Us Airways Reports February Traffic

[BoeingBoy]

US Airways has fallen short utilization, but part of that was that the new flight schedules did not start until February 6 thus 18% of the month operated on the old schedule. Moreover, harsh weather reduced flying and dramatically increased delays.

[post="252631"][/post]​

Fair enough.....

You said the Feb schedule would increase utilization almost 10% - from 10.5 to 11.5 hours per day.

Assume that bad weather (more than last year) combined with the schedule change not kicking in till the 6th resulted in loss of the increased utilization for 1/2 the month. Mainline ASM's should have still gone up close to 5% - they didn't.

Could it possibly be that the "improved" Feb schedule that you praised so much was a dud? That it looked good on paper but didn't work in the real world? (Now that would be a first!!!)

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

Having said that, a three percent improvement is a step in the right direction.

[post="252705"][/post]​

Bob,

I agree that 3% would be good. However, the figure was 1.2% - the increase in ASM's over Feb 04. That between 1/3 and 1/4 what was advertised, even after factoring in half the month wasted for weather and Feb 6 schedule start.

ASM's are representative of aircraft utilization, not RPM's (which are a combination of passenger numbers & trip length).

Jim

 

[USA320Pilot]

The Transformation Plan is an evolving issue and monthly utilization should not be compared on a partial month. For the first 5 days of the month. or 18% of the schedule, the old utilization occurred, bad weather month hurt flying with hundreds of cancellations, and the plan is evolving.

The company is moving in the correct direction and it takes time to make dramatic change. The good news is that change is happening, even for the pessimists and naysayers who remain angry over industry and company change.

Best regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[jcooke]

Change is good, but can it happen before the cash runs out? Speaking from an outsider's POV the labor groups gave fairly drastic changes while you're advocating its OK for the company to take things slow because its in a positive nature.

How does that make sense?

-JC

 

[BoeingBoy]

It's an improvement - assuming that the active fleet count was about the same as last year. That said, it's a far cry from the great things that were forecast for the Feb schedule change.

I guess that's the disappointing thing about this company. Plans are always announced with great fanfare, but results seldom live up to the advance PR. Then the excuses start, usually lead by our resident Excuser In Chief.....

Jim

 

[funguy2]

The Transformation Plan is an evolving issue and monthly utilization should not be compared on a partial month. For the first 5 days of the month. or 18% of the schedule, the old utilization occurred, bad weather month hurt flying with hundreds of cancellations, and the plan is evolving.

The company is moving in the correct direction and it takes time to make dramatic change. The good news is that change is happening, even for the pessimists and naysayers who remain angry over industry and company change.

Best regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="252725"][/post]​

Ok... so back to the point... Where is 80% of the utilization improvement? You just gave Boeing Boy's point more validity...

If a 10% schedule over schedule improvement was supposed to occur, and that schedule ran for 80% of the days, shouldn't ASM's for the month be up about 8%? Yet they were only up 1.2%, less than 1/4 of advertized.

What happened to the I know someone special who told me this is the schedule?

 

[eolesen]

The company is moving in the correct direction and it takes time to make dramatic change. The good news is that change is happening, even for the pessimists and naysayers who remain angry over industry and company change.

[post="252725"][/post]​

Ah think ah'm a gettin' dizzy again....

 

[funguy2]

It's an improvement - assuming that the active fleet count was about the same as last year.  That said, it's a far cry from the great things that were forecast for the Feb schedule change.

I guess that's the disappointing thing about this company.  Plans are always announced with great fanfare, but results seldom live up to the advance PR.  Then the excuses start, usually lead by our resident Excuser In Chief.....

Jim

[post="252729"][/post]​

I would settle for results "even close" to what is advertized. How long do the bankers and financiers continue to give a company that rarely hits its goals? The only goals I can recall US Airways hitting were results from bargained concessions... But then, you have to ask, how much of that is really occuring. Do the productivity gains in those concessions come true? Obviously if the Feb schedule has not increased, neither has the pilot productivity... Thus those dollars attributed to pilot productivity in the concessions have yet to be realized (unless there was some dramatic drop in the number of active pilots).

It would be interesting to hear about your scheduling (and USA320Pilot's too). Are you flying more per month? Is more flying per month on the horizon (whatever you know of your current or next schedule)?

 

[funguy2]

Your company has one foot in the grave and another on a banana peel

Great analogy! I may have to use that in the future! (With proper reference, of course.)

 

[BoeingBoy]

It would be interesting to hear about your scheduling (and USA320Pilot's too). Are you flying more per month? Is more flying per month on the horizon (whatever you know of your current or next schedule)?

[post="252848"][/post]​

Personally, I'm flying less per month. Not because the scheduling is more inefficient - the trips I typically fly have been what we call "hard time" since long before this latest agreement. It's because the agreement has removed any incentive for me to fly more, or even as much.

Previous to the new agreement, I tried to fly 85 hours per month - the pay cap. Now I try so adjust my schedule downward to the minimum possible - 15 hours below the pay cap (currently 95 hours, so I try to adjust my schedule to get as close to 80 hours as possible).

The one very small exception is trips that contain a deadhead - before the latest agreement cut the pay in half for d/h, I didn't care if a trip had any or not (though most didn't). Now I assidiously avoid bidding trips with scheduled d/h.

Jim

*hard time means the trip, as scheduled, pays only the block hours contained in the trip. Actual pay, per segment, is the greater of schedule or actual block time.

 

[DLFlyer31]

To be fair, February had one extra day last year...which means one more day of ASM's. That could account for part (but not all) of USAirways shortfall. March will be the real test.

With that said, DL revamped its schedule on Jan 31st. They predicted the revamp would increase ASM's 6%. Sure enough, DL's ASM's increased 5.9% for February. Plus, if you factor in the extra day from last year, DL probably even beat its ASM estimates by a small margin.

 

[ringmaruf]

March will be the real test.

[post="252884"][/post]​

I was thinking the same thing. But unfortunately, March is looking to have some comparison problems, with the return of an aircraft or two, and the loss of 677 and the schedule problems that's caused...