True, but look at the more important figure of total costs than CASM. The choice to use an RJ on a route needs to be dictated partially through traffic demand as well as costs. PHL-ATL should not be an RJ! There should be sufficient demand on this route to warrant mainline service. Many routes that have left the mainline, however (CLT-HSV) probably do not support mainline service under the current economics, even though the RJ CASM may be higher on this route, total costs vs. potential revenue just work out better with an RJ.BoeingBoy said:
Us Airways Pilots Call For Removal Of Siegel,cohen
- Thread starter KCFlyer
- Start date
usfliboi
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 2,070
- 270
Once again Piney Bob great post. Whats so difficult about this ? I agree 100% The bottom line is here this is not was not daves mess. Sure he along with every other ceo of this company have virt failed. I think Dave hit it on the head when he said we could gut this company and fire most everyone and start all over or attempt to change from with in ! Neither we want but the latter is better. You cannot argue with that things had too and still need to change. WE HAVE NO CHOICE! Im not stupid enough to shout full pay till the last day ! Fix whats wrong Dave as painful as it may be and as many people as u might piss off before its too late and there will be no company to salvage. DO IT NOW! Iassure you that you still have the majority of the employees support.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #183
628AU,
You either misunderstood me or misunderstand the rolling hub concept. I never said we should become a LUV clone. I did say that an efficient hub of the future will look a lot like LUV in BWI, etc. A steadier flow of flights than we have at PHL, but not necessarily spread out evenly throughout the day. And definitely not becoming point to point with PHL, CLT, or PIT happening to be one of those points. Depeaking has nothing to do with O/D traffic, it is meant to decrease the time your planes sit on the ground not producing revenue. If you could get one more segment per day from each plane, the CASM for those segments would be dramatically reduced since the only additional cost is DOC.
If you'll read my statement carefully. see the "while needed in some markets"? Yes, the aircraft needs to be matched to the market. Cost per segment does matter. However, it is also true that RJ's have a higher CASM than larger aircraft. So if the market will support larger aircraft, it is foolish to use RJ's.
Jim
You either misunderstood me or misunderstand the rolling hub concept. I never said we should become a LUV clone. I did say that an efficient hub of the future will look a lot like LUV in BWI, etc. A steadier flow of flights than we have at PHL, but not necessarily spread out evenly throughout the day. And definitely not becoming point to point with PHL, CLT, or PIT happening to be one of those points. Depeaking has nothing to do with O/D traffic, it is meant to decrease the time your planes sit on the ground not producing revenue. If you could get one more segment per day from each plane, the CASM for those segments would be dramatically reduced since the only additional cost is DOC.
If you'll read my statement carefully. see the "while needed in some markets"? Yes, the aircraft needs to be matched to the market. Cost per segment does matter. However, it is also true that RJ's have a higher CASM than larger aircraft. So if the market will support larger aircraft, it is foolish to use RJ's.
Jim
The problem he has not gutted everyone that needs to go! We saw the start of it, and expected more, but geniuses like BBB remain in positions of control. He gutted the rank and file to the tune of over 33% of the workforce, but there is still too much dead wood from the mid management ranks on up. Someone tell me why certain departments need supervisor ratios of 1 for every 4 employees?
Jim,BoeingBoy said:
I think we do agree more than we disagree.
First, the RJs. We agree they need to matched to the market. There are just a lot of people who feel that the higher CASM makes them less cost efficient. I think I just misunderstood where you were coming from.
I still think only depeaking PHL would work. There is some inherent ineffiency in running the hubs currently, but I am not sure how profitable CLT could be without the current structure. Longer waits for some may drive more business to Delta in ATL. Great efficiencies would be reached by rolling PHL, including the utilixation increase and cost savings by easing ATC constraints there. One thing we need to look at is the turn times in the outstations. Some planes sit for quite some time on the ground, just waiting to get turned. There is really not much of a reason outstations should see a B737 on the ground more than 20-25 minutes. Get it back in the air!
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #186
628AU,
You're right about the outstation turn times, but that is to time the flight back to a hub so it arrives with the other a/c in the "bank" of flights. That's one of the reasons why CLT needs depeaking too - less time on the ground at the outstations and less time on the ground in CLT & PIT (or wherever Chip moves that hub). American was the first big network airline to depeak and so far I've not seen where they've gotten an adverse public reaction.
As a side benefit, AMR & DAL are both seeing a reduction in total taxi time (in + out) in DFW. With our smaller hubs, that would probably not be the case for us except when PHL is in an east operation.
The biggest problem that I can forsee is setting it up to work right. Do we have the expertise to depeak without destroying the connecting opertunities?
Jim
You're right about the outstation turn times, but that is to time the flight back to a hub so it arrives with the other a/c in the "bank" of flights. That's one of the reasons why CLT needs depeaking too - less time on the ground at the outstations and less time on the ground in CLT & PIT (or wherever Chip moves that hub). American was the first big network airline to depeak and so far I've not seen where they've gotten an adverse public reaction.
As a side benefit, AMR & DAL are both seeing a reduction in total taxi time (in + out) in DFW. With our smaller hubs, that would probably not be the case for us except when PHL is in an east operation.
The biggest problem that I can forsee is setting it up to work right. Do we have the expertise to depeak without destroying the connecting opertunities?
Jim
Actually, no, I don't think BOS, LGA, and DCA can support much more point-tp-point when you consider the facility and infrastructure constraints. If the airlines trend away from hubs, it will lead to many more and smaller aircraft doing the point-to-point thing, and these airports and ATC in the area are way oversaturated already. I am sure as a pilot you are aware of this and I don't mean to sound like I am telling you something you probably don't already know about airport operations.BoeingBoy said:
In any case there are not enough slots to go around, and who can forget the fiasco that resulted from the little experiment at LGA a couple of years ago when they lifted the slot restrictions? Not pretty.
Just to clarify, it wasn't I who mentioned or blamed U's work rules as I am not familiar enough with them to comment. Although (and I know you didn't say this BoeingBoy but as long as we're on the subject) I think those who are saying simply plug WN's contractual work rules into the U system and the problems will be solved are oversimplifying things. WN's contracts were born of and have carefully evolved over time into a system that efficiently supports their type of operation-- depeaked hubs, one equipment type, etc. U (or any other airline) could adopt their contracts word for word and it still wouldn't be as efficient. Not because U is a "bad" airline but just because labor contracts are filled with minutiae and details that make sense in the context in which they were negotiated but which don't travel all that well. This is not to say that WN undoubtedly has SOME good practices which other airlines would be wise to adopt, but the end result would probably be more like giving someone who needs a transfusion the wrong type of blood.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #188
We're in agreement on transplanting the LUV contract - even if the minutia could be worked out we're still a downsized, senior, hub/spoke airline.
You are probably right about LGA - there might be possibilities but it would probably mean taking some of those RJ slots and converting them to p to p. Maybe EWR would work better. JBLU and Song are adding p to p to BOS - why we haven't done more of that I'll never know.
Jim
You are probably right about LGA - there might be possibilities but it would probably mean taking some of those RJ slots and converting them to p to p. Maybe EWR would work better. JBLU and Song are adding p to p to BOS - why we haven't done more of that I'll never know.
Jim
ITRADE
Veteran
I think that Bear answered the issue on peaking and depeaking.
DFW and ATL are huge, megahubs with huge population bases. So, in addition to the connecting traffic, you have sufficient O/D traffic that can fill many flights to the point where break even shortfalls give way to break even surpluses. You also have to consider the fact that both AA and DL are extremely large airlines that move many, many passengers. As a consequence, the number of flights to any given city are usually more in quantity and frequency than you would see with US at CLT.
For example, AA runs 7x daily flights from DFW to ABQ (a mid sized city). With the number of passengers being flown in from other cities combining with a large O/D population, there is less worry that a depeaked hub will result in connections and layovers that are significant in duration (i.e. less than 90 minutes).
In contrast, US is running 4x daily flights from CLT to MEM (a mid sized city). With fewer connecting passengers available and with fewer O/D passengers to draw from, there is a higer potential that a depeaked hub will yield connections that are unacceptable to some passengers (i.e. 120 or 180 minutes).
DFW and ATL are huge, megahubs with huge population bases. So, in addition to the connecting traffic, you have sufficient O/D traffic that can fill many flights to the point where break even shortfalls give way to break even surpluses. You also have to consider the fact that both AA and DL are extremely large airlines that move many, many passengers. As a consequence, the number of flights to any given city are usually more in quantity and frequency than you would see with US at CLT.
For example, AA runs 7x daily flights from DFW to ABQ (a mid sized city). With the number of passengers being flown in from other cities combining with a large O/D population, there is less worry that a depeaked hub will result in connections and layovers that are significant in duration (i.e. less than 90 minutes).
In contrast, US is running 4x daily flights from CLT to MEM (a mid sized city). With fewer connecting passengers available and with fewer O/D passengers to draw from, there is a higer potential that a depeaked hub will yield connections that are unacceptable to some passengers (i.e. 120 or 180 minutes).
ITRADE
Veteran
While less populated than ORD, PHL is a large geographic area that does have a fair amount of O/D pull. Certainly more than places like PIT.BoeingBoy said:
I'm not sure if you mean the US facilities in BOS or the airport itself. Things are pretty dead at US much of the time anyway...just a shadow of what it used to be it seems to me. It seems a shame, because other airlines are adding lots of point to point here, and it will only help their cause if US is just trying to use BOS to feed the hubs.Bear96 said:
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #193
ITrade,
Actually I agree that PHL has the O/D traffic - if it didn't I don't think LUV would be entering tha market.
Where we disagree is on using the rolling hub concept at CLT (or even PIT if we keep a hub there). I have seen nothing on American's or Delta's use of depeaking that indicates it is dependent on O/D traffic. If done right, all the connection possibilities are maintained though some connecting times are longer (up to 180 minutes). What I'm not sure about is our management's ability to "do it right" because it is not just a matter of spreading out arrivals and departures. In depth analysis of Pax traffic patterns, aircraft routing, timing, etc need to be done to make it work right.
To say it won't work is to admit that the many inefficiencies of our "old-style" hub and spoke system are not addressable and that means we will not be competitive with those network carriers implementing change, much less with the LCC's.
Of course, employee costs could be brought down another 50%-75% and we would be competitive.
Jim
Actually I agree that PHL has the O/D traffic - if it didn't I don't think LUV would be entering tha market.
Where we disagree is on using the rolling hub concept at CLT (or even PIT if we keep a hub there). I have seen nothing on American's or Delta's use of depeaking that indicates it is dependent on O/D traffic. If done right, all the connection possibilities are maintained though some connecting times are longer (up to 180 minutes). What I'm not sure about is our management's ability to "do it right" because it is not just a matter of spreading out arrivals and departures. In depth analysis of Pax traffic patterns, aircraft routing, timing, etc need to be done to make it work right.
To say it won't work is to admit that the many inefficiencies of our "old-style" hub and spoke system are not addressable and that means we will not be competitive with those network carriers implementing change, much less with the LCC's.
Of course, employee costs could be brought down another 50%-75% and we would be competitive.
Jim
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
Bob,PineyBob said:
Stop with the defense with Siegel. What are you doing, eating breafast., lunch and dinner with mangement now??????? What kind of "in" do you think you have? They are using you.
Siegel is running this airline to the ground.. He, above all, had all the advantages to succeed. The other CEOs had no BK, no ATSB, no concessions.
It was not Wolf who failed on the merger; IT WAS NOT APPROVED by DOT. And THERE WAS A PLAN B.... your looking at it!
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
Boeing Boy,BoeingBoy said:
I don't believe SW business model will work in PHL And, I am surprised that LUV decided to come to PHL now. The traffic is emense in PHL All airlines have this problem, unless somehow PHL airport officials are doing something special for SW, which would be illegal I would think. None the less, PHL is problematic to all airlines, and it will be no different with SW.
