PITbull said:
Um...if you bothered to read the first line of my post to java, I said "things are slow at my job this time of year." So, one could probably safely infer from that statement that I am still gainfully employed.Dog Wonder said:
How is it stupid when I have witnessed numerous times?USA320Pilot said:
EyeInTheSky said:
If it's not your problem then it's also impossible for you to empathize and be compassionate and to do other wise you feel you should be paid! Therefore your indifference is justified, in your mind, isn't that the trouble with the word where everyone worries about, “theirs" and screw the other guys woes, the new golden rule.shinbal said:
deano said:
mweiss said:My apologies, but for the life of me I can't figure out why the quote tags aren't working tonight!
Not so much a response but a continued discussion on our mutual paths. again what i posted was merely my opinion. as this will be i will attempt to use a different color sometimes that works sometimes that doesnt.
javaboy,
just popping in (things are slow at my job this time of year)...noticed your post. There's some good stuff in there.
Not necessarily. New airlines do pop up from time to time. But I certainly agree that the traveling public has no basis to expect a new airline to return the industry to its current capacity.
One would think not, but legacy carriers have a very long tradition of putting too much capacity out there. They shouldn't but past experience suggests that they well might. Go figure.
Example of Independence as a new entrant is not quite true those airplanes/employees routes were all serviced before with UAL paint scheme on the side, all they did was paint the planes different. my point here is that a new airline was not created, not since jetblue has one of size been created.
Or JFK or...maybe served nonstop on WN. Your comment here suggests that you cannot see beyond carriers providing service 40 years ago. And, incidentally, the RJs still have a lot of reason to go away in many of their current markets. Frequency is fine, but not at the expense of profitability. :huh:
It is, indeed. Have we proven yet that AA's MRTC is a failure? This is something I'm still extremely interested in finding out.
But nobody has explained why that's a bad thing. If we, as a nation, decide that universal local air service is as important as universal postal or telephone service, then we'll establish such a system. We already have subsidized air service to some cities. Why is it important to have?
Reliable safe airtransportation system according to the US government is a national security requirement (don't ask me why this was put forth post 9/11 hearings ) a like a stable auto industry of the 80s was needed. and achieved. or savings and loan of late 80s point being the industry will HAVE to be stablized at some point after just under 40 years of deregulation it simply is not happening while the consumer might say i get cheaper tickets (then it must be a success) if you get cheaper tickets until airlines go out of biz or cause havoc like christmas in PHL then there is no basis for complaints since you got 10 years of cheap rides.
To Hawaii, one can now fly Aloha from the West Coast. I would hardly be surprised to find some further expansion eastward. As for European destinations, I suspect that we're getting close to the time when LCCs will serve them, simply due to a lack of domestic markets remaining for expansion.
Bear in Mind both Hawaiian carriers are in bankrupcty as well. So Aloha or Hawaiian might not be there in the future which of course reduces competition which means the winner gets too........raise prices!
In the meantime, AA and CO are profitably serving Europe. NW is profitably serving Asia. That looks like it will continue for some time.
Acutally NWAC lost money in 2004 and took bigger hits due to SARS which was localized in the Far East CO is not profitable either and since they already filed 2 bankruptcies they (by the new law written post Lorenzo) can not file for a 3rd reoganization they would infact have to immediately go chap 7 . AA is not profitable either at this point. having lost money in 2004 Europe is not profitable due to the collapse of the dollar vs the Euro. which also weighs on the airline business even if they can sell the ticket at a profit the exchange rate can make it a loss similar situation caused NWAC to almost claim BK in early 90s to to collapse of the yen.
It is. I have more choices of airline between most city pairs than I did in 1975. And, in general, I can fly among them for less (inflation adjusted) than I could in 1975. I get to accumulate frequent flyer miles, free upgrades, etc., etc., etc. I couldn't do any of that in 1975.
Do you ? or do yo have the same 10 "major airlines" just different names. example if Eastern used to serve your city and no longer does but say SWA came in i consider that a wash. since there are still only 10 major airlines (those with annual revenues in excess of 1.o billion) in 1975 there were the same. (bear in mind the billion dollar definition has been adjusted by the federal governement)
The only thing that appears to be in shambles is the business models of a handful of carriers. That's to be expected in a market that shifts from regulated to deregulated.
SWA and Jetblue are the ONLY 2 airlines in the black for 2004, while Airtran, and Alaska and AWA enjoyed one or more profitable qtrs per annum they lost money. that means of AA, DAL, UAL, CAL, NWAC, UAIR, AIRTRAN, JetBlue, American Eagle (yes they meet the test), ComAir, Hawaiian, Aloha, ATA, SWA, Alaska, America West only 2 made money. even those listed above are all not considered majors but the "largest carriers" notice Independence wasnt listed but yet they too lost money. now look at the above UAL UAIR ATA Hawaiian Aloha are currently in bankrupcty CAL, AWA filed twice before American said they were with in 24hrs of filiing during the 2nd qtr of 04, DAL threating as we type. Independence is facing BK as well. its not that some models work and some dont Almost all of them arent working if not for excessive fuel hedging even SWA would have lost money in 2004. think about that SWA 80% hedged at sub 30 a bbl lucky? good? smart? doesnt matter what happens when those run out? does then the SWA business model be classified too as a failure since if oil remains at current levels and SWA hedges expire they infact would be losing money as well?
Nope in fact i can point exactly to the day when this occured. back in the mid 90s FASB made a major rule change FASB 103 which forced companies to account for future obligations on their balance sheets in order to "level the playing field" when analyzing balance sheets for investment purposes. in fact FORTUNE ran an issue on it and it was all the talk on the newly formed channel of CNBC (after taking over its predecsssor FNN not to be confused with CNNfn) at that time in the fortune 500 companies exactly 2 met the new rules to the letter and had enough cash to account for it. those two companies were MSFT (microsoft) and GE (general electric) as david Faber said in fact every company in america but those two could file bankrupcty the next day if the so wanted to due to this rule change. in the years to come this would be replaced with the "expensing options delema".
Clearly you're not looking at the big picture. They're not all going to be in bankruptcy at the same time, or even at all. Those with the best business plans will stay in business. That's how capitalism works.
Actually 5 are in BK right now UAIR UAL ATA HAWAIIAN ALOHA. throw in a DAL or AMR or CAL you then would have 70% of all US airline seats in BK.
Yeah, probably. That's pretty typical for any industry except technology.
Within reason, perhaps. But not monopolistic pricing, since there's little preventing another airline from entering the same market. That was part of what Kahn and Bailey had envisioned.
Yes and no, but more no. The trunks of the 60s had very clearly defined routes of ownership. That's not reforming today. True, different airlines are likely to have regions of strength, but that's always been true. Only in the late 80s was there even a glimmer of that not being the case.
The trunks had that "clearly defined routes" because the CAA awarded them to airlines you could not just serve any route it had to be approved. in the late 80s was the only other period of time in airline history that was as bad as it is today. and i quote warren buffet at DUKE luncheon. (the one where he made the crack about a capitalist would have shot down orrville ) he had his facts up to that date, every dime ever made by the industry since the very first passenger was flown 60 years before was lost in the preceding 5 years by the industry . that same condition exists today, there is no logical (profitable) reason for any airline to operate. thus to go across the country instead of a few hours think days. as one example
I'd give better odds to me winning the Lotto jackpot. At this point, I think US is too far gone, but then again I'm surprised those midnight blue airplanes are still in the air.
It'd be about time.
First off many hardworking Mothers, Fathers, Sisters, Brothers, Sons , Daughters, Friends work at UAIR and you know what they as a whole go in do their jobs and go home, no they dont make the paper for 99% deployment (completion factor) no you hear about a few hundered out of 28000 employees in one station not the other 203 cities served. to them its not fair one bit. about time? i think those that continue to give it their all as they did in the early 90s and then in late 80s and during the stagflation 70s yeah the same people keep coming back for more and believe it or not is is not because they like being degraded by unknown people nor because they think hey the 80s were cool maybe i could work for80s wages again. i submit any worker at say IBM or GM or Disney (remember there wasnt a DELL or Microsoft in the early 80s) if those long time employees wouldnt mind going back to those wages in 2005 oh yeah and you get no pension and pardom me you must pay for your medical benefits and when you retire you dont have any. how many would show up to work ? no those people that are the heart and soul of UAIR as i always say deserve and get from me a tip of the cap a smile and a thank you when i have occasion to cross their paths.
That'd work if they didn't have to serve all of those cities to build enough demand to fill the aircraft at the international gateways. How much of the domestic market can you afford to lose money serving in order to support those profitable international flights?
Now this is laughable. LCCs have little reason to "respect" any "turf." WN certainly didn't "respect" PHL. :huh:
Remember the SWA / JB models basically run on the "meter drop theory" cabbies dont make money from long trips they making the money on the 2 bucks from just sitting in the cab in the first few seconds ie. 10 short trips pay more profit than 1 long one to them. thus SWA JB have high utulization and quick turns. but put them in a LGA? JB goes there but very limited amount why? why does SWA shy away from ORD and use MDW ? because all those RJs take up the same amount of airspace as thier 737 or 767 or b 1900. same amount now for using that space (or think of it using that gate space) you get 19 seats 50 seats 100 seats or 140 seats or 190 seats. guess which one has the lowest per seat cost (in this example?) but now lets say that SWA goes to LGA. AMR and DAL just put in 50 RJs are they there to make it more expensive by slowing down the utilaztion of swa you can not achieve a 30 min turn in lga at 5pm nor 8am. thus i choose the term "respect their turf" but that was what i was thinking. no AMR could not go head to head cost wise with SWA but they could make it more expesnsive for SWA to operate. as margins become razor thin it tips it from black to red. then the choice is pull out or lose money and out last them. which nation wide is what is going on right now. fare wars on overlapping routes of LCCs by legacys.
Not while B6 can profitably offer a better product than US at the same fare, while US loses money.
a more correct cost comparission would be look at Legacy cost per seat mile say 1988ish... vs B6 today. during that time you had B scales which made it cheaper the bigger you got because you had lower wage employees "subsidizing" older more expensive workers. 2 ways this can fail 1 you must layoff (from the bottom your getting rid of your least expensive workers which continually raises your costs even though you are laying off people since only the most expensive are left) or 2. time. the B scale itself was desgin to fail by timing out after 7 8 9 10 years the employee grows out of the b scale and becomes an a scaler. now if you stop hiring thats the day the clock starts. essentially thats what happened to UAIR costs. they did not hire in mass for almost 10 years thus each year the companies costs continued to rise instead if they had hired more and grew (theory of critical mass) costs would have dropped as long as the amount of new people were greater than the older people then as the the older people retired you could effectively lowered your costs over a 20 year period. but stopping hiring stopped costs from decreasing, laying off cheaper (junior) employees accelerated costs thus any savings generally were a wash and you could never "get ahead"
just a few thoughts for discussion not argument. thats all
:blink:
[post="234647"][/post]
mweiss said:My apologies, but for the life of me I can't figure out why the quote tags aren't working tonight!
Not so much a response but a continued discussion on our mutual paths. again what i posted was merely my opinion. as this will be i will attempt to use a different color sometimes that works sometimes that doesnt.
javaboy,
just popping in (things are slow at my job this time of year)...noticed your post. There's some good stuff in there.
Not necessarily. New airlines do pop up from time to time. But I certainly agree that the traveling public has no basis to expect a new airline to return the industry to its current capacity.
One would think not, but legacy carriers have a very long tradition of putting too much capacity out there. They shouldn't but past experience suggests that they well might. Go figure.
Example of Independence as a new entrant is not quite true those airplanes/employees routes were all serviced before with UAL paint scheme on the side, all they did was paint the planes different. my point here is that a new airline was not created, not since jetblue has one of size been created.
Or JFK or...maybe served nonstop on WN. Your comment here suggests that you cannot see beyond carriers providing service 40 years ago. And, incidentally, the RJs still have a lot of reason to go away in many of their current markets. Frequency is fine, but not at the expense of profitability. :huh:
It is, indeed. Have we proven yet that AA's MRTC is a failure? This is something I'm still extremely interested in finding out.
But nobody has explained why that's a bad thing. If we, as a nation, decide that universal local air service is as important as universal postal or telephone service, then we'll establish such a system. We already have subsidized air service to some cities. Why is it important to have?
Reliable safe airtransportation system according to the US government is a national security requirement (don't ask me why this was put forth post 9/11 hearings ) a like a stable auto industry of the 80s was needed. and achieved. or savings and loan of late 80s point being the industry will HAVE to be stablized at some point after just under 40 years of deregulation it simply is not happening while the consumer might say i get cheaper tickets (then it must be a success) if you get cheaper tickets until airlines go out of biz or cause havoc like christmas in PHL then there is no basis for complaints since you got 10 years of cheap rides.
To Hawaii, one can now fly Aloha from the West Coast. I would hardly be surprised to find some further expansion eastward. As for European destinations, I suspect that we're getting close to the time when LCCs will serve them, simply due to a lack of domestic markets remaining for expansion.
Bear in Mind both Hawaiian carriers are in bankrupcty as well. So Aloha or Hawaiian might not be there in the future which of course reduces competition which means the winner gets too........raise prices!
In the meantime, AA and CO are profitably serving Europe. NW is profitably serving Asia. That looks like it will continue for some time.
Acutally NWAC lost money in 2004 and took bigger hits due to SARS which was localized in the Far East CO is not profitable either and since they already filed 2 bankruptcies they (by the new law written post Lorenzo) can not file for a 3rd reoganization they would infact have to immediately go chap 7 . AA is not profitable either at this point. having lost money in 2004 Europe is not profitable due to the collapse of the dollar vs the Euro. which also weighs on the airline business even if they can sell the ticket at a profit the exchange rate can make it a loss similar situation caused NWAC to almost claim BK in early 90s to to collapse of the yen.
It is. I have more choices of airline between most city pairs than I did in 1975. And, in general, I can fly among them for less (inflation adjusted) than I could in 1975. I get to accumulate frequent flyer miles, free upgrades, etc., etc., etc. I couldn't do any of that in 1975.
Do you ? or do yo have the same 10 "major airlines" just different names. example if Eastern used to serve your city and no longer does but say SWA came in i consider that a wash. since there are still only 10 major airlines (those with annual revenues in excess of 1.o billion) in 1975 there were the same. (bear in mind the billion dollar definition has been adjusted by the federal governement)
The only thing that appears to be in shambles is the business models of a handful of carriers. That's to be expected in a market that shifts from regulated to deregulated.
SWA and Jetblue are the ONLY 2 airlines in the black for 2004, while Airtran, and Alaska and AWA enjoyed one or more profitable qtrs per annum they lost money. that means of AA, DAL, UAL, CAL, NWAC, UAIR, AIRTRAN, JetBlue, American Eagle (yes they meet the test), ComAir, Hawaiian, Aloha, ATA, SWA, Alaska, America West only 2 made money. even those listed above are all not considered majors but the "largest carriers" notice Independence wasnt listed but yet they too lost money. now look at the above UAL UAIR ATA Hawaiian Aloha are currently in bankrupcty CAL, AWA filed twice before American said they were with in 24hrs of filiing during the 2nd qtr of 04, DAL threating as we type. Independence is facing BK as well. its not that some models work and some dont Almost all of them arent working if not for excessive fuel hedging even SWA would have lost money in 2004. think about that SWA 80% hedged at sub 30 a bbl lucky? good? smart? doesnt matter what happens when those run out? does then the SWA business model be classified too as a failure since if oil remains at current levels and SWA hedges expire they infact would be losing money as well?
Nope in fact i can point exactly to the day when this occured. back in the mid 90s FASB made a major rule change FASB 103 which forced companies to account for future obligations on their balance sheets in order to "level the playing field" when analyzing balance sheets for investment purposes. in fact FORTUNE ran an issue on it and it was all the talk on the newly formed channel of CNBC (after taking over its predecsssor FNN not to be confused with CNNfn) at that time in the fortune 500 companies exactly 2 met the new rules to the letter and had enough cash to account for it. those two companies were MSFT (microsoft) and GE (general electric) as david Faber said in fact every company in america but those two could file bankrupcty the next day if the so wanted to due to this rule change. in the years to come this would be replaced with the "expensing options delema".
Clearly you're not looking at the big picture. They're not all going to be in bankruptcy at the same time, or even at all. Those with the best business plans will stay in business. That's how capitalism works.
Actually 5 are in BK right now UAIR UAL ATA HAWAIIAN ALOHA. throw in a DAL or AMR or CAL you then would have 70% of all US airline seats in BK.
Yeah, probably. That's pretty typical for any industry except technology.
Within reason, perhaps. But not monopolistic pricing, since there's little preventing another airline from entering the same market. That was part of what Kahn and Bailey had envisioned.
Yes and no, but more no. The trunks of the 60s had very clearly defined routes of ownership. That's not reforming today. True, different airlines are likely to have regions of strength, but that's always been true. Only in the late 80s was there even a glimmer of that not being the case.
The trunks had that "clearly defined routes" because the CAA awarded them to airlines you could not just serve any route it had to be approved. in the late 80s was the only other period of time in airline history that was as bad as it is today. and i quote warren buffet at DUKE luncheon. (the one where he made the crack about a capitalist would have shot down orrville ) he had his facts up to that date, every dime ever made by the industry since the very first passenger was flown 60 years before was lost in the preceding 5 years by the industry . that same condition exists today, there is no logical (profitable) reason for any airline to operate. thus to go across the country instead of a few hours think days. as one example
I'd give better odds to me winning the Lotto jackpot. At this point, I think US is too far gone, but then again I'm surprised those midnight blue airplanes are still in the air.
It'd be about time.
First off many hardworking Mothers, Fathers, Sisters, Brothers, Sons , Daughters, Friends work at UAIR and you know what they as a whole go in do their jobs and go home, no they dont make the paper for 99% deployment (completion factor) no you hear about a few hundered out of 28000 employees in one station not the other 203 cities served. to them its not fair one bit. about time? i think those that continue to give it their all as they did in the early 90s and then in late 80s and during the stagflation 70s yeah the same people keep coming back for more and believe it or not is is not because they like being degraded by unknown people nor because they think hey the 80s were cool maybe i could work for80s wages again. i submit any worker at say IBM or GM or Disney (remember there wasnt a DELL or Microsoft in the early 80s) if those long time employees wouldnt mind going back to those wages in 2005 oh yeah and you get no pension and pardom me you must pay for your medical benefits and when you retire you dont have any. how many would show up to work ? no those people that are the heart and soul of UAIR as i always say deserve and get from me a tip of the cap a smile and a thank you when i have occasion to cross their paths.
That'd work if they didn't have to serve all of those cities to build enough demand to fill the aircraft at the international gateways. How much of the domestic market can you afford to lose money serving in order to support those profitable international flights?
Now this is laughable. LCCs have little reason to "respect" any "turf." WN certainly didn't "respect" PHL. :huh:
Remember the SWA / JB models basically run on the "meter drop theory" cabbies dont make money from long trips they making the money on the 2 bucks from just sitting in the cab in the first few seconds ie. 10 short trips pay more profit than 1 long one to them. thus SWA JB have high utulization and quick turns. but put them in a LGA? JB goes there but very limited amount why? why does SWA shy away from ORD and use MDW ? because all those RJs take up the same amount of airspace as thier 737 or 767 or b 1900. same amount now for using that space (or think of it using that gate space) you get 19 seats 50 seats 100 seats or 140 seats or 190 seats. guess which one has the lowest per seat cost (in this example?) but now lets say that SWA goes to LGA. AMR and DAL just put in 50 RJs are they there to make it more expensive by slowing down the utilaztion of swa you can not achieve a 30 min turn in lga at 5pm nor 8am. thus i choose the term "respect their turf" but that was what i was thinking. no AMR could not go head to head cost wise with SWA but they could make it more expesnsive for SWA to operate. as margins become razor thin it tips it from black to red. then the choice is pull out or lose money and out last them. which nation wide is what is going on right now. fare wars on overlapping routes of LCCs by legacys.
Not while B6 can profitably offer a better product than US at the same fare, while US loses money.
a more correct cost comparission would be look at Legacy cost per seat mile say 1988ish... vs B6 today. during that time you had B scales which made it cheaper the bigger you got because you had lower wage employees "subsidizing" older more expensive workers. 2 ways this can fail 1 you must layoff (from the bottom your getting rid of your least expensive workers which continually raises your costs even though you are laying off people since only the most expensive are left) or 2. time. the B scale itself was desgin to fail by timing out after 7 8 9 10 years the employee grows out of the b scale and becomes an a scaler. now if you stop hiring thats the day the clock starts. essentially thats what happened to UAIR costs. they did not hire in mass for almost 10 years thus each year the companies costs continued to rise instead if they had hired more and grew (theory of critical mass) costs would have dropped as long as the amount of new people were greater than the older people then as the the older people retired you could effectively lowered your costs over a 20 year period. but stopping hiring stopped costs from decreasing, laying off cheaper (junior) employees accelerated costs thus any savings generally were a wash and you could never "get ahead"
just a few thoughts for discussion not argument. thats all
:blink:
[post="234647"][/post]
mweiss said:My apologies, but for the life of me I can't figure out why the quote tags aren't working tonight!
Not so much a response but a continued discussion on our mutual paths. again what i posted was merely my opinion. as this will be i will attempt to use a different color sometimes that works sometimes that doesnt.
javaboy,
just popping in (things are slow at my job this time of year)...noticed your post. There's some good stuff in there.
Not necessarily. New airlines do pop up from time to time. But I certainly agree that the traveling public has no basis to expect a new airline to return the industry to its current capacity.
One would think not, but legacy carriers have a very long tradition of putting too much capacity out there. They shouldn't but past experience suggests that they well might. Go figure.
Example of Independence as a new entrant is not quite true those airplanes/employees routes were all serviced before with UAL paint scheme on the side, all they did was paint the planes different. my point here is that a new airline was not created, not since jetblue has one of size been created.
Or JFK or...maybe served nonstop on WN. Your comment here suggests that you cannot see beyond carriers providing service 40 years ago. And, incidentally, the RJs still have a lot of reason to go away in many of their current markets. Frequency is fine, but not at the expense of profitability. :huh:
It is, indeed. Have we proven yet that AA's MRTC is a failure? This is something I'm still extremely interested in finding out.
But nobody has explained why that's a bad thing. If we, as a nation, decide that universal local air service is as important as universal postal or telephone service, then we'll establish such a system. We already have subsidized air service to some cities. Why is it important to have?
Reliable safe airtransportation system according to the US government is a national security requirement (don't ask me why this was put forth post 9/11 hearings ) a like a stable auto industry of the 80s was needed. and achieved. or savings and loan of late 80s point being the industry will HAVE to be stablized at some point after just under 40 years of deregulation it simply is not happening while the consumer might say i get cheaper tickets (then it must be a success) if you get cheaper tickets until airlines go out of biz or cause havoc like christmas in PHL then there is no basis for complaints since you got 10 years of cheap rides.
To Hawaii, one can now fly Aloha from the West Coast. I would hardly be surprised to find some further expansion eastward. As for European destinations, I suspect that we're getting close to the time when LCCs will serve them, simply due to a lack of domestic markets remaining for expansion.
Bear in Mind both Hawaiian carriers are in bankrupcty as well. So Aloha or Hawaiian might not be there in the future which of course reduces competition which means the winner gets too........raise prices!
In the meantime, AA and CO are profitably serving Europe. NW is profitably serving Asia. That looks like it will continue for some time.
Acutally NWAC lost money in 2004 and took bigger hits due to SARS which was localized in the Far East CO is not profitable either and since they already filed 2 bankruptcies they (by the new law written post Lorenzo) can not file for a 3rd reoganization they would infact have to immediately go chap 7 . AA is not profitable either at this point. having lost money in 2004 Europe is not profitable due to the collapse of the dollar vs the Euro. which also weighs on the airline business even if they can sell the ticket at a profit the exchange rate can make it a loss similar situation caused NWAC to almost claim BK in early 90s to to collapse of the yen.
It is. I have more choices of airline between most city pairs than I did in 1975. And, in general, I can fly among them for less (inflation adjusted) than I could in 1975. I get to accumulate frequent flyer miles, free upgrades, etc., etc., etc. I couldn't do any of that in 1975.
Do you ? or do yo have the same 10 "major airlines" just different names. example if Eastern used to serve your city and no longer does but say SWA came in i consider that a wash. since there are still only 10 major airlines (those with annual revenues in excess of 1.o billion) in 1975 there were the same. (bear in mind the billion dollar definition has been adjusted by the federal governement)
The only thing that appears to be in shambles is the business models of a handful of carriers. That's to be expected in a market that shifts from regulated to deregulated.
SWA and Jetblue are the ONLY 2 airlines in the black for 2004, while Airtran, and Alaska and AWA enjoyed one or more profitable qtrs per annum they lost money. that means of AA, DAL, UAL, CAL, NWAC, UAIR, AIRTRAN, JetBlue, American Eagle (yes they meet the test), ComAir, Hawaiian, Aloha, ATA, SWA, Alaska, America West only 2 made money. even those listed above are all not considered majors but the "largest carriers" notice Independence wasnt listed but yet they too lost money. now look at the above UAL UAIR ATA Hawaiian Aloha are currently in bankrupcty CAL, AWA filed twice before American said they were with in 24hrs of filiing during the 2nd qtr of 04, DAL threating as we type. Independence is facing BK as well. its not that some models work and some dont Almost all of them arent working if not for excessive fuel hedging even SWA would have lost money in 2004. think about that SWA 80% hedged at sub 30 a bbl lucky? good? smart? doesnt matter what happens when those run out? does then the SWA business model be classified too as a failure since if oil remains at current levels and SWA hedges expire they infact would be losing money as well?
Nope in fact i can point exactly to the day when this occured. back in the mid 90s FASB made a major rule change FASB 103 which forced companies to account for future obligations on their balance sheets in order to "level the playing field" when analyzing balance sheets for investment purposes. in fact FORTUNE ran an issue on it and it was all the talk on the newly formed channel of CNBC (after taking over its predecsssor FNN not to be confused with CNNfn) at that time in the fortune 500 companies exactly 2 met the new rules to the letter and had enough cash to account for it. those two companies were MSFT (microsoft) and GE (general electric) as david Faber said in fact every company in america but those two could file bankrupcty the next day if the so wanted to due to this rule change. in the years to come this would be replaced with the "expensing options delema".
Clearly you're not looking at the big picture. They're not all going to be in bankruptcy at the same time, or even at all. Those with the best business plans will stay in business. That's how capitalism works.
Actually 5 are in BK right now UAIR UAL ATA HAWAIIAN ALOHA. throw in a DAL or AMR or CAL you then would have 70% of all US airline seats in BK.
Yeah, probably. That's pretty typical for any industry except technology.
Within reason, perhaps. But not monopolistic pricing, since there's little preventing another airline from entering the same market. That was part of what Kahn and Bailey had envisioned.
Yes and no, but more no. The trunks of the 60s had very clearly defined routes of ownership. That's not reforming today. True, different airlines are likely to have regions of strength, but that's always been true. Only in the late 80s was there even a glimmer of that not being the case.
The trunks had that "clearly defined routes" because the CAA awarded them to airlines you could not just serve any route it had to be approved. in the late 80s was the only other period of time in airline history that was as bad as it is today. and i quote warren buffet at DUKE luncheon. (the one where he made the crack about a capitalist would have shot down orrville ) he had his facts up to that date, every dime ever made by the industry since the very first passenger was flown 60 years before was lost in the preceding 5 years by the industry . that same condition exists today, there is no logical (profitable) reason for any airline to operate. thus to go across the country instead of a few hours think days. as one example
I'd give better odds to me winning the Lotto jackpot. At this point, I think US is too far gone, but then again I'm surprised those midnight blue airplanes are still in the air.
It'd be about time.
First off many hardworking Mothers, Fathers, Sisters, Brothers, Sons , Daughters, Friends work at UAIR and you know what they as a whole go in do their jobs and go home, no they dont make the paper for 99% deployment (completion factor) no you hear about a few hundered out of 28000 employees in one station not the other 203 cities served. to them its not fair one bit. about time? i think those that continue to give it their all as they did in the early 90s and then in late 80s and during the stagflation 70s yeah the same people keep coming back for more and believe it or not is is not because they like being degraded by unknown people nor because they think hey the 80s were cool maybe i could work for80s wages again. i submit any worker at say IBM or GM or Disney (remember there wasnt a DELL or Microsoft in the early 80s) if those long time employees wouldnt mind going back to those wages in 2005 oh yeah and you get no pension and pardom me you must pay for your medical benefits and when you retire you dont have any. how many would show up to work ? no those people that are the heart and soul of UAIR as i always say deserve and get from me a tip of the cap a smile and a thank you when i have occasion to cross their paths.
That'd work if they didn't have to serve all of those cities to build enough demand to fill the aircraft at the international gateways. How much of the domestic market can you afford to lose money serving in order to support those profitable international flights?
Now this is laughable. LCCs have little reason to "respect" any "turf." WN certainly didn't "respect" PHL. :huh:
Remember the SWA / JB models basically run on the "meter drop theory" cabbies dont make money from long trips they making the money on the 2 bucks from just sitting in the cab in the first few seconds ie. 10 short trips pay more profit than 1 long one to them. thus SWA JB have high utulization and quick turns. but put them in a LGA? JB goes there but very limited amount why? why does SWA shy away from ORD and use MDW ? because all those RJs take up the same amount of airspace as thier 737 or 767 or b 1900. same amount now for using that space (or think of it using that gate space) you get 19 seats 50 seats 100 seats or 140 seats or 190 seats. guess which one has the lowest per seat cost (in this example?) but now lets say that SWA goes to LGA. AMR and DAL just put in 50 RJs are they there to make it more expensive by slowing down the utilaztion of swa you can not achieve a 30 min turn in lga at 5pm nor 8am. thus i choose the term "respect their turf" but that was what i was thinking. no AMR could not go head to head cost wise with SWA but they could make it more expesnsive for SWA to operate. as margins become razor thin it tips it from black to red. then the choice is pull out or lose money and out last them. which nation wide is what is going on right now. fare wars on overlapping routes of LCCs by legacys.
Not while B6 can profitably offer a better product than US at the same fare, while US loses money.
a more correct cost comparission would be look at Legacy cost per seat mile say 1988ish... vs B6 today. during that time you had B scales which made it cheaper the bigger you got because you had lower wage employees "subsidizing" older more expensive workers. 2 ways this can fail 1 you must layoff (from the bottom your getting rid of your least expensive workers which continually raises your costs even though you are laying off people since only the most expensive are left) or 2. time. the B scale itself was desgin to fail by timing out after 7 8 9 10 years the employee grows out of the b scale and becomes an a scaler. now if you stop hiring thats the day the clock starts. essentially thats what happened to UAIR costs. they did not hire in mass for almost 10 years thus each year the companies costs continued to rise instead if they had hired more and grew (theory of critical mass) costs would have dropped as long as the amount of new people were greater than the older people then as the the older people retired you could effectively lowered your costs over a 20 year period. but stopping hiring stopped costs from decreasing, laying off cheaper (junior) employees accelerated costs thus any savings generally were a wash and you could never "get ahead"
just a few thoughts for discussion not argument. thats all
:blink:
[post="234647"][/post]
mweiss said:My apologies, but for the life of me I can't figure out why the quote tags aren't working tonight!
Not so much a response but a continued discussion on our mutual paths. again what i posted was merely my opinion. as this will be i will attempt to use a different color sometimes that works sometimes that doesnt.
javaboy,
just popping in (things are slow at my job this time of year)...noticed your post. There's some good stuff in there.
Not necessarily. New airlines do pop up from time to time. But I certainly agree that the traveling public has no basis to expect a new airline to return the industry to its current capacity.
One would think not, but legacy carriers have a very long tradition of putting too much capacity out there. They shouldn't but past experience suggests that they well might. Go figure.
Example of Independence as a new entrant is not quite true those airplanes/employees routes were all serviced before with UAL paint scheme on the side, all they did was paint the planes different. my point here is that a new airline was not created, not since jetblue has one of size been created.
Or JFK or...maybe served nonstop on WN. Your comment here suggests that you cannot see beyond carriers providing service 40 years ago. And, incidentally, the RJs still have a lot of reason to go away in many of their current markets. Frequency is fine, but not at the expense of profitability. :huh:
It is, indeed. Have we proven yet that AA's MRTC is a failure? This is something I'm still extremely interested in finding out.
But nobody has explained why that's a bad thing. If we, as a nation, decide that universal local air service is as important as universal postal or telephone service, then we'll establish such a system. We already have subsidized air service to some cities. Why is it important to have?
Reliable safe airtransportation system according to the US government is a national security requirement (don't ask me why this was put forth post 9/11 hearings ) a like a stable auto industry of the 80s was needed. and achieved. or savings and loan of late 80s point being the industry will HAVE to be stablized at some point after just under 40 years of deregulation it simply is not happening while the consumer might say i get cheaper tickets (then it must be a success) if you get cheaper tickets until airlines go out of biz or cause havoc like christmas in PHL then there is no basis for complaints since you got 10 years of cheap rides.
To Hawaii, one can now fly Aloha from the West Coast. I would hardly be surprised to find some further expansion eastward. As for European destinations, I suspect that we're getting close to the time when LCCs will serve them, simply due to a lack of domestic markets remaining for expansion.
Bear in Mind both Hawaiian carriers are in bankrupcty as well. So Aloha or Hawaiian might not be there in the future which of course reduces competition which means the winner gets too........raise prices!
In the meantime, AA and CO are profitably serving Europe. NW is profitably serving Asia. That looks like it will continue for some time.
Acutally NWAC lost money in 2004 and took bigger hits due to SARS which was localized in the Far East CO is not profitable either and since they already filed 2 bankruptcies they (by the new law written post Lorenzo) can not file for a 3rd reoganization they would infact have to immediately go chap 7 . AA is not profitable either at this point. having lost money in 2004 Europe is not profitable due to the collapse of the dollar vs the Euro. which also weighs on the airline business even if they can sell the ticket at a profit the exchange rate can make it a loss similar situation caused NWAC to almost claim BK in early 90s to to collapse of the yen.
It is. I have more choices of airline between most city pairs than I did in 1975. And, in general, I can fly among them for less (inflation adjusted) than I could in 1975. I get to accumulate frequent flyer miles, free upgrades, etc., etc., etc. I couldn't do any of that in 1975.
Do you ? or do yo have the same 10 "major airlines" just different names. example if Eastern used to serve your city and no longer does but say SWA came in i consider that a wash. since there are still only 10 major airlines (those with annual revenues in excess of 1.o billion) in 1975 there were the same. (bear in mind the billion dollar definition has been adjusted by the federal governement)
The only thing that appears to be in shambles is the business models of a handful of carriers. That's to be expected in a market that shifts from regulated to deregulated.
SWA and Jetblue are the ONLY 2 airlines in the black for 2004, while Airtran, and Alaska and AWA enjoyed one or more profitable qtrs per annum they lost money. that means of AA, DAL, UAL, CAL, NWAC, UAIR, AIRTRAN, JetBlue, American Eagle (yes they meet the test), ComAir, Hawaiian, Aloha, ATA, SWA, Alaska, America West only 2 made money. even those listed above are all not considered majors but the "largest carriers" notice Independence wasnt listed but yet they too lost money. now look at the above UAL UAIR ATA Hawaiian Aloha are currently in bankrupcty CAL, AWA filed twice before American said they were with in 24hrs of filiing during the 2nd qtr of 04, DAL threating as we type. Independence is facing BK as well. its not that some models work and some dont Almost all of them arent working if not for excessive fuel hedging even SWA would have lost money in 2004. think about that SWA 80% hedged at sub 30 a bbl lucky? good? smart? doesnt matter what happens when those run out? does then the SWA business model be classified too as a failure since if oil remains at current levels and SWA hedges expire they infact would be losing money as well?
Nope in fact i can point exactly to the day when this occured. back in the mid 90s FASB made a major rule change FASB 103 which forced companies to account for future obligations on their balance sheets in order to "level the playing field" when analyzing balance sheets for investment purposes. in fact FORTUNE ran an issue on it and it was all the talk on the newly formed channel of CNBC (after taking over its predecsssor FNN not to be confused with CNNfn) at that time in the fortune 500 companies exactly 2 met the new rules to the letter and had enough cash to account for it. those two companies were MSFT (microsoft) and GE (general electric) as david Faber said in fact every company in america but those two could file bankrupcty the next day if the so wanted to due to this rule change. in the years to come this would be replaced with the "expensing options delema".
Clearly you're not looking at the big picture. They're not all going to be in bankruptcy at the same time, or even at all. Those with the best business plans will stay in business. That's how capitalism works.
Actually 5 are in BK right now UAIR UAL ATA HAWAIIAN ALOHA. throw in a DAL or AMR or CAL you then would have 70% of all US airline seats in BK.
Yeah, probably. That's pretty typical for any industry except technology.
Within reason, perhaps. But not monopolistic pricing, since there's little preventing another airline from entering the same market. That was part of what Kahn and Bailey had envisioned.
Yes and no, but more no. The trunks of the 60s had very clearly defined routes of ownership. That's not reforming today. True, different airlines are likely to have regions of strength, but that's always been true. Only in the late 80s was there even a glimmer of that not being the case.
The trunks had that "clearly defined routes" because the CAA awarded them to airlines you could not just serve any route it had to be approved. in the late 80s was the only other period of time in airline history that was as bad as it is today. and i quote warren buffet at DUKE luncheon. (the one where he made the crack about a capitalist would have shot down orrville ) he had his facts up to that date, every dime ever made by the industry since the very first passenger was flown 60 years before was lost in the preceding 5 years by the industry . that same condition exists today, there is no logical (profitable) reason for any airline to operate. thus to go across the country instead of a few hours think days. as one example
I'd give better odds to me winning the Lotto jackpot. At this point, I think US is too far gone, but then again I'm surprised those midnight blue airplanes are still in the air.
It'd be about time.
First off many hardworking Mothers, Fathers, Sisters, Brothers, Sons , Daughters, Friends work at UAIR and you know what they as a whole go in do their jobs and go home, no they dont make the paper for 99% deployment (completion factor) no you hear about a few hundered out of 28000 employees in one station not the other 203 cities served. to them its not fair one bit. about time? i think those that continue to give it their all as they did in the early 90s and then in late 80s and during the stagflation 70s yeah the same people keep coming back for more and believe it or not is is not because they like being degraded by unknown people nor because they think hey the 80s were cool maybe i could work for80s wages again. i submit any worker at say IBM or GM or Disney (remember there wasnt a DELL or Microsoft in the early 80s) if those long time employees wouldnt mind going back to those wages in 2005 oh yeah and you get no pension and pardom me you must pay for your medical benefits and when you retire you dont have any. how many would show up to work ? no those people that are the heart and soul of UAIR as i always say deserve and get from me a tip of the cap a smile and a thank you when i have occasion to cross their paths.
That'd work if they didn't have to serve all of those cities to build enough demand to fill the aircraft at the international gateways. How much of the domestic market can you afford to lose money serving in order to support those profitable international flights?
Now this is laughable. LCCs have little reason to "respect" any "turf." WN certainly didn't "respect" PHL. :huh:
Remember the SWA / JB models basically run on the "meter drop theory" cabbies dont make money from long trips they making the money on the 2 bucks from just sitting in the cab in the first few seconds ie. 10 short trips pay more profit than 1 long one to them. thus SWA JB have high utulization and quick turns. but put them in a LGA? JB goes there but very limited amount why? why does SWA shy away from ORD and use MDW ? because all those RJs take up the same amount of airspace as thier 737 or 767 or b 1900. same amount now for using that space (or think of it using that gate space) you get 19 seats 50 seats 100 seats or 140 seats or 190 seats. guess which one has the lowest per seat cost (in this example?) but now lets say that SWA goes to LGA. AMR and DAL just put in 50 RJs are they there to make it more expensive by slowing down the utilaztion of swa you can not achieve a 30 min turn in lga at 5pm nor 8am. thus i choose the term "respect their turf" but that was what i was thinking. no AMR could not go head to head cost wise with SWA but they could make it more expesnsive for SWA to operate. as margins become razor thin it tips it from black to red. then the choice is pull out or lose money and out last them. which nation wide is what is going on right now. fare wars on overlapping routes of LCCs by legacys.
Not while B6 can profitably offer a better product than US at the same fare, while US loses money.
a more correct cost comparission would be look at Legacy cost per seat mile say 1988ish... vs B6 today. during that time you had B scales which made it cheaper the bigger you got because you had lower wage employees "subsidizing" older more expensive workers. 2 ways this can fail 1 you must layoff (from the bottom your getting rid of your least expensive workers which continually raises your costs even though you are laying off people since only the most expensive are left) or 2. time. the B scale itself was desgin to fail by timing out after 7 8 9 10 years the employee grows out of the b scale and becomes an a scaler. now if you stop hiring thats the day the clock starts. essentially thats what happened to UAIR costs. they did not hire in mass for almost 10 years thus each year the companies costs continued to rise instead if they had hired more and grew (theory of critical mass) costs would have dropped as long as the amount of new people were greater than the older people then as the the older people retired you could effectively lowered your costs over a 20 year period. but stopping hiring stopped costs from decreasing, laying off cheaper (junior) employees accelerated costs thus any savings generally were a wash and you could never "get ahead"
just a few thoughts for discussion not argument. thats all
:blink:
[post="234647"][/post]
mweiss said:My apologies, but for the life of me I can't figure out why the quote tags aren't working tonight!
Not so much a response but a continued discussion on our mutual paths. again what i posted was merely my opinion. as this will be i will attempt to use a different color sometimes that works sometimes that doesnt.
javaboy,
just popping in (things are slow at my job this time of year)...noticed your post. There's some good stuff in there.
Not necessarily. New airlines do pop up from time to time. But I certainly agree that the traveling public has no basis to expect a new airline to return the industry to its current capacity.
One would think not, but legacy carriers have a very long tradition of putting too much capacity out there. They shouldn't but past experience suggests that they well might. Go figure.
Example of Independence as a new entrant is not quite true those airplanes/employees routes were all serviced before with UAL paint scheme on the side, all they did was paint the planes different. my point here is that a new airline was not created, not since jetblue has one of size been created.
Or JFK or...maybe served nonstop on WN. Your comment here suggests that you cannot see beyond carriers providing service 40 years ago. And, incidentally, the RJs still have a lot of reason to go away in many of their current markets. Frequency is fine, but not at the expense of profitability. :huh:
It is, indeed. Have we proven yet that AA's MRTC is a failure? This is something I'm still extremely interested in finding out.
But nobody has explained why that's a bad thing. If we, as a nation, decide that universal local air service is as important as universal postal or telephone service, then we'll establish such a system. We already have subsidized air service to some cities. Why is it important to have?
Reliable safe airtransportation system according to the US government is a national security requirement (don't ask me why this was put forth post 9/11 hearings ) a like a stable auto industry of the 80s was needed. and achieved. or savings and loan of late 80s point being the industry will HAVE to be stablized at some point after just under 40 years of deregulation it simply is not happening while the consumer might say i get cheaper tickets (then it must be a success) if you get cheaper tickets until airlines go out of biz or cause havoc like christmas in PHL then there is no basis for complaints since you got 10 years of cheap rides.
To Hawaii, one can now fly Aloha from the West Coast. I would hardly be surprised to find some further expansion eastward. As for European destinations, I suspect that we're getting close to the time when LCCs will serve them, simply due to a lack of domestic markets remaining for expansion.
Bear in Mind both Hawaiian carriers are in bankrupcty as well. So Aloha or Hawaiian might not be there in the future which of course reduces competition which means the winner gets too........raise prices!
In the meantime, AA and CO are profitably serving Europe. NW is profitably serving Asia. That looks like it will continue for some time.
Acutally NWAC lost money in 2004 and took bigger hits due to SARS which was localized in the Far East CO is not profitable either and since they already filed 2 bankruptcies they (by the new law written post Lorenzo) can not file for a 3rd reoganization they would infact have to immediately go chap 7 . AA is not profitable either at this point. having lost money in 2004 Europe is not profitable due to the collapse of the dollar vs the Euro. which also weighs on the airline business even if they can sell the ticket at a profit the exchange rate can make it a loss similar situation caused NWAC to almost claim BK in early 90s to to collapse of the yen.
It is. I have more choices of airline between most city pairs than I did in 1975. And, in general, I can fly among them for less (inflation adjusted) than I could in 1975. I get to accumulate frequent flyer miles, free upgrades, etc., etc., etc. I couldn't do any of that in 1975.
Do you ? or do yo have the same 10 "major airlines" just different names. example if Eastern used to serve your city and no longer does but say SWA came in i consider that a wash. since there are still only 10 major airlines (those with annual revenues in excess of 1.o billion) in 1975 there were the same. (bear in mind the billion dollar definition has been adjusted by the federal governement)
The only thing that appears to be in shambles is the business models of a handful of carriers. That's to be expected in a market that shifts from regulated to deregulated.
SWA and Jetblue are the ONLY 2 airlines in the black for 2004, while Airtran, and Alaska and AWA enjoyed one or more profitable qtrs per annum they lost money. that means of AA, DAL, UAL, CAL, NWAC, UAIR, AIRTRAN, JetBlue, American Eagle (yes they meet the test), ComAir, Hawaiian, Aloha, ATA, SWA, Alaska, America West only 2 made money. even those listed above are all not considered majors but the "largest carriers" notice Independence wasnt listed but yet they too lost money. now look at the above UAL UAIR ATA Hawaiian Aloha are currently in bankrupcty CAL, AWA filed twice before American said they were with in 24hrs of filiing during the 2nd qtr of 04, DAL threating as we type. Independence is facing BK as well. its not that some models work and some dont Almost all of them arent working if not for excessive fuel hedging even SWA would have lost money in 2004. think about that SWA 80% hedged at sub 30 a bbl lucky? good? smart? doesnt matter what happens when those run out? does then the SWA business model be classified too as a failure since if oil remains at current levels and SWA hedges expire they infact would be losing money as well?
Nope in fact i can point exactly to the day when this occured. back in the mid 90s FASB made a major rule change FASB 103 which forced companies to account for future obligations on their balance sheets in order to "level the playing field" when analyzing balance sheets for investment purposes. in fact FORTUNE ran an issue on it and it was all the talk on the newly formed channel of CNBC (after taking over its predecsssor FNN not to be confused with CNNfn) at that time in the fortune 500 companies exactly 2 met the new rules to the letter and had enough cash to account for it. those two companies were MSFT (microsoft) and GE (general electric) as david Faber said in fact every company in america but those two could file bankrupcty the next day if the so wanted to due to this rule change. in the years to come this would be replaced with the "expensing options delema".
Clearly you're not looking at the big picture. They're not all going to be in bankruptcy at the same time, or even at all. Those with the best business plans will stay in business. That's how capitalism works.
Actually 5 are in BK right now UAIR UAL ATA HAWAIIAN ALOHA. throw in a DAL or AMR or CAL you then would have 70% of all US airline seats in BK.
Yeah, probably. That's pretty typical for any industry except technology.
Within reason, perhaps. But not monopolistic pricing, since there's little preventing another airline from entering the same market. That was part of what Kahn and Bailey had envisioned.
Yes and no, but more no. The trunks of the 60s had very clearly defined routes of ownership. That's not reforming today. True, different airlines are likely to have regions of strength, but that's always been true. Only in the late 80s was there even a glimmer of that not being the case.
The trunks had that "clearly defined routes" because the CAA awarded them to airlines you could not just serve any route it had to be approved. in the late 80s was the only other period of time in airline history that was as bad as it is today. and i quote warren buffet at DUKE luncheon. (the one where he made the crack about a capitalist would have shot down orrville ) he had his facts up to that date, every dime ever made by the industry since the very first passenger was flown 60 years before was lost in the preceding 5 years by the industry . that same condition exists today, there is no logical (profitable) reason for any airline to operate. thus to go across the country instead of a few hours think days. as one example
I'd give better odds to me winning the Lotto jackpot. At this point, I think US is too far gone, but then again I'm surprised those midnight blue airplanes are still in the air.
It'd be about time.
First off many hardworking Mothers, Fathers, Sisters, Brothers, Sons , Daughters, Friends work at UAIR and you know what they as a whole go in do their jobs and go home, no they dont make the paper for 99% deployment (completion factor) no you hear about a few hundered out of 28000 employees in one station not the other 203 cities served. to them its not fair one bit. about time? i think those that continue to give it their all as they did in the early 90s and then in late 80s and during the stagflation 70s yeah the same people keep coming back for more and believe it or not is is not because they like being degraded by unknown people nor because they think hey the 80s were cool maybe i could work for80s wages again. i submit any worker at say IBM or GM or Disney (remember there wasnt a DELL or Microsoft in the early 80s) if those long time employees wouldnt mind going back to those wages in 2005 oh yeah and you get no pension and pardom me you must pay for your medical benefits and when you retire you dont have any. how many would show up to work ? no those people that are the heart and soul of UAIR as i always say deserve and get from me a tip of the cap a smile and a thank you when i have occasion to cross their paths.
That'd work if they didn't have to serve all of those cities to build enough demand to fill the aircraft at the international gateways. How much of the domestic market can you afford to lose money serving in order to support those profitable international flights?
Now this is laughable. LCCs have little reason to "respect" any "turf." WN certainly didn't "respect" PHL. :huh:
Remember the SWA / JB models basically run on the "meter drop theory" cabbies dont make money from long trips they making the money on the 2 bucks from just sitting in the cab in the first few seconds ie. 10 short trips pay more profit than 1 long one to them. thus SWA JB have high utulization and quick turns. but put them in a LGA? JB goes there but very limited amount why? why does SWA shy away from ORD and use MDW ? because all those RJs take up the same amount of airspace as thier 737 or 767 or b 1900. same amount now for using that space (or think of it using that gate space) you get 19 seats 50 seats 100 seats or 140 seats or 190 seats. guess which one has the lowest per seat cost (in this example?) but now lets say that SWA goes to LGA. AMR and DAL just put in 50 RJs are they there to make it more expensive by slowing down the utilaztion of swa you can not achieve a 30 min turn in lga at 5pm nor 8am. thus i choose the term "respect their turf" but that was what i was thinking. no AMR could not go head to head cost wise with SWA but they could make it more expesnsive for SWA to operate. as margins become razor thin it tips it from black to red. then the choice is pull out or lose money and out last them. which nation wide is what is going on right now. fare wars on overlapping routes of LCCs by legacys.
Not while B6 can profitably offer a better product than US at the same fare, while US loses money.
a more correct cost comparission would be look at Legacy cost per seat mile say 1988ish... vs B6 today. during that time you had B scales which made it cheaper the bigger you got because you had lower wage employees "subsidizing" older more expensive workers. 2 ways this can fail 1 you must layoff (from the bottom your getting rid of your least expensive workers which continually raises your costs even though you are laying off people since only the most expensive are left) or 2. time. the B scale itself was desgin to fail by timing out after 7 8 9 10 years the employee grows out of the b scale and becomes an a scaler. now if you stop hiring thats the day the clock starts. essentially thats what happened to UAIR costs. they did not hire in mass for almost 10 years thus each year the companies costs continued to rise instead if they had hired more and grew (theory of critical mass) costs would have dropped as long as the amount of new people were greater than the older people then as the the older people retired you could effectively lowered your costs over a 20 year period. but stopping hiring stopped costs from decreasing, laying off cheaper (junior) employees accelerated costs thus any savings generally were a wash and you could never "get ahead"
just a few thoughts for discussion not argument. thats all
:blink:
[post="234647"][/post]
mweiss said:My apologies, but for the life of me I can't figure out why the quote tags aren't working tonight!
Not so much a response but a continued discussion on our mutual paths. again what i posted was merely my opinion. as this will be i will attempt to use a different color sometimes that works sometimes that doesnt.
javaboy,
just popping in (things are slow at my job this time of year)...noticed your post. There's some good stuff in there.
Not necessarily. New airlines do pop up from time to time. But I certainly agree that the traveling public has no basis to expect a new airline to return the industry to its current capacity.
One would think not, but legacy carriers have a very long tradition of putting too much capacity out there. They shouldn't but past experience suggests that they well might. Go figure.
Example of Independence as a new entrant is not quite true those airplanes/employees routes were all serviced before with UAL paint scheme on the side, all they did was paint the planes different. my point here is that a new airline was not created, not since jetblue has one of size been created.
Or JFK or...maybe served nonstop on WN. Your comment here suggests that you cannot see beyond carriers providing service 40 years ago. And, incidentally, the RJs still have a lot of reason to go away in many of their current markets. Frequency is fine, but not at the expense of profitability. :huh:
It is, indeed. Have we proven yet that AA's MRTC is a failure? This is something I'm still extremely interested in finding out.
But nobody has explained why that's a bad thing. If we, as a nation, decide that universal local air service is as important as universal postal or telephone service, then we'll establish such a system. We already have subsidized air service to some cities. Why is it important to have?
Reliable safe airtransportation system according to the US government is a national security requirement (don't ask me why this was put forth post 9/11 hearings ) a like a stable auto industry of the 80s was needed. and achieved. or savings and loan of late 80s point being the industry will HAVE to be stablized at some point after just under 40 years of deregulation it simply is not happening while the consumer might say i get cheaper tickets (then it must be a success) if you get cheaper tickets until airlines go out of biz or cause havoc like christmas in PHL then there is no basis for complaints since you got 10 years of cheap rides.
To Hawaii, one can now fly Aloha from the West Coast. I would hardly be surprised to find some further expansion eastward. As for European destinations, I suspect that we're getting close to the time when LCCs will serve them, simply due to a lack of domestic markets remaining for expansion.
Bear in Mind both Hawaiian carriers are in bankrupcty as well. So Aloha or Hawaiian might not be there in the future which of course reduces competition which means the winner gets too........raise prices!
In the meantime, AA and CO are profitably serving Europe. NW is profitably serving Asia. That looks like it will continue for some time.
Acutally NWAC lost money in 2004 and took bigger hits due to SARS which was localized in the Far East CO is not profitable either and since they already filed 2 bankruptcies they (by the new law written post Lorenzo) can not file for a 3rd reoganization they would infact have to immediately go chap 7 . AA is not profitable either at this point. having lost money in 2004 Europe is not profitable due to the collapse of the dollar vs the Euro. which also weighs on the airline business even if they can sell the ticket at a profit the exchange rate can make it a loss similar situation caused NWAC to almost claim BK in early 90s to to collapse of the yen.
It is. I have more choices of airline between most city pairs than I did in 1975. And, in general, I can fly among them for less (inflation adjusted) than I could in 1975. I get to accumulate frequent flyer miles, free upgrades, etc., etc., etc. I couldn't do any of that in 1975.
Do you ? or do yo have the same 10 "major airlines" just different names. example if Eastern used to serve your city and no longer does but say SWA came in i consider that a wash. since there are still only 10 major airlines (those with annual revenues in excess of 1.o billion) in 1975 there were the same. (bear in mind the billion dollar definition has been adjusted by the federal governement)
The only thing that appears to be in shambles is the business models of a handful of carriers. That's to be expected in a market that shifts from regulated to deregulated.
SWA and Jetblue are the ONLY 2 airlines in the black for 2004, while Airtran, and Alaska and AWA enjoyed one or more profitable qtrs per annum they lost money. that means of AA, DAL, UAL, CAL, NWAC, UAIR, AIRTRAN, JetBlue, American Eagle (yes they meet the test), ComAir, Hawaiian, Aloha, ATA, SWA, Alaska, America West only 2 made money. even those listed above are all not considered majors but the "largest carriers" notice Independence wasnt listed but yet they too lost money. now look at the above UAL UAIR ATA Hawaiian Aloha are currently in bankrupcty CAL, AWA filed twice before American said they were with in 24hrs of filiing during the 2nd qtr of 04, DAL threating as we type. Independence is facing BK as well. its not that some models work and some dont Almost all of them arent working if not for excessive fuel hedging even SWA would have lost money in 2004. think about that SWA 80% hedged at sub 30 a bbl lucky? good? smart? doesnt matter what happens when those run out? does then the SWA business model be classified too as a failure since if oil remains at current levels and SWA hedges expire they infact would be losing money as well?
Nope in fact i can point exactly to the day when this occured. back in the mid 90s FASB made a major rule change FASB 103 which forced companies to account for future obligations on their balance sheets in order to "level the playing field" when analyzing balance sheets for investment purposes. in fact FORTUNE ran an issue on it and it was all the talk on the newly formed channel of CNBC (after taking over its predecsssor FNN not to be confused with CNNfn) at that time in the fortune 500 companies exactly 2 met the new rules to the letter and had enough cash to account for it. those two companies were MSFT (microsoft) and GE (general electric) as david Faber said in fact every company in america but those two could file bankrupcty the next day if the so wanted to due to this rule change. in the years to come this would be replaced with the "expensing options delema".
Clearly you're not looking at the big picture. They're not all going to be in bankruptcy at the same time, or even at all. Those with the best business plans will stay in business. That's how capitalism works.
Actually 5 are in BK right now UAIR UAL ATA HAWAIIAN ALOHA. throw in a DAL or AMR or CAL you then would have 70% of all US airline seats in BK.
Yeah, probably. That's pretty typical for any industry except technology.
Within reason, perhaps. But not monopolistic pricing, since there's little preventing another airline from entering the same market. That was part of what Kahn and Bailey had envisioned.
Yes and no, but more no. The trunks of the 60s had very clearly defined routes of ownership. That's not reforming today. True, different airlines are likely to have regions of strength, but that's always been true. Only in the late 80s was there even a glimmer of that not being the case.
The trunks had that "clearly defined routes" because the CAA awarded them to airlines you could not just serve any route it had to be approved. in the late 80s was the only other period of time in airline history that was as bad as it is today. and i quote warren buffet at DUKE luncheon. (the one where he made the crack about a capitalist would have shot down orrville ) he had his facts up to that date, every dime ever made by the industry since the very first passenger was flown 60 years before was lost in the preceding 5 years by the industry . that same condition exists today, there is no logical (profitable) reason for any airline to operate. thus to go across the country instead of a few hours think days. as one example
I'd give better odds to me winning the Lotto jackpot. At this point, I think US is too far gone, but then again I'm surprised those midnight blue airplanes are still in the air.
It'd be about time.
First off many hardworking Mothers, Fathers, Sisters, Brothers, Sons , Daughters, Friends work at UAIR and you know what they as a whole go in do their jobs and go home, no they dont make the paper for 99% deployment (completion factor) no you hear about a few hundered out of 28000 employees in one station not the other 203 cities served. to them its not fair one bit. about time? i think those that continue to give it their all as they did in the early 90s and then in late 80s and during the stagflation 70s yeah the same people keep coming back for more and believe it or not is is not because they like being degraded by unknown people nor because they think hey the 80s were cool maybe i could work for80s wages again. i submit any worker at say IBM or GM or Disney (remember there wasnt a DELL or Microsoft in the early 80s) if those long time employees wouldnt mind going back to those wages in 2005 oh yeah and you get no pension and pardom me you must pay for your medical benefits and when you retire you dont have any. how many would show up to work ? no those people that are the heart and soul of UAIR as i always say deserve and get from me a tip of the cap a smile and a thank you when i have occasion to cross their paths.
That'd work if they didn't have to serve all of those cities to build enough demand to fill the aircraft at the international gateways. How much of the domestic market can you afford to lose money serving in order to support those profitable international flights?
Now this is laughable. LCCs have little reason to "respect" any "turf." WN certainly didn't "respect" PHL. :huh:
Remember the SWA / JB models basically run on the "meter drop theory" cabbies dont make money from long trips they making the money on the 2 bucks from just sitting in the cab in the first few seconds ie. 10 short trips pay more profit than 1 long one to them. thus SWA JB have high utulization and quick turns. but put them in a LGA? JB goes there but very limited amount why? why does SWA shy away from ORD and use MDW ? because all those RJs take up the same amount of airspace as thier 737 or 767 or b 1900. same amount now for using that space (or think of it using that gate space) you get 19 seats 50 seats 100 seats or 140 seats or 190 seats. guess which one has the lowest per seat cost (in this example?) but now lets say that SWA goes to LGA. AMR and DAL just put in 50 RJs are they there to make it more expensive by slowing down the utilaztion of swa you can not achieve a 30 min turn in lga at 5pm nor 8am. thus i choose the term "respect their turf" but that was what i was thinking. no AMR could not go head to head cost wise with SWA but they could make it more expesnsive for SWA to operate. as margins become razor thin it tips it from black to red. then the choice is pull out or lose money and out last them. which nation wide is what is going on right now. fare wars on overlapping routes of LCCs by legacys.
Not while B6 can profitably offer a better product than US at the same fare, while US loses money.
a more correct cost comparission would be look at Legacy cost per seat mile say 1988ish... vs B6 today. during that time you had B scales which made it cheaper the bigger you got because you had lower wage employees "subsidizing" older more expensive workers. 2 ways this can fail 1 you must layoff (from the bottom your getting rid of your least expensive workers which continually raises your costs even though you are laying off people since only the most expensive are left) or 2. time. the B scale itself was desgin to fail by timing out after 7 8 9 10 years the employee grows out of the b scale and becomes an a scaler. now if you stop hiring thats the day the clock starts. essentially thats what happened to UAIR costs. they did not hire in mass for almost 10 years thus each year the companies costs continued to rise instead if they had hired more and grew (theory of critical mass) costs would have dropped as long as the amount of new people were greater than the older people then as the the older people retired you could effectively lowered your costs over a 20 year period. but stopping hiring stopped costs from decreasing, laying off cheaper (junior) employees accelerated costs thus any savings generally were a wash and you could never "get ahead"
just a few thoughts for discussion not argument. thats all
:blink:
[post="234647"][/post]
