UA/UA merger?
- Thread starter isthisok
- Start date
- Status
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 11,373
- Reaction score
- 1,431
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 9/26/2002 8:53:19 PM Winglet wrote:
[P]It isn't about efficiency . . . . it's about TOO MUCH CAPACITY. Even if all the carriers came down to Regional compensation, there would still be TOO MUCH CAPACITY. There is too much supply resulting in too low of ticket prices. Even if all the airlines were ALL Southwest clones, we couldn't sell all the seats.[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]We'll never really know, will we Winglet? Because I honestly believe that if the fares were to drop to reasonable levels, that capacity would be filled rapidly, and many of the 20% of the fleets that were parked in the desert would be recalled and placed in service to meet the increased demand. But I suppose airline managment is hard pressed to lower fares when going to Uncle Sam with hat in hand to beg for more money. Too bad, because watching a seat go unsold because the last minute fare translates into a buck a mile when it could be sold for 31 cents a mile and the airline could still be making a profit - without drastic labor concessions. YOu have too much supply. Why doesn't anyone even TRY increasing demand? They slash here and slash there, they slash everywhere except fares, and those they do slash are so heavily restricted to discourage business flyers from booking them. Why not ENCOURAGE businesses to book more travel? It's as if a $2,000 fare for a one hour flight is the only way back to profitablity. [/P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 9/26/2002 8:53:19 PM Winglet wrote:
[P]It isn't about efficiency . . . . it's about TOO MUCH CAPACITY. Even if all the carriers came down to Regional compensation, there would still be TOO MUCH CAPACITY. There is too much supply resulting in too low of ticket prices. Even if all the airlines were ALL Southwest clones, we couldn't sell all the seats.[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]We'll never really know, will we Winglet? Because I honestly believe that if the fares were to drop to reasonable levels, that capacity would be filled rapidly, and many of the 20% of the fleets that were parked in the desert would be recalled and placed in service to meet the increased demand. But I suppose airline managment is hard pressed to lower fares when going to Uncle Sam with hat in hand to beg for more money. Too bad, because watching a seat go unsold because the last minute fare translates into a buck a mile when it could be sold for 31 cents a mile and the airline could still be making a profit - without drastic labor concessions. YOu have too much supply. Why doesn't anyone even TRY increasing demand? They slash here and slash there, they slash everywhere except fares, and those they do slash are so heavily restricted to discourage business flyers from booking them. Why not ENCOURAGE businesses to book more travel? It's as if a $2,000 fare for a one hour flight is the only way back to profitablity. [/P]
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 11,373
- Reaction score
- 1,431
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 9/26/2002 8:57:16 PM insp89 wrote:
[P]Chip,, The -Mercer Report-that you posted sounds like nothing more than good old fashioned REGULATION... [/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]Good? There is a way to return to those days...Let UAL and U fail, and let AMR, NWA, and CO shrink to about half their current size, get rid of the staff that deregulation helped create, and presto - airlines are at a size where that good old regulation can happen again.[/P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 9/26/2002 8:57:16 PM insp89 wrote:
[P]Chip,, The -Mercer Report-that you posted sounds like nothing more than good old fashioned REGULATION... [/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]Good? There is a way to return to those days...Let UAL and U fail, and let AMR, NWA, and CO shrink to about half their current size, get rid of the staff that deregulation helped create, and presto - airlines are at a size where that good old regulation can happen again.[/P]
ONTHESTREET
Advanced
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 198
- Reaction score
- 0
KC Flyer,
I too would like to see the planes full, However as said the fares are already pretty low with no takers. Concessions will help some on cost but most airliners burn roughly 850 gallons an hour in cruise and when climbing this number can be as high 1400 gallons an hour. At roughly 2 bucks a gallon (Depending on hedging etc.) thats about $1700 an hour just in gas. Add in spare parts, gates, ground equip., Ins., training facilities, dispatch equip, computer networks, etc, etc. It begins to add up. All this even before you factor in the payroll for everyone to make the machine move. A 737-300 with a full load of 142 pax at $200 per person across the country brings in $28400. 5 hours of fuel...even at $1.50 a gal. is still about $6400 just in gas.
I do not know the current going rate the airlines are paying for fuel right now (About $2.35 for Jet-A at Fixed base operators.) but when you factor in all the expences there is not much room to work. Since being laid off, I am flying a light twin on charter, even a small six place airplane runs about $275 an hour to operate just in gas, ins, and maint.
I too would like to see the planes full, However as said the fares are already pretty low with no takers. Concessions will help some on cost but most airliners burn roughly 850 gallons an hour in cruise and when climbing this number can be as high 1400 gallons an hour. At roughly 2 bucks a gallon (Depending on hedging etc.) thats about $1700 an hour just in gas. Add in spare parts, gates, ground equip., Ins., training facilities, dispatch equip, computer networks, etc, etc. It begins to add up. All this even before you factor in the payroll for everyone to make the machine move. A 737-300 with a full load of 142 pax at $200 per person across the country brings in $28400. 5 hours of fuel...even at $1.50 a gal. is still about $6400 just in gas.
I do not know the current going rate the airlines are paying for fuel right now (About $2.35 for Jet-A at Fixed base operators.) but when you factor in all the expences there is not much room to work. Since being laid off, I am flying a light twin on charter, even a small six place airplane runs about $275 an hour to operate just in gas, ins, and maint.
KCFlyer,
You're kidding, aren't you, about dropping the fares to reasonable levels. Because average fares are currently at historic 15 year lows.
I suppose it is how you define resonalbe. I am sure that a reasonable fare to you must be $19 cross-country round-trip in First Class-- something that no one (not even SW or jB) can or will provide and still make a profit.
Sure a fare like that will have a LOT of demand and fill up the seats and necessitate recalling some planes from the desert to meet the demand, etc., but no one can make a profit at fares like that.
I agree with you that there is too much capacity in the industry, but the REAL problem the majors are facing is reduced yields-- the current fares no longer produce the revenue necessary to support the too-high cost structures of many airlines. Simply reducing fares further will NOT help that situation, if that is what you are suggesting.
And sure you can reduce costs too, but once fares go below a certain point, NO ONE can make a profit and stay in business.
You're kidding, aren't you, about dropping the fares to reasonable levels. Because average fares are currently at historic 15 year lows.
I suppose it is how you define resonalbe. I am sure that a reasonable fare to you must be $19 cross-country round-trip in First Class-- something that no one (not even SW or jB) can or will provide and still make a profit.
Sure a fare like that will have a LOT of demand and fill up the seats and necessitate recalling some planes from the desert to meet the demand, etc., but no one can make a profit at fares like that.
I agree with you that there is too much capacity in the industry, but the REAL problem the majors are facing is reduced yields-- the current fares no longer produce the revenue necessary to support the too-high cost structures of many airlines. Simply reducing fares further will NOT help that situation, if that is what you are suggesting.
And sure you can reduce costs too, but once fares go below a certain point, NO ONE can make a profit and stay in business.
Re-regulation is a misnomer. The airlines were never really deregulated by the ADA of 78.
1) The government approves who is allowed to start an airline and to some degree the top management of that airline.
2) The government approves how the airline is operated.
3) The government controls the ability of individuals to fly, perform maintenance on, dispatch,act as controllers and serve aboard an aircraft as flight attendants through regulations that dictate the training, certification, minimum age, maximum age, duty time in a defined period(day, week, month), the ability to form unions, the rules under which the company and unions operate, the ability of either side to change their relationship.
4) The government, state and federal, controls the capacity at individual airports through selective appropriations used for developement and expansion of capacity.
5) The government controls the airways between the airports and the capacity and conduct of air carrier operations within those airways.
6) The government allocates franchise type arrangements for carriers at airports for which there are capacity controls in place: they call them slots and they are allocated by the government through various procedures but once the government owned slot is allocated it is transformed into an asset by and for the carrier.
7) The government interferes with the natural process by which businesses aquire and develope themselves through differing layers of regulatory review which have no equal in the banking, securities, automotive or high tech industries.
8) The government controls who, what and where individuals can fly from point a to point b at certain locations through the use of federal statue.
The only thing that was deregulated by the ADA of '78 was employee wages. Since that time, the air carriers have consitently paid their top management and some labor groups wages that far outstripped the inflation curve while most workers have seen their incomes fall below that curve.
If the Federal Government is going to do anything other than continue to screw up this industry they must first realize that absent all the hype: we are a utility and regulations must be structured around that reality.
If the Federal Government really wants free enterprise, understand the operational model we are currently operating under; remove regulations or impose regulations that would create a healthy industry in accordance with that reality; and, then, create a glidepath that will get us from here to there.
The simple truth may be that politicians will not step up and do what they must because it will result in fewer seats at higher average fares: ergo more angry voters for them to deal with--in short, we will continue the cycle that we are on.
The process continues unless we create a field of instability for the individuals that control the regulations: Politicians. We only have one thing that they cannot take from us, our vote. Regardless of who they are, if they refuse to fix things: we vote for anyone but them.
Is this special interest voting: yep! Nothing gets more special interest than being able to pay the bills. Can airline employees have a decided impact: look at the location of the major airports and determine the effect of our families block voting for change within those metropolitan districts.
If you are a Dem and cannot vote for a Rep., fine pull any other lever available. If there is no other lever, dont vote in that contest. If we continue to buy into their rules and procedures: we continue to lose.
1) The government approves who is allowed to start an airline and to some degree the top management of that airline.
2) The government approves how the airline is operated.
3) The government controls the ability of individuals to fly, perform maintenance on, dispatch,act as controllers and serve aboard an aircraft as flight attendants through regulations that dictate the training, certification, minimum age, maximum age, duty time in a defined period(day, week, month), the ability to form unions, the rules under which the company and unions operate, the ability of either side to change their relationship.
4) The government, state and federal, controls the capacity at individual airports through selective appropriations used for developement and expansion of capacity.
5) The government controls the airways between the airports and the capacity and conduct of air carrier operations within those airways.
6) The government allocates franchise type arrangements for carriers at airports for which there are capacity controls in place: they call them slots and they are allocated by the government through various procedures but once the government owned slot is allocated it is transformed into an asset by and for the carrier.
7) The government interferes with the natural process by which businesses aquire and develope themselves through differing layers of regulatory review which have no equal in the banking, securities, automotive or high tech industries.
8) The government controls who, what and where individuals can fly from point a to point b at certain locations through the use of federal statue.
The only thing that was deregulated by the ADA of '78 was employee wages. Since that time, the air carriers have consitently paid their top management and some labor groups wages that far outstripped the inflation curve while most workers have seen their incomes fall below that curve.
If the Federal Government is going to do anything other than continue to screw up this industry they must first realize that absent all the hype: we are a utility and regulations must be structured around that reality.
If the Federal Government really wants free enterprise, understand the operational model we are currently operating under; remove regulations or impose regulations that would create a healthy industry in accordance with that reality; and, then, create a glidepath that will get us from here to there.
The simple truth may be that politicians will not step up and do what they must because it will result in fewer seats at higher average fares: ergo more angry voters for them to deal with--in short, we will continue the cycle that we are on.
The process continues unless we create a field of instability for the individuals that control the regulations: Politicians. We only have one thing that they cannot take from us, our vote. Regardless of who they are, if they refuse to fix things: we vote for anyone but them.
Is this special interest voting: yep! Nothing gets more special interest than being able to pay the bills. Can airline employees have a decided impact: look at the location of the major airports and determine the effect of our families block voting for change within those metropolitan districts.
If you are a Dem and cannot vote for a Rep., fine pull any other lever available. If there is no other lever, dont vote in that contest. If we continue to buy into their rules and procedures: we continue to lose.
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 11,373
- Reaction score
- 1,431
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 9/26/2002 10:40:07 PM ONTHESTREET wrote:
[P]KC Flyer,[BR][BR]I too would like to see the planes full, However as said the fares are already pretty low with no takers. Concessions will help some on cost but most airliners burn roughly 850 gallons an hour in cruise and when climbing this number can be as high 1400 gallons an hour. At roughly 2 bucks a gallon (Depending on hedging etc.) thats about $1700 an hour just in gas. Add in spare parts, gates, ground equip., Ins., training facilities, dispatch equip, computer networks, etc, etc. It begins to add up. All this even before you factor in the payroll for everyone to make the machine move. A 737-300 with a full load of 142 pax at $200 per person across the country brings in $28400. 5 hours of fuel...even at $1.50 a gal. is still about $6400 just in gas.[BR][BR]I do not know the current going rate the airlines are paying for fuel right now (About $2.35 for Jet-A at Fixed base operators.) but when you factor in all the expences there is not much room to work. Since being laid off, I am flying a light twin on charter, even a small six place airplane runs about $275 an hour to operate just in gas, ins, and maint. [/P]
[P]----------------[/P]
[P]On the street - My arguments on the fares and costs are using the costs from the airlines own 10Q, which are the CASMs and which include fuel costs. You're not seeing high end flyers. Do something to encourage them. Don't dangle a loss leader fare in front of them, then tell them they have to leave on Tuesday and stay over a Saturday and if their plans change their ticket has no value, and if they are able to change it, it's going to cost the a hundred bucks for every change. Just offer them a fare that's affordable. They'll fly you. [/P][/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 9/26/2002 10:40:07 PM ONTHESTREET wrote:
[P]KC Flyer,[BR][BR]I too would like to see the planes full, However as said the fares are already pretty low with no takers. Concessions will help some on cost but most airliners burn roughly 850 gallons an hour in cruise and when climbing this number can be as high 1400 gallons an hour. At roughly 2 bucks a gallon (Depending on hedging etc.) thats about $1700 an hour just in gas. Add in spare parts, gates, ground equip., Ins., training facilities, dispatch equip, computer networks, etc, etc. It begins to add up. All this even before you factor in the payroll for everyone to make the machine move. A 737-300 with a full load of 142 pax at $200 per person across the country brings in $28400. 5 hours of fuel...even at $1.50 a gal. is still about $6400 just in gas.[BR][BR]I do not know the current going rate the airlines are paying for fuel right now (About $2.35 for Jet-A at Fixed base operators.) but when you factor in all the expences there is not much room to work. Since being laid off, I am flying a light twin on charter, even a small six place airplane runs about $275 an hour to operate just in gas, ins, and maint. [/P]
[P]----------------[/P]
[P]On the street - My arguments on the fares and costs are using the costs from the airlines own 10Q, which are the CASMs and which include fuel costs. You're not seeing high end flyers. Do something to encourage them. Don't dangle a loss leader fare in front of them, then tell them they have to leave on Tuesday and stay over a Saturday and if their plans change their ticket has no value, and if they are able to change it, it's going to cost the a hundred bucks for every change. Just offer them a fare that's affordable. They'll fly you. [/P][/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 11,373
- Reaction score
- 1,431
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 9/26/2002 10:05:32 PM Bear96 wrote:
[P]KCFlyer,[BR][BR]You're kidding, aren't you, about dropping the fares to reasonable levels. Because average fares are currently at historic 15 year lows.[BR][BR]I suppose it is how you define resonalbe. I am sure that a reasonable fare to you must be $19 cross-country round-trip in First Class-- something that no one (not even SW or jB) can or will provide and still make a profit.[BR][BR]----------------[/P][/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]Sure, if you want to sell me a $19 cross country fare, I'll buy it. But you're foolish for selling below cost, which is the way most airlines approach the average fare concept. Don't look at average fare....break it down into cents per mile. UAL costs right now, with no concessions at all, are 11.38 cents per mile. Sure, average fares are way down, but the top end fares are in the neighborhood of a buck per mile. With a profit of almost 90 cents per mile, the airlines should be sitting pretty, yet they're not. Why? Because some MBA guru figured that to spur demand, sell a bunch of highly restricted tickets at a fare that translates into 10 cents a mile. In other words, spur demand by taking a loss. [/P]
[P]I suggest that you spur demand by doing the opposite...Drop the last minute unrestricted fare to the neighborhood of 35 cents per mile. That is still a pretty decent profit, is it not? Let's take it back up to a ticket price...an unresticted ticket from Kansas City to Denver (1200 miles total) is $1249.68, or $1.04 per mile. If that fare was reduced to a 35 cent per mile price, your full fare becomes $420 for the round trip. MAke the deep discount fare $200, or .16 per mile - still making a profit. Get rid of use it or lose it and $100 change fees, and you'll be pulling planes out of the desert to keep up with demand. Bear in mind, this is at UAL's CURRENT cost levels, didn't ask for a dollar back, much less $9 billion. I have suggested fares that make a profit. Please point out where I'm flawed, because I'll be damned if I can figure it out. [/P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 9/26/2002 10:05:32 PM Bear96 wrote:
[P]KCFlyer,[BR][BR]You're kidding, aren't you, about dropping the fares to reasonable levels. Because average fares are currently at historic 15 year lows.[BR][BR]I suppose it is how you define resonalbe. I am sure that a reasonable fare to you must be $19 cross-country round-trip in First Class-- something that no one (not even SW or jB) can or will provide and still make a profit.[BR][BR]----------------[/P][/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]Sure, if you want to sell me a $19 cross country fare, I'll buy it. But you're foolish for selling below cost, which is the way most airlines approach the average fare concept. Don't look at average fare....break it down into cents per mile. UAL costs right now, with no concessions at all, are 11.38 cents per mile. Sure, average fares are way down, but the top end fares are in the neighborhood of a buck per mile. With a profit of almost 90 cents per mile, the airlines should be sitting pretty, yet they're not. Why? Because some MBA guru figured that to spur demand, sell a bunch of highly restricted tickets at a fare that translates into 10 cents a mile. In other words, spur demand by taking a loss. [/P]
[P]I suggest that you spur demand by doing the opposite...Drop the last minute unrestricted fare to the neighborhood of 35 cents per mile. That is still a pretty decent profit, is it not? Let's take it back up to a ticket price...an unresticted ticket from Kansas City to Denver (1200 miles total) is $1249.68, or $1.04 per mile. If that fare was reduced to a 35 cent per mile price, your full fare becomes $420 for the round trip. MAke the deep discount fare $200, or .16 per mile - still making a profit. Get rid of use it or lose it and $100 change fees, and you'll be pulling planes out of the desert to keep up with demand. Bear in mind, this is at UAL's CURRENT cost levels, didn't ask for a dollar back, much less $9 billion. I have suggested fares that make a profit. Please point out where I'm flawed, because I'll be damned if I can figure it out. [/P]
C
chipmunn
Guest
Reports indicate the UA union coalition is going to try and cut a deal that will permit the company to tap the public capital markets without having the access the federal loan guarantee. Reports indicate the ATSB believes the company cannot be restructured without the ESOP cancelled, the employee board memebers removed, and the governance changed. It's to early to tell if this union strategy will work, but there are now 51 days until the November 17 $375 million debt payment is due.
David Bronnner, who hired Rono Dutta who recently resigned as UA's president, to advise RSA on the new US agreements said, In my opinion, when they (US Airways) come out of bankruptcy, you're going to have the best airline in the country from a financial point of view.
Chip
David Bronnner, who hired Rono Dutta who recently resigned as UA's president, to advise RSA on the new US agreements said, In my opinion, when they (US Airways) come out of bankruptcy, you're going to have the best airline in the country from a financial point of view.
Chip
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 11,373
- Reaction score
- 1,431
[BR][BR][BR][BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 9/27/2002 11:57:31 AM Winglet wrote:[BR][BR]KC Flyer seems to think that United makes a 90% profit on each ASM ($1 per ASM ticket price vs. cost of about .10). Wow.----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR][BR][BR][BR][BR]Do the math Winglet...I am taking your CASM (11.38 cents per mile)... Does that not cover the costs? If not, sorry for my mistunderstanding, but I always figured that the CASM was the Cost to Fly a Seat a Mile. If you are charging $1,200 for a 1200 mile flight, what is the charge per mile, and did your cost per mile just increase because a body is now sitting in a seat? My understanding is that your costs are your costs, whether a body is in the seat or not. Is this wrong?[BR][BR]It would appear to me that on a 1200 mile flight you are charging me a dollar per mile, and your costs are eleven cents per mile, then yes, you are making a 90% profit on my ticket. But it doesn't appear that you are getting many people who are paying a dollar per mile to fly you. No, given your average fares filling over 70% of your seats, it would appear that you are charging ten cents a mile. And you're losing money. [BR][BR]But you're right...it's far better to ask for $9 billion in concessions and threaten to file for Chapter 11 than it is to actually try to charge a fare that will make a profit. But here's the thing...anything over 11.38 cents per mile is a profit... Why rely so heavily on the dollar a mile flyers to bail you out, because they aren't. All I am saying is that a lower price that still makes you a profit will spur demand, and help to stem your losses. But lowering fares seems to be an anathema to both airline managment and airline labor. But it is nice to see that y'all can at least agree on SOMETHING.[BR][BR]Better yet - here's something to illustrate my point - SWA's cost are about 34% lower than UAL's. UAL's highest one way fare on a specific flight is about 400 percent higher than SWA's higest fare. One airline is making money. Which one?
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 9/27/2002 11:57:31 AM Winglet wrote:[BR][BR]KC Flyer seems to think that United makes a 90% profit on each ASM ($1 per ASM ticket price vs. cost of about .10). Wow.----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR][BR][BR][BR][BR]Do the math Winglet...I am taking your CASM (11.38 cents per mile)... Does that not cover the costs? If not, sorry for my mistunderstanding, but I always figured that the CASM was the Cost to Fly a Seat a Mile. If you are charging $1,200 for a 1200 mile flight, what is the charge per mile, and did your cost per mile just increase because a body is now sitting in a seat? My understanding is that your costs are your costs, whether a body is in the seat or not. Is this wrong?[BR][BR]It would appear to me that on a 1200 mile flight you are charging me a dollar per mile, and your costs are eleven cents per mile, then yes, you are making a 90% profit on my ticket. But it doesn't appear that you are getting many people who are paying a dollar per mile to fly you. No, given your average fares filling over 70% of your seats, it would appear that you are charging ten cents a mile. And you're losing money. [BR][BR]But you're right...it's far better to ask for $9 billion in concessions and threaten to file for Chapter 11 than it is to actually try to charge a fare that will make a profit. But here's the thing...anything over 11.38 cents per mile is a profit... Why rely so heavily on the dollar a mile flyers to bail you out, because they aren't. All I am saying is that a lower price that still makes you a profit will spur demand, and help to stem your losses. But lowering fares seems to be an anathema to both airline managment and airline labor. But it is nice to see that y'all can at least agree on SOMETHING.[BR][BR]Better yet - here's something to illustrate my point - SWA's cost are about 34% lower than UAL's. UAL's highest one way fare on a specific flight is about 400 percent higher than SWA's higest fare. One airline is making money. Which one?
UAL777flyer
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 730
- Reaction score
- 0
All this talk about simply charging fares that will make you money ignore the fact that airlins enjoy ZERO pricing power in the marketplace today. If you have a doubt, look at the average O & D fares being paid now compared to last year and the year before. It's ridiculous. An airline simply cannot revamp it's pricing structure unless the other majors it competes against match. Look how many times over the last several months numerous carriers have attempted to do that. But you can't get the rest of them to go along. Especially NW. They've killed quite a few attempts at raising the advanced purchase fares.
You want to cure the ills of this industry? Reduce costs to a competitive level and eliminate about 15% of the industry capacity. In other words, 1 or 2 airlines need to go. As hard as it is to say that, the environment we're now in simply will not support all this capacity in place by all of these airlines. It's going to become survival of the fittest. But you cannot hang your hat on completely revamping your pricing structure unless your costs are low enough (ala HP) to where it's a less risky undertaking.
You want to cure the ills of this industry? Reduce costs to a competitive level and eliminate about 15% of the industry capacity. In other words, 1 or 2 airlines need to go. As hard as it is to say that, the environment we're now in simply will not support all this capacity in place by all of these airlines. It's going to become survival of the fittest. But you cannot hang your hat on completely revamping your pricing structure unless your costs are low enough (ala HP) to where it's a less risky undertaking.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/27/2002 12:22:54 PM KCFlyer wrote:
[BLOCKQUOTE]
----------------
On 9/27/2002 11:57:31 AM Winglet wrote:
KC Flyer seems to think that United makes a 90% profit on each ASM ($1 per ASM ticket price vs. cost of about .10). Wow.----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
Do the math Winglet...I am taking your CASM (11.38 cents per mile)... Does that not cover the costs? If not, sorry for my mistunderstanding,
----------------
[/blockquote]
Don't forget to add the $50 per ticket Daschle and Gephart get
----------------
On 9/27/2002 12:22:54 PM KCFlyer wrote:
[BLOCKQUOTE]
----------------
On 9/27/2002 11:57:31 AM Winglet wrote:
KC Flyer seems to think that United makes a 90% profit on each ASM ($1 per ASM ticket price vs. cost of about .10). Wow.----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
Do the math Winglet...I am taking your CASM (11.38 cents per mile)... Does that not cover the costs? If not, sorry for my mistunderstanding,
----------------
[/blockquote]
Don't forget to add the $50 per ticket Daschle and Gephart get
- Status
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Alaska Airlines F/A's vote in favor of a new contract- Latest: Jalsporteam