UA #1 in 2002 On-Time Performance
- Thread starter UnitedChicago
- Start date
WNjetdoc
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 532
- 0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/4/2003 4
33 PM 767jetz wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/4/2003 2:00:48 AM wts54 wrote:
We are number one at releasing the brakes before
departure time while sitting on the gate,or loading
bags in the alley.A company like UAL does not all
of a sudden show up in first place because management
came out and gave a couple of pep talks.From last place
to first place maybe it was magic pixie dust.The supervisor told 'well they all do it'.
----------------
[/blockquote]
You are unbelievable!
There is rarely a flight these days where the door is not shut and the airplane not ready to depart 10 minutes before scheduled departure. Even if the jetway is pulled, the mechanics won't allow the brakes to be released while bags are being boarded. Usually we are so early that I find we are now scrambling in the cockpit to get our checklists done, because everyone is ready and waiting for us.
To every employee responsible for this amazing performance, THANK YOU! We deserve a moment of praise. Now let's just keep up the good work.
By the way, wts54, WN doesn't even use ACARS. They can write down whatever out and in times they want, yet we still beat their pants off.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I wasn't going to get involved in this thread but 767jetz helped me off the bench. Im not trying to tinkle in y'alls Wheaties but you may be stretching it a bit to say, "UAL beat the pants off WN". While its true that UAL was 1st and WN was 6th, you failed to mention the percent: UAL 84.2% WN 83.1%. Thats not really beating off anyones pants, a 1.1% difference. Lets not forget that WN, unlike everyone else, didn't cut its flight schedule by 25%, defer a/c deliveries or give up a/c, or wack 25% of the workforce, infact WN has increased both employees and flights and also a/c. Also, we all know the DOT ontime ratings are for the airlines and employees for the most part. I don't know of any passengers that fly one airline over another because said airline is number 1 in ontime arrivals, or because they arrive ontime 1.1% more than another airline. Just my 2cents. Flame me if you want, I probably wont be back on this side of the bb for a while, Im bored and its snowing like a big dog here!!!
----------------
On 2/4/2003 4
33 PM 767jetz wrote: [blockquote]
----------------
On 2/4/2003 2:00:48 AM wts54 wrote:
We are number one at releasing the brakes before
departure time while sitting on the gate,or loading
bags in the alley.A company like UAL does not all
of a sudden show up in first place because management
came out and gave a couple of pep talks.From last place
to first place maybe it was magic pixie dust.The supervisor told 'well they all do it'.
----------------
[/blockquote]
You are unbelievable!
There is rarely a flight these days where the door is not shut and the airplane not ready to depart 10 minutes before scheduled departure. Even if the jetway is pulled, the mechanics won't allow the brakes to be released while bags are being boarded. Usually we are so early that I find we are now scrambling in the cockpit to get our checklists done, because everyone is ready and waiting for us.
To every employee responsible for this amazing performance, THANK YOU! We deserve a moment of praise. Now let's just keep up the good work.
By the way, wts54, WN doesn't even use ACARS. They can write down whatever out and in times they want, yet we still beat their pants off.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I wasn't going to get involved in this thread but 767jetz helped me off the bench. Im not trying to tinkle in y'alls Wheaties but you may be stretching it a bit to say, "UAL beat the pants off WN". While its true that UAL was 1st and WN was 6th, you failed to mention the percent: UAL 84.2% WN 83.1%. Thats not really beating off anyones pants, a 1.1% difference. Lets not forget that WN, unlike everyone else, didn't cut its flight schedule by 25%, defer a/c deliveries or give up a/c, or wack 25% of the workforce, infact WN has increased both employees and flights and also a/c. Also, we all know the DOT ontime ratings are for the airlines and employees for the most part. I don't know of any passengers that fly one airline over another because said airline is number 1 in ontime arrivals, or because they arrive ontime 1.1% more than another airline. Just my 2cents. Flame me if you want, I probably wont be back on this side of the bb for a while, Im bored and its snowing like a big dog here!!!
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 11,284
- 1,427
Busdriver - I guess it's easier to be closer to an on time arrival when the doors are shut for departure a full 10 minutes before departure time. Remember the Time magazine article about how United wouldn't let the couple on the flight because they weren't checked in one hour prior to the flight time? Ever fly Delta? Lately they have announcements that if you aren't checked in 30 minutes prior, you've forfeited your reservation. And the doors close 10 mintues early.
Quite honestly, I am surprised that UAL did that good for the month of December. My wife tried y'all and enjoyed a comfy night on a cot in the ORD baggage claim (courtesy of the city of Chicago). They wouldn't let her on the 5:00 flight (that wasn't leaving until 7:10) because her luggage wasn't on that flight (although we came to find out the next day, her luggage WAS INDEED on there). Her 7:00 flight was cancelled. Meanwhile, the pencil whippers at LUV were chalking up a bunch of late arrivals out of Chicago, but they DID get them to their destination that night.
Customer service? Not for hotwire ticket holders. Y'all named the price, my sister bought the ticket, and she might as well have had leprosy the way she was treated when her DFW-ORD flight was delayed, causing her to miss her connection in ORD. You might want to tell your managment that if they choose to participate in hotwire, they might want to treat the customer who has a hotwire ticket as though their business is appreciated. Right now, you've got a customer with a bitter taste in their mouth - all for buying a ticket from an organization that YOUR COMPANY opted to participate in. If you don't want that kind of business, withdraw from the hotwire program.
Quite honestly, I am surprised that UAL did that good for the month of December. My wife tried y'all and enjoyed a comfy night on a cot in the ORD baggage claim (courtesy of the city of Chicago). They wouldn't let her on the 5:00 flight (that wasn't leaving until 7:10) because her luggage wasn't on that flight (although we came to find out the next day, her luggage WAS INDEED on there). Her 7:00 flight was cancelled. Meanwhile, the pencil whippers at LUV were chalking up a bunch of late arrivals out of Chicago, but they DID get them to their destination that night.
Customer service? Not for hotwire ticket holders. Y'all named the price, my sister bought the ticket, and she might as well have had leprosy the way she was treated when her DFW-ORD flight was delayed, causing her to miss her connection in ORD. You might want to tell your managment that if they choose to participate in hotwire, they might want to treat the customer who has a hotwire ticket as though their business is appreciated. Right now, you've got a customer with a bitter taste in their mouth - all for buying a ticket from an organization that YOUR COMPANY opted to participate in. If you don't want that kind of business, withdraw from the hotwire program.
WNjetdoc
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 532
- 0
******KC, "They wouldn't let her on the 5:00 flight (that wasn't leaving until 7:10) because her luggage wasn't on that flight (although we came to find out the next day, her luggage WAS INDEED on there). Her 7:00 flight was cancelled. Meanwhile, the pencil whippers at LUV were chalking up a bunch of late arrivals out of Chicago, but they DID get them to their destination that night." *******WNjetdoc, KC, we were talking about this on your other favorite bb, *wink*. I personally have found that most people tend to remember an airline holding a flight for a few minutes to catch late connectors, etc, than remember what place a airline finished the DOT in. That is unless they are real, real late, or constantly losing luggage. I think the average flyer wants an airline that gets them to their destination in a reasonable timeframe, gets them there safely and at a fare price. If you can have fun along the way then thats icing on the cake.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/16/2003 6:40:38 PM KCFlyer wrote:
"Busdriver - I guess it's easier to be closer to an on time arrival when the doors are shut for departure a full 10 minutes before departure time. Remember the Time magazine article about how United wouldn't let the couple on the flight because they weren't checked in one hour prior to the flight time? Ever fly Delta? Lately they have announcements that if you aren't checked in 30 minutes prior, you've forfeited your reservation. And the doors close 10 mintues early."
So If I'm a responsible businessman who needs to make it to a destination ON TIME to close an important deal (or even just give a favorable impression to a client), you're saying the airline I bought a ticket on should DELAY my flight (the one I was responsible enough to show up on time to) for a couple of morons who've obviously lived in a cave since prior to 911? I think I'll take the airline that rewards responsibility.
"Quite honestly, I am surprised that UAL did that good for the month of December. My wife tried y'all and enjoyed a comfy night on a cot in the ORD baggage claim (courtesy of the city of Chicago). They wouldn't let her on the 5:00 flight (that wasn't leaving until 7:10) because her luggage wasn't on that flight (although we came to find out the next day, her luggage WAS INDEED on there)."
That seems a little strange. PBM does not apply to connecting flights (unless that changed Jan 1). I personally try to travel light (one carry one) wich I would recommend for you (SWA doesn't keep track of bags like they used to). Was the flight full? Why didn't you get her a hotel? If the cancellation was OUR fault (not many of those last year, UAL had the second lowest cancellation rate in the industry), UAL springs for a hotel. If it was Wx related, we don't. Are you sure that flight wasn't full? Maybe they told her the luggage thing so as not to offend her by saying "mam, we rebook in an order based on FF status and ticket price, sorry but that 1K million with the 2000 ticket from FRA gets the seat over you. I still can't believe you let you WIFE sleep in the airport. They do have hotels in ORD
"Her 7:00 flight was cancelled. Meanwhile, the pencil whippers at LUV were chalking up a bunch of late arrivals out of Chicago, but they DID get them to their destination that night."
All of them? you sure? Need I remind you that SWA's cancellation rate WAS significantly higher than UAL's for the whole year?
"Customer service? Not for hotwire ticket holders. Y'all named the price, my sister bought the ticket, and she might as well have had leprosy the way she was treated when her DFW-ORD flight was delayed, causing her to miss her connection in ORD. You might want to tell your managment that if they choose to participate in hotwire, they might want to treat the customer who has a hotwire ticket as though their business is appreciated. Right now, you've got a customer with a bitter taste in their mouth - all for buying a ticket from an organization that YOUR COMPANY opted to participate in. If you don't want that kind of business, withdraw from the hotwire program."
She went on hotwire and bought the CHEAPEST ticket she could find (must be genetic). If she cared about service, if she cared about legroom, she would have gone direct to United.com and bought a ticket from UNITED. This goes back to my point about the unreasonable expectations. Did she get on the flight she booked? was it on time? whats her complaint? No meal? That we serve pepsi not coke? That the FC check-in line is shorter than the coach line? If he complaint was that we didn't upgrade her to first because there weren't enough seats in the boarding area, then I feel her pain.
----------------
[/blockquote]
----------------
On 2/16/2003 6:40:38 PM KCFlyer wrote:
"Busdriver - I guess it's easier to be closer to an on time arrival when the doors are shut for departure a full 10 minutes before departure time. Remember the Time magazine article about how United wouldn't let the couple on the flight because they weren't checked in one hour prior to the flight time? Ever fly Delta? Lately they have announcements that if you aren't checked in 30 minutes prior, you've forfeited your reservation. And the doors close 10 mintues early."
So If I'm a responsible businessman who needs to make it to a destination ON TIME to close an important deal (or even just give a favorable impression to a client), you're saying the airline I bought a ticket on should DELAY my flight (the one I was responsible enough to show up on time to) for a couple of morons who've obviously lived in a cave since prior to 911? I think I'll take the airline that rewards responsibility.
"Quite honestly, I am surprised that UAL did that good for the month of December. My wife tried y'all and enjoyed a comfy night on a cot in the ORD baggage claim (courtesy of the city of Chicago). They wouldn't let her on the 5:00 flight (that wasn't leaving until 7:10) because her luggage wasn't on that flight (although we came to find out the next day, her luggage WAS INDEED on there)."
That seems a little strange. PBM does not apply to connecting flights (unless that changed Jan 1). I personally try to travel light (one carry one) wich I would recommend for you (SWA doesn't keep track of bags like they used to). Was the flight full? Why didn't you get her a hotel? If the cancellation was OUR fault (not many of those last year, UAL had the second lowest cancellation rate in the industry), UAL springs for a hotel. If it was Wx related, we don't. Are you sure that flight wasn't full? Maybe they told her the luggage thing so as not to offend her by saying "mam, we rebook in an order based on FF status and ticket price, sorry but that 1K million with the 2000 ticket from FRA gets the seat over you. I still can't believe you let you WIFE sleep in the airport. They do have hotels in ORD
"Her 7:00 flight was cancelled. Meanwhile, the pencil whippers at LUV were chalking up a bunch of late arrivals out of Chicago, but they DID get them to their destination that night."
All of them? you sure? Need I remind you that SWA's cancellation rate WAS significantly higher than UAL's for the whole year?
"Customer service? Not for hotwire ticket holders. Y'all named the price, my sister bought the ticket, and she might as well have had leprosy the way she was treated when her DFW-ORD flight was delayed, causing her to miss her connection in ORD. You might want to tell your managment that if they choose to participate in hotwire, they might want to treat the customer who has a hotwire ticket as though their business is appreciated. Right now, you've got a customer with a bitter taste in their mouth - all for buying a ticket from an organization that YOUR COMPANY opted to participate in. If you don't want that kind of business, withdraw from the hotwire program."
She went on hotwire and bought the CHEAPEST ticket she could find (must be genetic). If she cared about service, if she cared about legroom, she would have gone direct to United.com and bought a ticket from UNITED. This goes back to my point about the unreasonable expectations. Did she get on the flight she booked? was it on time? whats her complaint? No meal? That we serve pepsi not coke? That the FC check-in line is shorter than the coach line? If he complaint was that we didn't upgrade her to first because there weren't enough seats in the boarding area, then I feel her pain.
----------------
[/blockquote]
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 11,284
- 1,427
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/21/2003 10:56:05 AM Busdrvr wrote:
So If I'm a responsible businessman who needs to make it to a destination ON TIME to close an important deal (or even just give a favorable impression to a client), you're saying the airline I bought a ticket on should DELAY my flight (the one I was responsible enough to show up on time to) for a couple of morons who've obviously lived in a cave since prior to 911? I think I'll take the airline that rewards responsibility.
The really odd part is, prior to 9/11, the one big bad thing about flying SWA was that you had to be there an hour before the flight, whereas flying a "major" gave one the luxury of strolling right up to the gate with 5 minutes to go. Today, getting their early is being a "responsible businessman". And if they aren't responsible enough to get there 30 minutes to an hour early - tough.
That seems a little strange. PBM does not apply to connecting flights (unless that changed Jan 1). I personally try to travel light (one carry one) wich I would recommend for you (SWA doesn't keep track of bags like they used to). Was the flight full? Why didn't you get her a hotel? If the cancellation was OUR fault (not many of those last year, UAL had the second lowest cancellation rate in the industry), UAL springs for a hotel. If it was Wx related, we don't. Are you sure that flight wasn't full? Maybe they told her the luggage thing so as not to offend her by saying "mam, we rebook in an order based on FF status and ticket price, sorry but that 1K million with the 2000 ticket from FRA gets the seat over you. I still can't believe you let you WIFE sleep in the airport. They do have hotels in ORD
Oh, the flight wasn't full. Indeed, the flight had "plenty of seats" according to a UAL rep at a customer service desk. The one who made the "you're bags aren't here" rule was the one person who made a difference - the gate agent for the flight she was trying to get on. Yep - it was classified as "weather related" cancellation. It didn't carry any weight with UAL that two agents told her she could catch the 7:00 flight, but the gate agent disagreed, and a third agent said "They should have let you on that flight". So, she watched a perfectly good 737 with empty seats on it taxi out to the runway. Why didn't I get her a hotel? Well, the Monday after Thanksgiving in Chicago, there WERE NO hotels available. Nevermind that she was there for her flight for almost 4 hours prior to her flight time - watching as it showed it's departure time get pushed back until right at flight time, it was cancelled. By that time, many other stranded passengers had booked what hotel rooms remained.
All of them? you sure? Need I remind you that SWA's cancellation rate WAS significantly higher than UAL's for the whole year?
As poor as the SWA cancellation rate may be, they operate 18 daily nonstops between Chicago and KC. They might have cancelled half of them, but I'll betcha that they pencil whipped more folks to their final destinations that night.
She went on hotwire and bought the CHEAPEST ticket she could find (must be genetic). If she cared about service, if she cared about legroom, she would have gone direct to United.com and bought a ticket from UNITED. This goes back to my point about the unreasonable expectations. Did she get on the flight she booked? was it on time? whats her complaint? No meal? That we serve pepsi not coke? That the FC check-in line is shorter than the coach line? If he complaint was that we didn't upgrade her to first because there weren't enough seats in the boarding area, then I feel her pain.
To travel under her time constraints (hospitalizations of a relative are not usually planned events) would have been pretty expensive. In situations like that, service comes second. She went to hotwire. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but United chooses to participate in hotwire, do they not? Therefore, United was willing to sell her a ticket, were they not? So wouldn't it be wise of them to treat her as if she actually paid for a ticket? FWIW, she didn't expect a meal, she didn't expect first class, she didn't expect a royal ass kissing. What she expected was to get from point A to point B somewhat close to the time that she was ticketed for. She didn't - both ways. She was stranded in ORD on the way up because of a "weather delay" (the plane was at the DFW gate at the appointed hour), and AA flights seemed to be making it out to Chicago okay. The way back she was stranded in ORD because of a mechanical delay out of CAK. They didn't offer to try to put her on another UAL or AA or DAL flight to Dallas. So much for the benefits of "interlining". She didn't complain though. She just decided that she won't use hotwire again, but the downside for y'all is that she doesn't intend to use UAL again either.
----------------
[/blockquote]
----------------
On 2/21/2003 10:56:05 AM Busdrvr wrote:
So If I'm a responsible businessman who needs to make it to a destination ON TIME to close an important deal (or even just give a favorable impression to a client), you're saying the airline I bought a ticket on should DELAY my flight (the one I was responsible enough to show up on time to) for a couple of morons who've obviously lived in a cave since prior to 911? I think I'll take the airline that rewards responsibility.
The really odd part is, prior to 9/11, the one big bad thing about flying SWA was that you had to be there an hour before the flight, whereas flying a "major" gave one the luxury of strolling right up to the gate with 5 minutes to go. Today, getting their early is being a "responsible businessman". And if they aren't responsible enough to get there 30 minutes to an hour early - tough.
That seems a little strange. PBM does not apply to connecting flights (unless that changed Jan 1). I personally try to travel light (one carry one) wich I would recommend for you (SWA doesn't keep track of bags like they used to). Was the flight full? Why didn't you get her a hotel? If the cancellation was OUR fault (not many of those last year, UAL had the second lowest cancellation rate in the industry), UAL springs for a hotel. If it was Wx related, we don't. Are you sure that flight wasn't full? Maybe they told her the luggage thing so as not to offend her by saying "mam, we rebook in an order based on FF status and ticket price, sorry but that 1K million with the 2000 ticket from FRA gets the seat over you. I still can't believe you let you WIFE sleep in the airport. They do have hotels in ORD
Oh, the flight wasn't full. Indeed, the flight had "plenty of seats" according to a UAL rep at a customer service desk. The one who made the "you're bags aren't here" rule was the one person who made a difference - the gate agent for the flight she was trying to get on. Yep - it was classified as "weather related" cancellation. It didn't carry any weight with UAL that two agents told her she could catch the 7:00 flight, but the gate agent disagreed, and a third agent said "They should have let you on that flight". So, she watched a perfectly good 737 with empty seats on it taxi out to the runway. Why didn't I get her a hotel? Well, the Monday after Thanksgiving in Chicago, there WERE NO hotels available. Nevermind that she was there for her flight for almost 4 hours prior to her flight time - watching as it showed it's departure time get pushed back until right at flight time, it was cancelled. By that time, many other stranded passengers had booked what hotel rooms remained.
All of them? you sure? Need I remind you that SWA's cancellation rate WAS significantly higher than UAL's for the whole year?
As poor as the SWA cancellation rate may be, they operate 18 daily nonstops between Chicago and KC. They might have cancelled half of them, but I'll betcha that they pencil whipped more folks to their final destinations that night.
She went on hotwire and bought the CHEAPEST ticket she could find (must be genetic). If she cared about service, if she cared about legroom, she would have gone direct to United.com and bought a ticket from UNITED. This goes back to my point about the unreasonable expectations. Did she get on the flight she booked? was it on time? whats her complaint? No meal? That we serve pepsi not coke? That the FC check-in line is shorter than the coach line? If he complaint was that we didn't upgrade her to first because there weren't enough seats in the boarding area, then I feel her pain.
To travel under her time constraints (hospitalizations of a relative are not usually planned events) would have been pretty expensive. In situations like that, service comes second. She went to hotwire. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but United chooses to participate in hotwire, do they not? Therefore, United was willing to sell her a ticket, were they not? So wouldn't it be wise of them to treat her as if she actually paid for a ticket? FWIW, she didn't expect a meal, she didn't expect first class, she didn't expect a royal ass kissing. What she expected was to get from point A to point B somewhat close to the time that she was ticketed for. She didn't - both ways. She was stranded in ORD on the way up because of a "weather delay" (the plane was at the DFW gate at the appointed hour), and AA flights seemed to be making it out to Chicago okay. The way back she was stranded in ORD because of a mechanical delay out of CAK. They didn't offer to try to put her on another UAL or AA or DAL flight to Dallas. So much for the benefits of "interlining". She didn't complain though. She just decided that she won't use hotwire again, but the downside for y'all is that she doesn't intend to use UAL again either.
----------------
[/blockquote]
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/16/2003 4:41:40 PM Busdrvr wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/4/2003 6:43:24 PM Boeingguy wrote:
>>WN ....... we still beat their pants off. [<
Not where it REALLY counts:
2. "As far as complaints, United and Southwest were at opposite ends of the spectrum. Southwest, logged the fewest complaints of any major American airline: 0.33 per 100,000 enplanements, the measurement used by DOT. That was a bit better than Southwest's rate of 0.38 in 2001.
United, though, was 10th and last in 2002, with 1.71 complaints per 100,000 enplanements.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I notice you conveniently edited out Boeingguy's first point:
[blockquote]
----------------
1. "Southwest Airlines Reports Fourth Quarter Earnings and 30th Consecutive Year Of Profitability"
----------------
[/blockquote]
All this "My Dad can lick your Dad" talk is really pretty irrelevant when a company is in a fight for its financial life. In this environment, the bottom line is truely the bottom line!
----------------
On 2/16/2003 4:41:40 PM Busdrvr wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/4/2003 6:43:24 PM Boeingguy wrote:
>>WN ....... we still beat their pants off. [<
Not where it REALLY counts:
2. "As far as complaints, United and Southwest were at opposite ends of the spectrum. Southwest, logged the fewest complaints of any major American airline: 0.33 per 100,000 enplanements, the measurement used by DOT. That was a bit better than Southwest's rate of 0.38 in 2001.
United, though, was 10th and last in 2002, with 1.71 complaints per 100,000 enplanements.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I notice you conveniently edited out Boeingguy's first point:
[blockquote]
----------------
1. "Southwest Airlines Reports Fourth Quarter Earnings and 30th Consecutive Year Of Profitability"
----------------
[/blockquote]
All this "My Dad can lick your Dad" talk is really pretty irrelevant when a company is in a fight for its financial life. In this environment, the bottom line is truely the bottom line!
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/13/2003 7:03:00 PM will fix for food wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/13/2003 6:51:52 PM UnitedChicago wrote:
"Again..I fail to see your point. I don't have naked pictures of 777's on my wall. I don't stalk 727's in the dessert."
No, those people hang out at airliners.net. Talk about hardcore geeks.
"Don't forget mr. fix...it's pax like me that help pay your salary.
a little respect please."
OK..Just giving you a hard time. Most people that have worked at an airline for longer than about 6 months find other peoples fascination with the business odd and/or amusing. Being an airline employee, particularly these days, is a bit of a drag.
BTW, did I mention that those people at airliners.net are freaks?
----------------
[/blockquote]
----------------
[/blockquote]
Dont forget its PAXs like him that want you to work for nothing so they can fly for less than it costs to drive. Respect is earned, United Chicago has never hesitated to smear those he disagrees with. Keep up the good work!
----------------
On 2/13/2003 7:03:00 PM will fix for food wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/13/2003 6:51:52 PM UnitedChicago wrote:
"Again..I fail to see your point. I don't have naked pictures of 777's on my wall. I don't stalk 727's in the dessert."
No, those people hang out at airliners.net. Talk about hardcore geeks.
"Don't forget mr. fix...it's pax like me that help pay your salary.
a little respect please."
OK..Just giving you a hard time. Most people that have worked at an airline for longer than about 6 months find other peoples fascination with the business odd and/or amusing. Being an airline employee, particularly these days, is a bit of a drag.
BTW, did I mention that those people at airliners.net are freaks?
----------------
[/blockquote]
----------------
[/blockquote]
Dont forget its PAXs like him that want you to work for nothing so they can fly for less than it costs to drive. Respect is earned, United Chicago has never hesitated to smear those he disagrees with. Keep up the good work!
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 11,284
- 1,427
Bob - I sent my wife on a trip to the Holiday bowl last December. I paid the fully refundable fare on Southwest ($299) on the way out because seats were hard to come by. I'll tell you this - had that fare been $1,000 one way, she would have had to watch it on the TV at home.
I'm all for you guys raising prices. I won't be on your airplane. Neither will a lot of others. You will find that with 70% of the seats empty, the airline will not need a lot of the aircraft and employees that they hired in the 1980's and 1990's. So, they'll "downsize" so that guys like you can be happy that the airlines are finally charging a fare that can cover costs. Nevermind that the "trunk" carriers are flying no more than 200 planes. It's a nasty little circle - you need us badly, regardless of what fare we pay. Send us back to our cars. I'll be sure to honk and wave as I pass you at the unemployment line.
I'm all for you guys raising prices. I won't be on your airplane. Neither will a lot of others. You will find that with 70% of the seats empty, the airline will not need a lot of the aircraft and employees that they hired in the 1980's and 1990's. So, they'll "downsize" so that guys like you can be happy that the airlines are finally charging a fare that can cover costs. Nevermind that the "trunk" carriers are flying no more than 200 planes. It's a nasty little circle - you need us badly, regardless of what fare we pay. Send us back to our cars. I'll be sure to honk and wave as I pass you at the unemployment line.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/23/2003 7:54:13 AM KCFlyer wrote:
Bob - I sent my wife on a trip to the Holiday bowl last December. I paid the fully refundable fare on Southwest ($299) on the way out because seats were hard to come by. I'll tell you this - had that fare been $1,000 one way, she would have had to watch it on the TV at home.
I'm all for you guys raising prices. I won't be on your airplane. Neither will a lot of others. You will find that with 70% of the seats empty, the airline will not need a lot of the aircraft and employees that they hired in the 1980's and 1990's. So, they'll "downsize" so that guys like you can be happy that the airlines are finally charging a fare that can cover costs. Nevermind that the "trunk" carriers are flying no more than 200 planes. It's a nasty little circle - you need us badly, regardless of what fare we pay. Send us back to our cars. I'll be sure to honk and wave as I pass you at the unemployment line.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I'm not worried, if thats the case I'll just start fixing cars again. When you are stuck on the side of the road you wont mind paying $65/hr to get going again.
So tell me if you had to pay $325 instead of $299 would you have kept her home? The fact is that a $20 or $30 difference in ticket prices is the difference between profits and losses. I doubt that a $20 increase would put you on the highway, after all time is money right?
----------------
On 2/23/2003 7:54:13 AM KCFlyer wrote:
Bob - I sent my wife on a trip to the Holiday bowl last December. I paid the fully refundable fare on Southwest ($299) on the way out because seats were hard to come by. I'll tell you this - had that fare been $1,000 one way, she would have had to watch it on the TV at home.
I'm all for you guys raising prices. I won't be on your airplane. Neither will a lot of others. You will find that with 70% of the seats empty, the airline will not need a lot of the aircraft and employees that they hired in the 1980's and 1990's. So, they'll "downsize" so that guys like you can be happy that the airlines are finally charging a fare that can cover costs. Nevermind that the "trunk" carriers are flying no more than 200 planes. It's a nasty little circle - you need us badly, regardless of what fare we pay. Send us back to our cars. I'll be sure to honk and wave as I pass you at the unemployment line.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I'm not worried, if thats the case I'll just start fixing cars again. When you are stuck on the side of the road you wont mind paying $65/hr to get going again.
So tell me if you had to pay $325 instead of $299 would you have kept her home? The fact is that a $20 or $30 difference in ticket prices is the difference between profits and losses. I doubt that a $20 increase would put you on the highway, after all time is money right?
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/23/2003 9:01:46 PM Bob Owens wrote:
[blockquote]
So tell me if you had to pay $325 instead of $299 would you have kept her home? The fact is that a $20 or $30 difference in ticket prices is the difference between profits and losses. I doubt that a $20 increase would put you on the highway, after all time is money right?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Nope, but perhaps she, and others would have still taken the lower price and taken Southwest.
----------------
On 2/23/2003 9:01:46 PM Bob Owens wrote:
[blockquote]
So tell me if you had to pay $325 instead of $299 would you have kept her home? The fact is that a $20 or $30 difference in ticket prices is the difference between profits and losses. I doubt that a $20 increase would put you on the highway, after all time is money right?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Nope, but perhaps she, and others would have still taken the lower price and taken Southwest.
Take the $325 UA flight. UA matches Soutwest fares in the market to keep the planes full and not loose share. Problem is, in the long run it is not sustainable since it is below UA's fully allocated cost.
The oldest problem in the business.
It makes tactical sense since traffic variable costs are covered, but in the long run is not sustainable.
Against the LCCs, you can will a battle but loose the war. In the long run, the LCC will just keep their price where they are comfortable and then watch the high cost carrier bleed.
Competition is a wonderful thing (for us consumers at least). Without market movers like Southwest, we would have no option but to buy that $1,000 fare.
The oldest problem in the business.
It makes tactical sense since traffic variable costs are covered, but in the long run is not sustainable.
Against the LCCs, you can will a battle but loose the war. In the long run, the LCC will just keep their price where they are comfortable and then watch the high cost carrier bleed.
Competition is a wonderful thing (for us consumers at least). Without market movers like Southwest, we would have no option but to buy that $1,000 fare.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/23/2003 9:01:46 PM Bob Owens wrote:
[blockquote]
I'm not worried, if thats the case I'll just start fixing cars again. When you are stuck on the side of the road you wont mind paying $65/hr to get going again.
So tell me if you had to pay $325 instead of $299 would you have kept her home? The fact is that a $20 or $30 difference in ticket prices is the difference between profits and losses. I doubt that a $20 increase would put you on the highway, after all time is money right?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Well, you know, it all depends. If you're talking about a family of four going to Orlando or Grandma's, then you're talking about $100-120 instead. And they might choose to either drive it or stay home. Or in an era of reduced corporate travel budgets, higher fares mean fewer business trips. There's a price point for every potential traveler (or her boss) at which she will decide that flying simply is not worth it.
Back in the days of regulation, a LOT fewer people flew. At the dawn of deregulation in 1978, U.S. scheduled airlines flew 227 million RPM's. In 2000, U.S. scheduled airlines flew 693 million RPM's -- an increase of 205%. Fares were much higher during the regulated era, so fewer people flew. If fares go up, fewer people will fly, which means fewer flights, which means fewer airplanes and the people who work with them.
The major airlines can survive with their current wage rates; they'll just need to shrink their headcounts substantially to do it.
----------------
On 2/23/2003 9:01:46 PM Bob Owens wrote:
[blockquote]
I'm not worried, if thats the case I'll just start fixing cars again. When you are stuck on the side of the road you wont mind paying $65/hr to get going again.
So tell me if you had to pay $325 instead of $299 would you have kept her home? The fact is that a $20 or $30 difference in ticket prices is the difference between profits and losses. I doubt that a $20 increase would put you on the highway, after all time is money right?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Well, you know, it all depends. If you're talking about a family of four going to Orlando or Grandma's, then you're talking about $100-120 instead. And they might choose to either drive it or stay home. Or in an era of reduced corporate travel budgets, higher fares mean fewer business trips. There's a price point for every potential traveler (or her boss) at which she will decide that flying simply is not worth it.
Back in the days of regulation, a LOT fewer people flew. At the dawn of deregulation in 1978, U.S. scheduled airlines flew 227 million RPM's. In 2000, U.S. scheduled airlines flew 693 million RPM's -- an increase of 205%. Fares were much higher during the regulated era, so fewer people flew. If fares go up, fewer people will fly, which means fewer flights, which means fewer airplanes and the people who work with them.
The major airlines can survive with their current wage rates; they'll just need to shrink their headcounts substantially to do it.
