be to cut the dead weight and then in better financial times revisit U2.

Part 1 of all problem solving is ACCURATELY descrribing the problem. The way I view it more than anything else, the focus needs to be SURVIVING for UA, not market share. If you needed to come up with a problem statement what would it be? You're thoughts are very intelligent and I'm sure you have a good point to make on this.

 

[ual747mech]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/1/2003 11:56:52 AM SMMustang wrote:

UAL747Mech, you are exactly right. With the right work rules and financial footing UA could beat SWA. And the work rules need to be different from the international line and remain different. UA can get the work rules, but where is the money going to come from?

The way I see it, it would be like SWA and Starfish running a 100 yard dash and SWA gets a 25 yard head start because they have the financial backing to undercut whatever UA will put out there in hopes to send UA into liquidation...no, I don't know what their finances and plans are exactly, but from the sidelines that is what I see. I guess I'm not making sense, but that is how I'd describe it.

But like I said in the original post, I believe U2 can work, just not right now. Instead of splitting the company. I would think that the best practice would be to cut the dead weight and then in better financial times revisit U2.

Part 1 of all problem solving is ACCURATELY descrribing the problem. The way I view it more than anything else, the focus needs to be SURVIVING for UA, not market share. If you needed to come up with a problem statement what would it be? You're thoughts are very intelligent and I'm sure you have a good point to make on this.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Everything is allready in place. United just need to restructure it to compete. Whether to make it a separate entity or just get flexibility from all parties involved to make it work, I don't know. That is being discussed right now. Right now the cost is higher for us than the Jet Blue's, Southwest's and the likes. Sure, we can match their fares to keep our market shares but that's not helping us when it doesn't make us any profits with the current operation cost. You might ask why not just dump the unprofitable routes but in reality we need those routes to feed our bread and butter. Remember Pan Am? They only had International routes. United has the best route structure in the Industry but what do you do when your domestic or leisure routes are being challenged by all these LCC's.

Revenue - Cost = Red Ink (if cost is higher than revenue) Right Segue?

 

[mga707]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/1/2003 1257 PM ual747mech wrote:
Remember Pan Am? They only had International routes.
[/blockquote]

Not for the last 11 1/2 years of their life ('80-'91): Remember National?

 

[SMMustang]

The plan I outlined (emphasizing the international routes) is a copy of what NWA did in the early 90's, so it is not an original idea, it is one that saved NWA. And no, you don't want 100% international flights, you still need the 320s to get folks from the international gateways to focus cities...SFO-DEN, ORD-LAX, etc. But from there, if you wish to challenge a LCC, IMHO it is best done with a commuter on the SFO-SMF route. I hate to say this as a major furloughee, it is my job being taking up by the commuters, but it truly is the best way to beat SWA at their game I believe.

National...is that the one out of Vegas-all 75's?

 

[ual747mech]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/2/2003 11:22:10 AM mga707 wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/1/2003 1257 PM ual747mech wrote:
Remember Pan Am? They only had International routes.
[/blockquote]

Not for the last 11 1/2 years of their life ('80-'91): Remember National?

----------------
[/blockquote]

Yes, another defunct carrier that didn't go very far. They tried to get a loan guarantee from the ATSB but was denied. That was the end for them after that. They were out of Vegas I believe.

 

[UnitedChicago]

I think mga is referring to another airline called National that Pan Am bought to try and bolster their US route structure.

Either way, Pan Am still didn't even come close to having a strong US presence.

 

[HPearlyretiree]

Either way, Pan Am still didn't even come close to having a strong US presence.

Well, they certainly tried, but the CAB would not allow them many domestic routes for years, and then after deregulation, they didn't know how to proceed with domestic routes.

 

[CoMooter]

For many years PA was the only carrier specifically BANNED by US law from operating domestic routes...the other major US int'l carrier at the time, TW, did not have any such restrictions.

With the begining of the end for the CAB in 1979, PA bought National Part I (The 'Airline of the Stars' as it was once known) in an attempt to bring domestic 'feed' into it's major US gateways...SFO, MIA, JFK...among other places.

It was a failure, because PA really never adjusted to the changing marketplace of the 1970's...saying nothing of de-regulation.

 

[WNjetdoc]

Don't you guys get it? IMO its not about beating WN or JBLU, its about NOT beating yourselves. You have to get your own **** together before you worry about "beating" someone else. If you think people here at WN sit around talking about kicking this airlines butt or that airlines butt you are incorrect. We are focused on keeping our own house "clean" and "tight", not being worried about everyone else.

 

[SMMustang]

WNjetdoc

If you look at my original post, I believe that is what I eluded to. If not, that is what I was trying to imply. Focus on your strengths and build from them. ual747mech who is more knowledgeable about UA than I believes that their domestic structure is a strength, where I, as an outsider, believes that their int'l stucture is their strength. What we have is two people looking at a picasso, or maybe a pollack at this point (total chaos) and seeing 2 different things.

Did you ever hear the legend about Herb that I posted earlier or is that a legend?

 

[ual747mech]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/2/2003 4:23:27 PM WNjetdoc wrote:

Don't you guys get it? IMO its not about beating WN or JBLU, its about NOT beating yourselves. You have to get your own **** together before you worry about "beating" someone else. If you think people here at WN sit around talking about kicking this airlines butt or that airlines butt you are incorrect. We are focused on keeping our own house "clean" and "tight", not being worried about everyone else.
----------------

[blockquote]

I agree with you WN, that's why WN is rated one of the best, if not the best, airline to work for. You guys got your sh_t together. The reason all the bigger airlines is so worried about the LCC's like WN is because their market shares are being eroded by you guys. All the LCC's are slowly going into the bigger airlines established turf and slowly kick their ass out of there. Some carriers simply give up because they can't compete with you guys. Some folks here thinks that's the best thing to do and concentrate in the areas they are profitable in. I think in United's case, the top brass don't want to do that because it would eventually affect the company's bottom line if they simply gave up those routes the LCC's are beating us in. Those routes are needed to feed our bread and butter, the International routes and other key routes United flies.

 

[mga707]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/2/2003 1241 PM UnitedChicago wrote:

I think mga is referring to another airline called National that Pan Am bought to try and bolster their US route structure.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Umm...yeah! the REAL National. You remember, don't you? "The Airline of the Stars"..."Fly Me, I'm (insert sexy stew's name here)"..."National--From Coast to Coast to Coast!".
Suddenly I'm feeling old...

 

[UnitedChicago]

that's a good point mga. Many grew organically post deregulation.

 

[WNjetdoc]

I remember flying Peoples Express...a long time ago.