U Has Record Lf For Jan
- Thread starter BoeingBoy
- Start date
OP
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #19
Actually, Rico, I don't mean to be flip. But when CAL estimates their "passenger unit revenue" for Jan was up between 3.5 & 4.5 percent while our's was estimated to be down between 6 & 7 percent, it's not great news.
After all, all the factors you mention to explain it are present for CAL - they compete with DL, WN, B6, etc and their load factor was almost 8 points higher than ours.
Jim
After all, all the factors you mention to explain it are present for CAL - they compete with DL, WN, B6, etc and their load factor was almost 8 points higher than ours.
Jim
- Banned
- #20
CAL is saying the their revenue will be going down:
Continental sees lost revenue on fare changes
Tue Feb 1, 2005 08:09 PM ET
(Adds details)
NEW YORK, Feb 1 (Reuters) - Continental Airlines (CAL.N: Quote, Profile, Research) said on Tuesday it expects to lose about $10 million to $12 million per month in revenues from a recent round of price cutting of domestic fares.
The Houston-based airline said its January load factor rose to 75.3 percent, an increase of 4.9 points from a year ago, with its mainline load factor rising by 4.7 points to 76.1 percent.
Continental sees lost revenue on fare changes
Tue Feb 1, 2005 08:09 PM ET
(Adds details)
NEW YORK, Feb 1 (Reuters) - Continental Airlines (CAL.N: Quote, Profile, Research) said on Tuesday it expects to lose about $10 million to $12 million per month in revenues from a recent round of price cutting of domestic fares.
The Houston-based airline said its January load factor rose to 75.3 percent, an increase of 4.9 points from a year ago, with its mainline load factor rising by 4.7 points to 76.1 percent.
Not flip at all,
just considering all of the business travel that was scared away... to other east coast carriers like CAL, then the numbers are to be expected, and the loads we did get considered great...
With all of the negative press we had, esp after the holidays, we should really be glad to see these numbers. Heck yeah they could have been better in a better situation, but for a airline with our rep, in BK, with supposed strikes looming...
Then these numbers look pretty gppd when you think about it
just considering all of the business travel that was scared away... to other east coast carriers like CAL, then the numbers are to be expected, and the loads we did get considered great...
With all of the negative press we had, esp after the holidays, we should really be glad to see these numbers. Heck yeah they could have been better in a better situation, but for a airline with our rep, in BK, with supposed strikes looming...
Then these numbers look pretty gppd when you think about it
RowUnderDCA
Veteran
- Oct 6, 2002
- 2,123
- 1
Could it be that U has finally fallen off the yield management wagon? In the sense that it has already hit revenue bottom and can only go up or remain relatively stable by shifting to 'simplefares;' while CAL still has yield premium to lose.
Therefore, if U's promised transformation is ALL that it says it is; AND U has a surprise or two up its sleeve; AND U achieves these changes pretty smoothly; AND U is lucky, then the downward trend in RASM has bottomed out and all future cost savings and capacity enhancements go straight to the bottom line.
Therefore, if U's promised transformation is ALL that it says it is; AND U has a surprise or two up its sleeve; AND U achieves these changes pretty smoothly; AND U is lucky, then the downward trend in RASM has bottomed out and all future cost savings and capacity enhancements go straight to the bottom line.
RowUnderDCA
Veteran
- Oct 6, 2002
- 2,123
- 1
well, I've pushed my skeptical but optimistic wishy-washyness as far as it can go.
Suffice to say that past is prologue; but history is not destiny. ; )
I just dont believe that this course of action was decided on until Siegle's departure. Siegle as recently as a year ago was saying that transforming U was too violent and drastic a change for U to achieve. As rediculous as it sounds, U was kidding itself until the last several months.
Suffice to say that past is prologue; but history is not destiny. ; )
I just dont believe that this course of action was decided on until Siegle's departure. Siegle as recently as a year ago was saying that transforming U was too violent and drastic a change for U to achieve. As rediculous as it sounds, U was kidding itself until the last several months.
OP
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #26
700UW said:
700,
CAL, like all the legacies, predicts their revenue will fall with simplified fares, but the estimated their Jan RASM was up between 3.5 and 4.5%.
"For the month of January 2005, both consolidated and mainline passenger revenue per available seat mile (RASM) are estimated to have increased between 3.5 and 4.5 percent compared to January 2004."
CAL Jan Traffic Report
Effectively, CAL's increased LF translated to higher RASM, meaning that yield stayed nearly the same. On the other hand, our increased LF didn't come close of offsetting the yield drop, resulting in the big drop in RASM.
Jim
Just wanted to add that considering everything that happened in Dec. and all the bad news about the Jan 15 date, I am happy to see that the load factor went up!!! I think things will upswing this spring as the traffic increases and hopefully the yields will improve. Remember with all the bad news at the end of Dec. and beginning of Jan some of the higher yield traffic booked away from US. I think this will change going forward for the next couple of months.
Fatherknowsbest
Advanced
- Sep 19, 2003
- 136
- 0
Just want to add my take. You need a load factor of almost 100% to break even, but you don't have the personel to run anywhere near 100% capacity, it would crumble like Xmas in Philly.
This is STILL the wrong recipe at the WRONG time. This would have been great 3 to 5 years ago (RJ's etc NOT the pillage of the employees).
You are still just moving chairs around on the deck of the Titanic at the end of the day.
Wish it were differnt for the worker bees. This Management team does not deserve to pull a rabit out of the hat, nor the brains to do so.
This just proves how hard it is to kill an Airline. Chances to be around at yearend are 3 in 10 at best IHMO.
Please keep resumes going and looking for greener pastures. I hope people choose not to go down with the ship.
This is STILL the wrong recipe at the WRONG time. This would have been great 3 to 5 years ago (RJ's etc NOT the pillage of the employees).
You are still just moving chairs around on the deck of the Titanic at the end of the day.
Wish it were differnt for the worker bees. This Management team does not deserve to pull a rabit out of the hat, nor the brains to do so.
This just proves how hard it is to kill an Airline. Chances to be around at yearend are 3 in 10 at best IHMO.
Please keep resumes going and looking for greener pastures. I hope people choose not to go down with the ship.
UseYourHead
Veteran
- Apr 1, 2003
- 720
- 0
Interesting....
As U restructures to a LCC it will have to expect that its RASM is going to fall. If you look at the successful LCC's you will see that they have the lowest CASM's but they also have the lowest RASM's. U on the other hand has always had the highest CASM and the highest RASM's in the industry. U's problem has always been the CASM is higher than the RASM. I just dont see how U is going to command an inflated RASM when compared to the WN's and B6's of the world especially in the current environment with DAL depressing RASM's even lower. 
